Has trackman changed the way pro-golfers practice?

[Mr.Cleeks]

I recently was talking to a friend about how Vijay in his prime would hit hundreds of balls on the range and was a living example of digging it out of the dirt. After this conversation I did a little research on trackman since all the pro's are using now and found it super fascinating.  Trackman basically tells you everything you need to know about your swing right away and I would assume it's pretty easy for pro's to find any flaws in there swing with these numbers. So I'm curious how has trackman changed the way pro's practice? Do all tour pro's nowadays put all there faith in trackman metrics to find any feedback or are there still any old school pro's who don't rely on trackman as much

 

 

[Creedo77]

Not every pro uses one, or buys into the info. I see more guys using the GC Quad rather than Trackman. Weeks where events are at elevation is when these devices come in handy. Not saying they’re not useful but imo Trackman is outdated and a little overhyped 

[iBanesto]

Imagine Bernhard Langer in his prime with a ball launch monitor. The story below may not be completely true but the man is precise.

 

Caddies and players like to tell about the time in the 1991 Ryder Cup match at Kiawah Island when Bernhard Langer asked partner Colin Montgomerie to step off the yardage from a sprinkler head to the front of the green.
 
Monty told him it was 183 yards.

'Was that from the front of the sprinkler or the back?' Langer replied.

 

Or so the story goes.
 
'No, it's not true,' Langer said with a smile. 'That was a good joke from Colin or his caddie, and they just announced it to someone else and it spread. A sprinkler head is this big. Nobody is good enough to hit the ball within 6 inches.
 
'The Germans might be precise,' he added. 'But not that precise.'
 
Langer leaves nothing to chance.

 

[Port and Starboard]

I don't know about the pro's, but I'd use a trackman or other device if I could afford them.  

[LongNwrong27]

5 hours ago, KizIsTheMan said:

I recently was talking to a friend about how Vijay in his prime would hit hundreds of balls on the range and was a living example of digging it out of the dirt. After this conversation I did a little research on trackman since all the pro's are using now and found it super fascinating.  Trackman basically tells you everything you need to know about your swing right away and I would assume it's pretty easy for pro's to find any flaws in there swing with these numbers. So I'm curious how has trackman changed the way pro's practice? Do all tour pro's nowadays put all there faith in trackman metrics to find any feedback or are there still any old school pro's who don't rely on trackman as much

 

 

/cdn-cgi/mirage/9f462c21c1015647e0dccd5b561a219a6d226dc96886f2627d5dfb4d2e65606b/1280/cdn-cgi/mirage/9f462c21c1015647e0dccd5b561a219a6d226dc96886f2627d5dfb4d2e65606b/1280/https://www.grgolfperformance.com/images/pages/TrackManWebsite.jpg

Trackman just gives you the data explaining the ball flight. It doesn’t  tell you why you swung 3 degrees out or etc. 

 

it can help confirm changes but it’s not like having radar tells you how you need to swing. 3D stuff IMO better explains that. If you can obtain similar patterns to elite golfers your results with probably be pretty good as well. 

[sg91]

The biggest part of practice it seems to have impacted is wedges and dialing in partial shots. They're so precise from ≤125 yards now because they know exactly what a 83 or 106 yard swing is and they've hit a thousand plus of them in practice.

[Mr.Cleeks]

8 hours ago, Creedo77 said:

Not every pro uses one, or buys into the info. I see more guys using the GC Quad rather than Trackman. Weeks where events are at elevation is when these devices come in handy. Not saying they’re not useful but imo Trackman is outdated and a little overhyped 

 

What's the difference between the 2? I live in MN and went to a golftec to get lessons a couple years ago where they were using a launch monitor that captured spin numbers, loft, and impact. 

[LongNwrong27]

3 hours ago, KizIsTheMan said:

 

What's the difference between the 2? I live in MN and went to a golftec to get lessons a couple years ago where they were using a launch monitor that captured spin numbers, loft, and impact. 

