![]() Let’s talk about what the GC3 could improve on! So I’m not sure if I would rely on that data to translate to the course. Sometimes it’s less, sometimes considerably more. ![]() While the more inexpensive units do well for a couple of metrics, a 7.64% average difference in carry can amount to more than a club length. Apples and oranges, perhaps, but if you’re wondering what you get for the extra cash, here is a comparison between the Garmin R10, Rapsodo, and the GC3 compared to the GC Quad.Īs you can see, both of these personal launch monitors don’t even sniff the GC3. The question is, how does the GC3 hold up against other Personal Launch Monitors? It’s a bit of a loaded question given the not entirely insignificant price difference. What we’ve seen suggests the Foresight GC3 does accurately capture head data, and given the capture methodology is the same as the GCQuad, the expectation is that head data will be consistent and accurate.Īre we confident? Definitely. Unfortunately, while we can capture ball data while running the units side-by-side (well, across from each other), the same method won’t work for head data. While I did hit a single shot where the units disagreed by about 300 RPM, a healthy number of shots were bang on, often within 50-100 RPM of the GCQuad. Even with the challenges of running both units in parallel, The ball was exceptionally close – consistently closer than we’ve seen with any personal launch monitor we’ve tested to date. Both units leverage the same flight algorithms, and both capture data reliable.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |