Connect with us

Accessory Reviews

Review: TomTom Golfer 2 GPS Watch

Published

on

Pros: The TomTom Golfer 2 watch does three important things: provides yardages, keeps score, and tells time/date. The first two are particular to golfers and it displays these simply and well. As for the third, it’s a sleek-looking watch that would be fashionable for various occasions.

Cons: Its watch-sized face may be a bit cumbersome during a backswing. If it is, simply attach it to your bag or put it in the golf cart. The automatic shot detection, based on movements of your wrist, can pick up practice swings and add those to your score (although there is a fix for this!).

Who’s It For: The TomTom Golfer 2 is for the golfer who prefers to not point and shoot a laser rangefinder. It’s also for those who want to keep score/stats digitally and transfer them via app to tablet, phone or computer.

Overview

First things first; let’s wear this! The TomTom Golfer 2 has a major face plate and minor toggle button, anchored in a plastic case. On the bottom of the case is the charge plate, where you dock the USB charger. The entire plastic case is set into a rubber wristband, highlighted by a metal, tri-fold sizer with 9 wrist-thickness settings. The watch is easily adjusted to fit a variety of wrist sizes, though. Two buttons, squeezed simultaneously, release the tri-fold sizer for simplified on-off of the watch. Wearing this watch couldn’t be easier or more comfortable.

GOLFER2_BLACK_BackAngle_S (Small)

Next, let’s use this! The TomTom Golfer 2 has a toggle button that serves as the bridge for all your tasks. You have access to a number of screens, some of which provide data and others that allow you to log each shot you take. Since I preferred to hold the Golfer 2, rather than wear it, I used my thumb to move from screen to screen. If you’re wearing the watch, it’s easier to use your index finger to cycle through the options. Either way, it’s easy to do.

GOLFER2_BLACK_Front_DISTANCE_S (Small)

Finally, let’s sync this! The TomTom MySports app allows you to sync the watch with your phone, tablet or computer, then transfer each round’s data (score, greens in regulation, putts) between devices. After setting up an account at the TomTom site, the bluetooth connection is seamless and nearly instantaneous. For number crunchers and data junkies, you’ll have all the information you need to review your round and plan your practice.

The Review

When you arrive at your golf course, the TomTom Golfer 2 locks onto the layout and welcomes you to the first hole. From there, it’s in your hands and up to you. Toggle to the right and you’ll see the first set of readings: yardages to the front, middle, and rear of the green. Unless you’re on a par-3, you need more than this. A second bump to the right brings up a screen with yardages to hazards on the course. These include bunkers, creeks and other water elements. If you’re interested in yardages to every potential feature on a golf course, here’s where a rangefinder offers just a bit more than the watch… assuming you lock in on the proper target.

At this secondary point, toggle up or down to bring up six additional screens. One is a close-up of the green, another tells you yardage to the green, a third tells you how many calories you’ve burned — Nos. 4 and 5 give you time of day and time of round, and the last tells you how many shots you’ve taken on the hole (and can log putts separately!). As mentioned in the Cons section, the TomTom Golfer 2 is susceptible to picking up practice swings and recording them as strokes. If you want to use the device for accurate scoring, I’d suggest attaching it to your bag (when walking) or leaving it in the cart (if riding). I played a tournament recently and used a push cart for all 36 holes over two days. I secured the TomTom Golfer 2 to my bag strap and used it for yardages on every hole.

GOLFER2_BLACK_Right_HAZARDS (Small)

After the round, as you parse your data, the MySports app allows you to zero in on an overhead shot of the course and review your round. If you find that the score needs proper editing, you may do so within the app, adjusting numbers of putts and strokes accordingly. Rounds may be deleted with a leftward swipe of the finger.

TomTom’s first venture into the golf watch market was the original TomTom Golfer. Available in two versions, the original offered many of the features found in model 2.0. The upgrades include automatic shot detection, shot history analysis, and the automatic scorecard. The premium edition of the original watch costs the same as the TomTom Golfer 2, with the hand-crafted italian leather band, ball marker and cart bag mount unique to the premium edition.

The life of a USB charge of the TomTom Golfer 2 will depend on how often you consult and manipulate the device during a round of golf. If you wear it as a watch most days, your battery life will be measured in weeks. If you undertake a great deal of input and output of data, you will find yourself charging every 48 to 72 hours.

The Takeaway

GOLFER2_BLACK_ FrontAngle_GREENVIEW_L (Small)

The TomTom Golfer 2 lists for $249 on the company website. If you like the look of the watch, you’re halfway to the purchase. The watch face is attractive, and reads time and date easily. As for the real reason behind the purchase, the distance measurements are very accurate (I tested them against my rangefinder and various course markings and they were spot on) and give you readings above and beyond front, center, and back of green. If you’re over the point-and-shoot of a laser rangefinder and want something easier to use, this device delivers what it promises. If the price is right, the TomTom Golfer 2 is yours.

[wrx_buy_now oemlink=”https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/sports/golf/products/golfer-gps-watch/golfer-2-black-large/” oemtext=”Buy Here” amazonlink=”https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EZV36MS/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=golfwrxcom-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=B01EZV36MS&linkId=d4c9a0865a3dab240dca2d8f33c1fee3″]

Your Reaction?
  • 38
  • LEGIT8
  • WOW3
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP2
  • OB2
  • SHANK19

Ronald Montesano writes for GolfWRX.com from western New York. He dabbles in coaching golf and teaching Spanish, in addition to scribbling columns on all aspects of golf, from apparel to architecture, from equipment to travel. Follow Ronald on Twitter at @buffalogolfer.

23 Comments

23 Comments

  1. Golfstead

    Apr 10, 2018 at 1:37 pm

    I agree with the below comment – the Garmin X40 is a great if you’re worried about the watch impeding your golf swing. However, the TomTom Golfer 2 is a really good watch; it provides all the info you’ll need and it has great ratings.

  2. Kyle @ TGG

    Dec 17, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    The TomTom is a pretty good product, but there are a lot of options out there these days. I think the Garmin X40 would be a good option if you are concerned about the watch impeding your golf swing.

  3. Egor

    Aug 11, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    I’ve never used a golf watch. I don’t quite understand the purpose of them anymore, but I also can’t stand anything other than a glove on my hands/wrist – I even store my wedding band in the bag during the round.

    This is only my 3rd season playing so I’m a bit of the newer generation of golfer, but for me, a range finder and knowing the pin position for the day is enough to make a decision on club selection. Golf specific GPS watches have always seemed a bit gimmicky to me, but i know there are a lot of seasoned players who jumped on board and love them.

    For me, I like Arccos. I now know my distances and can see where I need to practice in order to shave strokes off my round. I already (like most people) have a smart phone I carry with me so for about the same cost of a GPS watch, I got a system that arguably has more benefit for my game. The only time(s) I need a distance that a laser finder can’t help with is distance to the trouble or a bunker in which case I usually pull my phone out of my pocket and use the Arccos app to find that info.

    Do you see golf specific GPS watches for $250 sticking around long term or do you think they will be replaced by smart phone + watch?

  4. Jimmy Walker

    Aug 5, 2016 at 7:33 pm

    You said I wouldn’t win?

    • Ronald Montesano

      Aug 6, 2016 at 5:10 pm

      Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA

      You’re not the real Jimmy Walker. He has my digits and would text me to romper huevos.

  5. 8thehardway

    Aug 5, 2016 at 12:45 pm

    This review is a gem – a perfect combination of overview, how-to and user impressions augmented by straightforward, relevant photos and writing that reflects a rare ability to personalize notable aspects of ownership.

    I’m good with my laser but gave this a second read just to enjoy your structure, editing and presentation – thanks for an exemplary experience.

  6. Jackster

    Aug 5, 2016 at 11:30 am

    Agree with Birdy, i have a Busnell Neo and Leopold 3. Would love to know exact distance of each shot taken. Would certainly help in your course management and club selection. Nice lookin’ watch!

    • Ronald Montesano

      Aug 5, 2016 at 2:52 pm

      Jackster,

      I don’t understand how a shot I hit in the past will help me with my club selection in the future. I want to know what’s in front of me. Can you elaborate on why I’m unenlightened? It seems to be an interesting premise.

      RM

  7. birdy

    Aug 4, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    review says this watch may be bit cumbersome……why? is this because you don’t like wearing a watch while playing golf……or is this watch larger than other similar watches recently released. it it cumbersome while a certain other watch isn’t, or do you just prefer not wearing a watch. if you’re going to write a review, this info would help.

    • Ronald Montesano

      Aug 4, 2016 at 8:25 pm

      Yes to all of the above. It’s personal, right? To me, it could be cumbersome. I prefer it on the bag. I can’t speak for your or anyone else’s personal preferences, so I won’t include it in the review.

      • birdy

        Aug 5, 2016 at 10:34 am

        i get that you don’t like wearing a watch….then why write a review on the watch if you already have bias against them. the watches comfort should be based on comparing it to wearing other watches. more comfortable, less comfortable. simply calling it cumbersome knowing you hate wearing gps watches to begin with tells me absolutely nothing about this watches comfort level.

        if i’m a food reviewer and absolutely can’t stand sushi, do you think those who like sushi really want to read a review that i give on sushi? then in the review saying it consists of rice and raw fish. no kidding.

        just saying when doing an equipment review….especially a watch, its all relative. only way to really get a proper review is to review based on what it does and doesn’t do compared to other watches. have you used the other watches? if so, is this tom tom better or worse than a garmin x40, s20, bushnell ion, etc?

        • Ronald Montesano

          Aug 5, 2016 at 2:56 pm

          You are embellishing and extrapolating from my use of the “a bit cumbersome.” You cannot remove “a bit” and use “cumbersome” as a stand-alone quote. To say that a reviewer “hates wearing GPS watches” is not gleanable from a reviewer that prefers the watch on the bag.

          I know many people who remove all jewelry when golfing. If you can eliminate the motion of shooting (and sometimes, with a scope, you shoot the wrong target and get an erroneous reading) and simply look at an accurate, GPS watch face, it shouldn’t matter whether it is on your wrist or on the bag.

          • birdy

            Aug 5, 2016 at 4:07 pm

            i get all this. a ‘bit cumbersome’ happy? this tells us nothing. what does this mean. would you describe every gps watch this way, or only this watch? there is a big difference between these two questions. i could care less whether you wear on wrist or bag. but when giving a review it should be done relative to other similar products.

            • Ronald Montesano

              Aug 6, 2016 at 5:16 pm

              I haven’t reviewed every GPS watch. I’ve reviewed this one. We don’t have access to every comparable product line from every company at every moment.

  8. birdy

    Aug 4, 2016 at 1:08 pm

    not a bad review…..but seems liek most all watches out recently of coming out do very similar things. it would be much more beneficial to point out what other watches do better than this one and what this watch does better than others.

    just from looking at the picture it looks like it gives you the distance of the previous shot automatically. this is a plus, yet never mentioned in the review. other watches require you to”track” the shot clicking at time of shot and again at your ball.

    you could probably cut and paste 85% of this review to any watch released in last year two.

    • Ronald Montesano

      Aug 4, 2016 at 8:27 pm

      I’m curious. Why is the distance of the previous shot important? It’s not to me, but if it is to others, I would love to know the rationale. Thanks for your comments.

      • birdy

        Aug 5, 2016 at 10:22 am

        really? why does most every watch track shot distances. because golfers like to know actual yards they hit a shot.

        if i tee off with 4 iron on par 4 i’d like to know exact distance i hit it for future reference. and lets be honest….how many golfers over estimate their distance from the tee. wouldn’t it be nice to look down and see the exact yards you hit your drive. not 300…but really 281. goflers want to know how far they hit their tee shots whether its a drive they just bombed or a long iron on a hole they want to lay up on.

        • Ronald Montesano

          Aug 5, 2016 at 2:57 pm

          That is an excellent explanation for your posit. I appreciate your elaboration. It is information like that, from knowledgeable viewers/readers, that enhances this website.

          RM

          • birdy

            Aug 5, 2016 at 4:11 pm

            look, i’m not trying to be mean….but your profile says you coach golf. you really couldn’t come up with why someone might need to know how far their previous shot went?

            • Ronald Montesano

              Aug 6, 2016 at 5:14 pm

              Correct. I coach golf. High school girls and boys in separate seasons.

              I’ve never known a tournament golfer to say “wow, I hit that XXX yards” over “OK, Fluff, what do we have left to the flag.” If a person is a stats muncher, sure, she/he would need to know distance of previous shot. I’m not and I’ve never been. If kids get to D1 and want to worry about it, fantastic. I don’t think that 95% of golfers care to know how far their last shot went.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Accessory Reviews

I tried the great Golfboarding experiment… here’s how it went

Published

on

Corica Park Golf Course is not exactly the first place you’d expect to find one of the most experimental sports movements sweeping the nation. Sitting on a pristine swath of land along the southern rim of Alameda Island, deep in the heart of the San Francisco Bay, the course’s municipal roots and no-frills clubhouse give it an unpretentious air that seems to fit better with Sam Snead’s style of play than, say, Rickie Fowler’s.

Yet here I am, one perfectly sunny morning on a recent Saturday in December planning to try something that is about as unconventional as it gets for a 90-year-old golf course.

It’s called Golfboarding, and it’s pretty much exactly what it sounds like: an amalgam of golf and skateboarding, or maybe surfing. The brainchild of surfing legend Laird Hamilton — who can be assumed to have mastered, and has clearly grown bored of, all normal sports — Golfboarding is catching on at courses throughout the country, from local municipal courses like Corica Park to luxury country clubs like Cog Hill and TPC Las Colinas. Since winning Innovation Of the Year at the PGA Merchandising Show in 2014, Golfboards can now be found at 250 courses and have powered nearly a million rounds of golf already. Corica Park currently owns eight of them.

The man in pro shop gets a twinkle in his eyes when our foursome tells him we’d like to take them out. “Have you ridden them before?” he asks. When we admit that we are uninitiated, he grins and tells us we’re in for a treat.

But first, we need to sign a waiver and watch a seven-minute instructional video. A slow, lawyerly voice reads off pedantic warnings like “Stepping on the golfboard should be done slowly and carefully” and “Always hold onto the handlebars when the board is in motion.” When it cautions us to “operate the board a safe distance from all…other golfboarders,” we exchange glances, knowing that one of us will more than likely break this rule later on.

Then we venture outside, where one of the clubhouse attendants shows us the ropes. The controls are pretty simple. One switch sends it forward or in reverse, another toggles between low and high gear. To make it go, there’s a throttle on the thumb of the handle. The attendant explains that the only thing we have to worry about is our clubs banging against our knuckles.

“Don’t be afraid to really lean into the turns,” he offers. “You pretty much can’t roll it over.”

“That sounds like a challenge,” I joke. No one laughs.

On a test spin through the parking lot, the Golfboard feels strong and sturdy, even when I shift around on it. It starts and stops smoothly with only the slightest of jerks. In low gear its top speed is about 5 mph, so even at full throttle it never feels out of control.

The only challenge, as far as I can tell, is getting it to turn. For some reason, I’d expected the handlebar to offer at least some degree of steering, but it is purely for balance. The thing has the Ackerman angle of a Mack Truck, and you really do have to lean into the turns to get it to respond. For someone who is not particularly adept at either surfing or skateboarding, this comes a little unnaturally. I have to do a number of three-point turns in order to get back to where I started and make my way over to the first tee box.