Quad is camera based which generally works better indoors relative to radar(trackman and flightscope)  which tends to work pretty poorly in small spaces indoors. More of the flight the radar can track, the more accurate it is. 
 

Quad is gold standard for indoor accuracy. Then outdoors pros tend to use both

[Fairways_and_Greens]

7 hours ago, KizIsTheMan said:

 

What's the difference between the 2? I live in MN and went to a golftec to get lessons a couple years ago where they were using a launch monitor that captured spin numbers, loft, and impact. 

There is no perfect LM. Radar based units measure the ball flight and club path, but are calculating face angle, and where the ball is striking the face, etc. Camera units have a better view of the face and can measure face angle, impact, spin etc while calculating ball flight.

 

[jdl]

Um...yes?

[GolfTurkey]

I'd imagine it's more for figuring out how far the ball is flying on any particular day and dialing in wedge distances than diagnosing flaws (except for throwing out red flags when a number like path is well outside its normal value).

[Soloman1]

On 1/28/2023 at 10:22 PM, KizIsTheMan said:

Trackman basically tells you everything you need to know about your swing right away and I would assume it's pretty easy for pro's to find any flaws in there swing with these numbers.

 

 

Launch monitors tell you ball flight and impact conditions.

 

If they fixed swing flaws, everyone would have perfect swings. They tell you effect, not cause.

[Ferguson]

On 1/29/2023 at 4:09 AM, Port and Starboard said:

I don't know about the pro's, but I'd use a trackman or other device if I could afford them.  

 

You can start by selling the boat. 

 

 

[ac6]

If young Vijay had a launch monitor he would have spent the same hours at the range obsessing over hitting every iron shot within an impossibly small 100rpm spin window or something like that

[TLUBulldogGolf]

I think they are hugely important for dialing in distances in changing conditions, especially with how precise they are asked to be from week to week. And very important for maintenance of swing numbers. You still need to understand what the numbers are saying but it has definitely helped with an overall understanding of impact conditions and how they affect ball flight. 

[farmer]

When Monte was posting, he said you absolutely did not want to be chasing numbers.  Given that a pro has to be somewhat OCD about practicing, that could be a danger.

[RichieHunt]

When Trackman first hit the Tour many of the pros made the mistake of verifying every shot on the range with the Trackman numbers as well as the idea of 'zeroing out' their numbers.  The former didn't lead to proficient practice and the latter is fool's gold.

 

There's really not a lot TM can tell you about your swing.  It can tell you about impact conditions and ball flight, but it can't tell you much of anything from address to prior to impact. It's more of a verification tool when it comes to the actual swing.  For instance, I was working with my instructor and we found that I had too much chest sway and hat was causing a myriad of issues including my attack angle being too shallow.  Then when we made changes instanteously my club/ball speed jumped 2-4 mph and my attack angle went down by about -2 degrees with my irons.  From there if I was on a Trackman I could verify the attack angle numbers to gauge if I was making the proper changes.  

 

The Tour pros tend to work those issues out on their off weeks.  Or the changes are much smaller that you really need a camera or a 3D motion capture system to distinguish the difference.  Thus they tend to use Trackman for yardages and club fitting

 

And it depends on the tournament.  Go to Bay Hill and there's not a lot of use of launch monitors.  Go to Greensboro and the entire range is filled with guys steadfastly using a launch monitor.  Players tend to trust the GC Quad's club data, but Trackman's ball flight/carry distance data (outdoors).  Indoors, as already been mentioned...GC Quad is the gold standard.

 

When DeChambeau was on the PGA Tour he would use the GC Quad n the range and then he would bring his FlightScope with him on holes for certain shots to establish how far the ball wll travel.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

[J_Tizzle]

On 1/29/2023 at 6:31 AM, sg91 said:

The biggest part of practice it seems to have impacted is wedges and dialing in partial shots. They're so precise from ≤125 yards now because they know exactly what a 83 or 106 yard swing is and they've hit a thousand plus of them in practice.

