Connect with us


Foresight GCQuad: A Launch Monitor That Can Grow the Game?



It’s hard to imagine that a $14,000 launch monitor could be the ticket to bringing more people to the sport of golf, but the more time you spend using Foresight’s new GCQuad the more you see the potential. And there may be no company that sees a greater potential for growth in golf right now than Foresight.

“There are 25 million people playing golf, at least occasionally, in the United States,” said Jon Watters, Foresight’s Vice President. “We think we can help triple those numbers.”

Foresight made its first splash in the golf world in 2010. The San Diego-based company released the GC2, a camera-based launch monitor barely bigger than a dozen golf balls that was not only extremely accurate and easy to use, but sold for roughly half the price of leading launch monitors.

“It was the first time a camera-based system was able to go head to head with a radar-based system,” Watters said. 

While well received, the GC2 played a secondary role to radar-based launch monitors among die hards because it didn’t provide club head data. That changed in 2013 when the company released HMT (head measurement technology), a complimentary launch monitor that attached to the GC2 to provide the whole picture at impact: ball and club data. It wasn’t just a “me too” product; its club data was arguably more accurate than what leading radar systems produced.


Foresight’s GCQuad.

This year, Foresight is launching an all-in-one unit called GCQuad that the company says is twice as accurate as it previous models. It’s also at least twice as fun thanks to an add-on software called “Zombie Golf” that will sell for $495. Our Zak Kozuchowski exchanged emails with Watters about Foresight and the GCQuad for the Q&A below.

WRX: Shortly after launch, the GCQuad was already oversold by more than a month. Who is buying the new units, and why are they buying them?

Jon Watters: We extended a special offer to existing customers that allowed them to trade-in their existing technology as a partial payment for the new GCQuad unit. We have been overwhelmed by the response and corresponding orders that resulted from this offer. It was really cool to see two units from our first 10 production units getting traded-in for GCQuads. I think that speaks to the quality of design and engineering that goes into all the technology we produce here in San Diego.

Why they buy the new GCQuad may vary between customers, but again I think it’s because of the reputation we have earned in the marketplace in delivering the very best technology available today. In fact, all the new features in the GCQuad are a result of customer feedback and requests to make the experience with our products even better and easier to use.

WRX: How have launch monitors changed golf? Has Foresight made a specific impact?

JW: Launch monitors have impacted just about every aspect of golf. In many ways it’s similar to how smartphone technology has impacted our lives. In the span of a decade they went from a luxury item to being an integral part of our everyday lives. The same goes for launch monitors. Today, launch monitors are an integral part of instruction, fitting and even recreational gameplay because people are getting immediate, tangible benefits from using them. Our specific influence on this shift comes from making the launch monitor more accurate, reliable, user-friendly and cost-accessible to everyone who enjoys the game.

We were also the first company to make a launch monitor that could effectively support true-to-life golf simulation. Golf simulators used to have a reputation as “entertainment devices” and weren’t viewed as a serious golf tool. Now, thanks largely to our technology’s ability to go indoors without compromising accuracy or reliability, you see golf simulators everywhere: retail stores, hotels, recreational facilities and in the homes of casual players and tour pros alike. This simply wasn’t the case before Foresight Sports existed.

WRX: What allows Foresight’s launch monitors to be so accurate? How was the new GCQuad made to be more accurate than GC2 and HMT? Basically, the question I’m getting at is, “What’s Foresight’s competitive advantage at the moment?”

JW: There are two key things about our technology that offer a distinct advantage when it comes to accuracy. The first is positioning. Camera-based technology like ours allows our launch monitors to be optimally positioned to measure — not calculate — what happens at the moment of ball and club impact. Measuring from any other position, such as behind the golfer as other technologies do, means critical elements of data are being missed that simply can’t be calculated, validated or reproduced from other captured information.  