We tee off and climb on. The fairway is flat and wide, and we shift into high gear as we speed off toward our balls. The engine had produced just the faintest of whirrs as it accelerated, but it is practically soundless as the board rolls along at full speed. The motor nevertheless feels surprisingly powerful under my feet (the drivetrain is literally located directly underneath the deck) as the board maintains a smooth, steady pace of 10 mph — about the same as a golf cart. I try making a couple of S curves like I’d seen in the video and realize that high-speed turning will take a little practice for me to get right, but that it doesn’t seem overly difficult.

Indeed, within a few holes I might as well be Laird himself, “surfing the earth” from shot to shot. I am able to hold the handlebar and lean way out, getting the board to turn, if not quite sharply, then at least closer to that of a large moving van than a full-sized semi. I take the hills aggressively (although the automatic speed control on the drivetrain enables it to keep a steady pace both up and down any hills, so this isn’t exactly dangerous), and I speed throughout the course like Mario Andretti on the freeway (the company claims increased pace-of-play as one of the Golfboard’s primary benefits, but on a Saturday in the Bay Area, it is impossible avoid a five-hour round anyway.)

Gliding along, my feet a few inches above the grass, the wind in my face as the fairways unfurl below my feet, it is easy to see Golfboards as the next evolution in mankind’s mastery of wheels; the same instincts to overcome inertia that brought us bicycles, rollerblades, scooters, skateboards, and more recent inventions such as Segways, Hoverboards and Onewheels are clearly manifest in Golfboards as well. They might not offer quite the same thrill as storming down a snowy mountainside or catching a giant wave, but they are definitely more fun than your standard golf cart.

Yet, there are obvious downsides as well. The attendant’s warning notwithstanding, my knuckles are in fact battered and sore by the time we make the turn, and even though I rearrange all my clubs into the front slots of my bag, they still rap my knuckles every time I hit a bump. Speaking of which, the board’s shock absorber system leaves something to be desired, as the ride is so bumpy that near the end I start to feel as if I’ve had my insides rattled. Then there is the unforgivable fact of its missing a cup holder for my beer.

But these are mere design flaws that might easily be fixed in the next generation of Golfboards. (A knuckle shield is a must!) My larger problem with Golfboards is what they do to the game itself. When walking or riding a traditional cart, the moments in between shots are a time to plan your next shot, or to chat about your last shot, or to simply find your zen out there among the trees and the birds and the spaciousness of the course. Instead, my focus is on staying upright.

Down the stretch, I start to fade. The muscles in my core have endured a pretty serious workout, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to muster the strength for my golf swing. It is no coincidence that my game starts to unravel, and I am on the way to one of my worst rounds in recent memory.

Walking off the 18th green, our foursome agrees that the Golfboards were fun — definitely worth trying — but that we probably wouldn’t ride them again. Call me a purist, but as someone lacking Laird Hamilton’s physical gifts, I’m happy to stick to just one sport at a time.

Your Reaction?
  • 101
  • LEGIT18
  • WOW0
  • LOL9
  • IDHT2
  • FLOP5
  • OB3
  • SHANK22

Continue Reading

Accessory Reviews

Review: The QOD Electric Caddy

Published

on

If you want an electric golf caddy that doesn’t require that you wear a sensor or carry a remote — one that will be reliable and allow you to focus on your game, and not your cart — then the Australian-manufactured QOD is worth checking out.

The QOD (an acronym for Quality of Design and a nod to its four wheels) is powered by a 14.4-volt lithium battery, good for 36 holes or more on a single charge. It has nine different speeds (with the fastest settings moving closer to jogging velocity) so the QOD can handle your ideal pace, whether that be a casual stroll or a more rapid clip around the course.