 

This was my thought as well, plus like someone else said, lets you adjust for elevation changes during pre tournament warm ups to get a feel for the distance changes.

 

[Krt22]

On 1/29/2023 at 6:42 AM, KizIsTheMan said:

 

What's the difference between the 2? I live in MN and went to a golftec to get lessons a couple years ago where they were using a launch monitor that captured spin numbers, loft, and impact. 

The quad gives normalized data, so it allows players to have a consistent bench mark how they are hitting it relative to themselves without any environmental impacts. Every single shot they adjust anyway for wind/elevation/etc, so it makes sense to use a normalized value for carry. It also directly measures the face of the club head where as trackman measures the CG

[Soloman1]

Uh, we’ll, uh, uh…

 

I thought most of the Quads on the range were just there for marketing and not being used. Not that many guys want to have stickers on the face all the time.

 

GC Quad is a great tool, so it’s not a knock against it.

[getitdaily]

Change the way they practice? Probably not. Validate that changes they're after are doing what they intended...I think so.

[Pepperturbo]

On 1/28/2023 at 9:22 PM, KizIsTheMan said:

So I'm curious how has trackman changed the way pro's practice? Do all tour pro's nowadays put all there faith in trackman metrics to find any feedback or are there still any old school pro's who don't rely on trackman as much

I predict Trackman has changed the length of time tour players spend practicing.  Today's pros don't practice like generations before them.  I suspect, once they know optimum numbers, and reached, the practice regime takes on a new period of time.  Unless something goes haywire with the swing, most pros are not range rats.  They hit balls on the range before play, maybe at home a bit, but no longer chase pure ball striking like Nick Faldo, and pros of the past.

[Krt22]

2 hours ago, getitdaily said:

Change the way they practice? Probably not. Validate that changes they're after are doing what they intended...I think so.

Agreed. If everyone is using the same tools, that doesn't allow them to slack off or practice less. They likely are just practicing more effectively since there is inherently less guesswork involved, but having the data at their hands is still far from the silver bullet. They still need to put in the work, they still need to grind, they still need to do all of the other prep everyone else is doing

 

Any notion that the tech is allowing young modern players to practice less than the "find it in the dirt" golfers of yesteryear just doesn't pass the sniff test IMHO. If they are in fact spending less time on the full swing, then they are reallocating that time elsewhere to be better over all players. 

[golfday]

Launch monitor (not necessarily Trackman) and other technology (i.e. weight boards, etc.) have definitely changed the way players practice. It's not removing the need for a coach to address flaws captured by the technology (i.e. the "why" behind your face angle being off), but it helps players see in real time if their swing changes are having the desired effects. It also helps them create an optimized swing for distance and accuracy because of the data the tech produces. 

 

It's also one of these things where we haven't seen the full effect yet. Current tour players didn't grow up on it to the degree today's junior players are. 

[physasst]

On 1/29/2023 at 8:42 AM, KizIsTheMan said:

 

What's the difference between the 2? I live in MN and went to a golftec to get lessons a couple years ago where they were using a launch monitor that captured spin numbers, loft, and impact. 

FTR, I live in MN too. I took lessons from a guy with Trackman for awhile, and he would send you a TM file after the lesson. It was too much data IMO. I have a SkyTrak now and it's perfect. Gives me the data I need. The only thing I wish it would do is capture Face Angle and path, but otherwise, perfect for what I need. TM was overwhelming. 

 

LM's are either radar based, photometric, or more recently, a combination of the two. Flightscope, TM, SwingCaddy, EA, etc. are all radar based. Foresight, SkyTrak, etc. are photometric. 

 

M

[madeonecut]

I bought a Flightscope about 6 years ago. The only thing I use it for is shots from 140 yds and in for 9 iron and wedge distance control practice