In recent blogs, I have mentioned the importance I put on the data that Trackman measures. I have a demo with Flightscope on Saturday, May 16th. Both machines record the same information and it comes down to accuracy and ease of use.

I was initially disappointed when I had my Trackman demo because the machine had a difficult time picking up short/mid iron data off grass. I have learned recently that this data can be gathered more consistently with a good set-up and consistent ball striking location.

More details about my Flightscope demo will come….

Ok, so here are my results from the Flightscope Kudo. I’m sorry to say for the Flightscope’s sake that Trackman is way more accurate. I used the same players in both demo’s knowing there angle of attack and other variables and Flightscope was way off. Not only was it way off but it said up angle of attack when anyone could see a down angle of attack.

Summary:

The two machines seemed similar in terms of ball tracking. Similar data with carry distance and spin rates. The weird part was the the flightscope data didn’t match the ball flight. There were instances when the angle of attack and launch angle of the ball didn’t match. This discrepancy is why Flightscope Kudo can not be a teaching tool and isn’t that great of a fitting tool.

The trackman is significantly more expensive but you get what you pay for. What you are paying for is accuracy. The newer versions will include video of the swing at the same time with graphics showing face and path to better help explain ball flight.

Trackman is the hands down better device.