The QOD is also built to last. Its injection-molded, aircraft-grade aluminum frame has no welded joints. Steel bolts and locking teeth take care of the hinging points. The battery and frame are both guaranteed for three full years. If you need a new battery after the three-year window, the folks at QOD will replace it at cost.

Its front-wheel suspension gives the QOD a smooth ride down the fairway, and the trolley is easy to navigate with a gentle nudge here and there. The QOD is always in free-wheel mode, so it is smooth and easy to maneuver manually in tight spaces and around the green.

The caddy also features three timed interval modes for situations where you might wish to send it up ahead on its own: when helping a friend find a lost ball or when you will be exiting on the far side of the green after putting, for example. The clip below includes a look at the caddy in timed mode.

When folded, the QOD measures a mere 17-inches wide, 15-inches deep and 12-inches tall.

Another area where the QOD excels is in its small size and portability. When folded, it measures a mere 17-inches wide, 15-inches deep and 12-inches tall, making it the smallest electric caddy on the market.

Folks Down Under have been enjoying the QOD for some time, but it wasn’t until a few years ago when Malachi McGlone was looking for a way to continue walking the course without putting undue strain on an injured wrist that the QOD found U.S. fairways. After first becoming a satisfied customer, McGlone convinced CEO Collin Hiss, who developed the product and oversees its production in Australia, to allow him to distribute and service the QOD here in the states.

The QOD has no self-balancing gyroscope, bluetooth sensor or remote control. Bells and whistles just aren’t its thing — though it does have a USB port for cell phone charging that can come in handy. However, if you are looking for a no-fuss workhorse to move your bag down the fairway, the QOD should be on your radar.

The 2018 model has begun shipping and will be on sale at $1,299 for a limited time. It normally retails at $1,499.

Your Reaction?
  • 90
  • LEGIT18
  • WOW8
  • LOL2
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP2
  • OB1
  • SHANK2

Continue Reading

Accessory Reviews

Review: FlightScope Mevo

Published

on

In 100 Words

The Mevo is a useful practice tool for amateur golfers and represents a step forward from previous offerings on the market. It allows golfers to practice indoors or outdoors and provides club speed, ball speed, smash factor, launch angle, spin rate, carry distance and flight time.

It also has a video capture mode that will overlay swing videos with the swing data of a specific swing. It is limited in its capabilities and its accuracy, though, which golfers should expect at this price point. All in all, it’s well worth the $499 price tag if you understand what you’re getting.

The Full Review

The FlightScope Mevo is a launch monitor powered by 3D Doppler radar. With a retail price of $499, it is obviously aimed to reach the end consumer as opposed to PGA professionals and club fitters.

The Mevo device itself is tiny. Like, really tiny. It measures 3.5-inches wide, 2.8-inches tall and 1.2-inches deep. In terms of everyday products, it’s roughly the size of an Altoids tin. It’s very easy to find room for it in your golf bag, and the vast majority of people at the range you may be practicing at won’t even notice it’s there. Apart from the Mevo itself, in the box you get a quick start guide, a charging cable, a carrying pouch, and some metallic stickers… more on those later. It has a rechargeable internal battery that reaches a full charge in about two hours and lasts for about four hours when fully charged.

As far as software goes, the Mevo pairs with the Mevo Golf app on your iOS or Android device. The app is free to download and does not require any subscription fees (unless you want to store and view videos of your swing online as opposed to using the memory on your device). The app is very easy to use even for those who aren’t tech savvy. Make sure you’re using the most current version of the firmware for the best results, though (I did experience some glitches at first until I did so). The settings menu does have an option to manually force firmware writing, but updates should happen automatically when you start using the device.

Moving through the menus, beginning sessions, editing shots (good for adding notes on things like strike location or wind) are all very easy. Video mode did give me fits the first time I used it, though, as it was impossible to maintain my connection between my phone and the Mevo while having the phone in the right location to capture video properly. The only way I could achieve this was by setting the Mevo as far back from strike location as the device would allow. Just something to keep in mind if you find you’re having troubles with video mode.

Screenshot of video capture mode with the FlightScope Mevo

Using the Mevo

When setting up the Mevo, it needs to be placed between 4-7 feet behind the golf ball, level with the playing surface and pointed down the target line. The distance you place the Mevo behind the ball does need to be entered into the settings menu before starting your session. While we’re on that subject, before hitting balls, you do need to select between indoor, outdoor, and pitching (ball flight less than 20 yards) modes, input your altitude and select video or data mode depending on if you want to pair your data with videos of each swing or just see the data by itself. You can also edit the available clubs to be monitored, as you will have to tell the Mevo which club you’re using at any point in time to get the best results. Once you get that far, you’re pretty much off to the races.

Testing the Mevo

I tested the FlightScope Mevo with Brad Bachand at Man O’ War Golf Center in Lexington, Kentucky. Brad is a member of the PGA and has received numerous awards for golf instruction and club fitting. I wanted to put the Mevo against the best device FlightScope has to offer and, luckily, Brad does use his $15,000 FlightScope X3 daily. We had both the FlightScope Mevo and Brad’s FlightScope X3 set up simultaneously, so the numbers gathered from the two devices were generated from the exact same strikes. Brad also set up the two devices and did all of the ball striking just to maximize our chances for success.

The day of our outdoor session was roughly 22 degrees Fahrenheit. There was some wind on that day (mostly right to left), but it wasn’t a major factor. Our setup is pictured below.

Outdoor testing setup with FlightScope X3 (foreground) and Mevo

The results of our outdoor testing are shown below. The testing was conducted with range balls, and we did use the metallic stickers. The range balls used across all the testing were all consistently the same brand. Man O’ War buys all new range balls once a year and these had been used all throughout 2017.  The 2018 batch had not yet been purchased at the time that testing was conducted.

Raw outdoor data captured with range balls including metallic stickers. Mevo data (blue) and X3 data (orange) were both generated from the same exact shots.

You’ll notice some peculiar data in the sand wedge spin category. To be honest, I don’t fully know what contributed to the X3 measuring such low values. While the Mevo’s sand wedge spin numbers seem more believable, you could visibly see that the X3 was much more accurate on carry distance. Below is a quick summary of the percent differences between each of the parameters as presented by the Mevo and the X3 in our outdoor session when separated out for each club. As previously mentioned, though, take sand wedge spin with a grain of salt.

Table showing the percent difference of each parameter between Mevo and X3 grouped by club (outdoor testing).

The first thing we noticed was that the Mevo displays its numbers while the golf ball is still in midair, so it was clear that it wasn’t watching the golf ball the entire time like the X3. According to the Mevo website, carry distance, height and flight time are all calculated while club speed, ball speed, launch angle and spin rate are measured. As for the accuracy of the measured parameters, the Mevo’s strength is ball speed. The accuracy of the other measured ball parameters (launch angle and spin rate) is questionable depending on certain factors (quality of strike, moisture on the clubface and ball, quality of ball, etc). I would say it ranges between “good” or “very good” and “disappointing” with most strikes being categorized as “just okay.”

As for the calculated parameters of carry distance, height and time, those vary a decent amount. Obviously, when the measurements of the three inputs become less accurate, the three outputs will become less accurate as a result. Furthermore, according to FlightScope, the Mevo’s calculations are not accounting for things like temperature, humidity, and wind. The company has also stated, though, that future updates will likely adjust for these parameters by using location services through the app.

Now, let’s talk about those metallic stickers. According to the quick start guide, the Mevo needs a sticker on every golf ball you hit, and before you hit each ball, the ball needs to be placed such that the sticker is facing the target. It goes without saying that it doesn’t sound like a whole lot of fun to spend time putting those stickers on every ball, let alone balls that will never come back to you if you’re at a public driving range. Obviously, people are going to want to avoid using the stickers if they can, so do they really matter? Below is a table of data showing the percent difference between the Mevo’s data and the X3’s data of what we collected outdoors with a driver and range balls with and without the use of the stickers.

Table showing how the percent difference of each parameter changes between Mevo and X3 when you use the metallic stickers and when you don’t

The FlightScope website says that the metallic stickers “are needed in order for the Mevo to accurately measure ball spin.” We observed pretty much the same as shown in the table above. The website also states they are working on alternative solutions to stickers (possibly a metallic sharpie), which I think is wise.

Another thing we thought would be worth testing is the impact of different golf balls. Below is a table of data showing the percent difference between the Mevo’s data and the X3’s data of what we collected outdoors with a driver and range balls as compared to Pro V1’s. All of this data was collected using the metallic stickers.

Table showing how the percent difference of each parameter changes between Mevo and X3 when you switch from range balls to Pro V1’s

As shown above, the data gets much closer virtually across the board when you use better quality golf balls. Just something else to keep in mind when using the Mevo.

Indoor testing requires 8 feet of ball flight (impact zone to hitting net), which was no problem for us. Our setup is pictured below. All of the indoor testing was conducted with Titleist Pro V1 golf balls using the metallic stickers.

Indoor testing setup with FlightScope X3 (foreground) and Mevo

The results of our indoor session are shown below.

Raw indoor data captured with Pro V1’s including metallic stickers. Mevo data (blue) and X3 data (orange) were both generated from the same exact shots.

Below is a quick summary of the percent differences between each of the parameters as presented by the Mevo and the X3 in our indoor session when separated out for each club.

Table showing the percent difference of each parameter between Mevo and X3 grouped by club (indoor testing)

On the whole, the data got much closer together between the two devices in our indoor session. I would think a lot of that can be attributed to the use of quality golf balls and to removing outdoor factors like wind and temperature (tying into my previous comment above).

As far as overall observations between all sessions, the most striking thing was that the Mevo consistently gets more accurate when you hit really good, straight shots. When you hit bad shots, or if you hit a fade or a draw, it gets less and less accurate.

The last parameter to address is club speed, which came in around 5 percent different on average between the Mevo and X3 based on all of the shots recorded. The Mevo was most accurate with the driver at 2.1 percent different from the X3 over all strikes and it was the least accurate with sand wedge by far. Obviously, smash factor accuracy will follow club speed for the most part since ball speed is quite accurate. Over every shot we observed, the percent difference on ball speed was 1.2 percent on average between the Mevo and the X3. Again, the Mevo was least accurate with sand wedges. If I remove all sand wedge shots from the data, the average percent difference changes from 1.2 percent to 0.7 percent, which is very, very respectable.

When it comes to the different clubs used, the Mevo was by far most accurate with mid irons. I confirmed this with on-course testing on a relatively flat 170-yard par-3 as well. Carry distances in that case were within 1-2 yards on most shots (mostly related to quality of strike). With the driver, the Mevo was reasonably close, but I would also describe it as generous. It almost always missed by telling me that launch angle was higher, spin rate was lower and carry distance was farther than the X3. Generally speaking, the Mevo overestimated our driver carries by about 5 percent. Lastly, the Mevo really did not like sand wedges at all. Especially considering those shots were short enough that you could visibly see how far off the Mevo was with its carry distance. Being 10 yards off on a 90 yard shot was disappointing.

Conclusion

The Mevo is a really good product if you understand what you’re getting when you buy it. Although the data isn’t good enough for a PGA professional, it’s still a useful tool that gives amateurs reasonable feedback while practicing. It’s also a fair amount more accurate than similar products in its price range, and I think it could become even better with firmware updates as Flightscope improves upon its product.

This is a much welcomed and very promising step forward in consumer launch monitors, and the Mevo is definitely worth a look if you’re in the market for one.

Your Reaction?
  • 194
  • LEGIT18
  • WOW6
  • LOL13
  • IDHT5
  • FLOP9
  • OB4
  • SHANK39

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Facebook

Trending