The second key advantage of our launch monitors is the virtually unlimited ceiling of technological advancement. Just as with computer processors, image-capturing technologies continue to rapidly redefine the state of the art when it comes to size, power and precision. Like its GC2 predecessor, the GCQuad leverages the most advanced technologies available today — faster processors, higher resolution image sensors, next generation connectivity — it’s all in there. To put this in perspective, our GC2 was the most advanced and accurate launch monitor in the industry when we released it in 2010. Today, the GCQuad captures 10 times as much information as the GC2. Our core capturing and analysis technologies only continue to evolve and get better.

WRX: Can you foresee a time when people would rather play golf on a launch monitor instead of “real” golf?

JW: Absolutely. In fact, since the inception of golf simulators, there has been a segment of players who prefer the virtual game experience to the “real” experience. Back in the late ’90s I saw this firsthand when I was involved with an indoor golf facility in Louisville, Kentucky. And by all indications, the segment of players who prefer the virtual experience is only going to grow.

The reason why virtual golf is poised to see explosive growth is two-fold. The first reason is the evolution of the technology itself. Every aspect of the virtual golf experience continues to get better – more accurate, more real, more cost accessible – making it harder to justify the advantages of the “real” experience. When you add in the ability to engage players with gaming experiences like shooting at zombies or playing a round at a famous course with three other players from around the world, the appeal of virtual golf becomes obvious.

The second reason is the inherent scaling limits of the traditional game. We can build a facility full of state-of-the-art simulation bays at a fraction of the cost – and space requirements – of a golf course development or expansion. The reality is that worldwide land resources are limited, and new golf course creation is becoming increasingly harder to justify. The traditional game of golf is now in a state of attrition, and anyone who doesn’t see that isn’t paying attention. In my opinion, the virtual experience is critical for the game of golf to be viable moving forward, and I believe technology companies like ours will play a key part in making this happen.

WRX: You mentioned Zombie Golf. How did that come about?


JW: Zombie Golf is actually the first gaming app created by our in-house Game Studios team. The genesis of the idea itself came from a creative session we held with the team late last year. Everyone was encouraged to bring a game idea to the session that would engage, entertain and hopefully inspire a new audience of non-players to get in the game of golf. After discussing a myriad of ideas, Zombie Golf was unanimously voted the first game we would build to launch in conjunction with the PGA Show and the GCQuad introduction.

Beyond its appeal to both golfers and non-golfers, we see Zombie Golf evolving into a multi-level game that might even spill over into traditional golf play. Imagine playing a round of golf on one of our virtual courses and having zombies suddenly invade your course. That’s what we call changing the game!

Learn more about Foresight and the GCQuad at

Your Reaction?
  • 131
  • LEGIT14
  • WOW7
  • LOL9
  • IDHT4
  • FLOP7
  • OB6
  • SHANK171

We share your golf passion. You can follow GolfWRX on Twitter @GolfWRX, Facebook and Instagram.



  1. Pingback: Will A $14,000 Launch Monitor Help Or Kill The Game Of Golf? | Dog Leg News

  2. Barry

    Apr 19, 2017 at 12:29 am

    Golf is dead! Golf is to complicated and expensive for the selfie generation. Girls hit the gym and social media, guys go cycling etc. where you can be ‘good’ and reach a decent level within 2 years. I love golf and play it a lot but it is just not attractive enough in these times. Sadly said!

  3. Matt

    Apr 18, 2017 at 9:49 pm

    This idea will definitely pull people off of the course to go play a game indoors. Good. I’m tired of a 5hr rounds of cart golf. The ones that truly love the game will stay and play and keep some courses afloat some will sink. The ebb and flow of golf depends on the die-hards, and them passing the game on.

    Can’t keep growing a game it’s got to shrink at some point…

  4. J Zilla

    Apr 18, 2017 at 5:40 pm

    I can definitely see this growing the game (however that’s defined) especially in major cities like NY or Tokyo. I can’t even imagine how the average NYer is even able to play regularly lugging their clubs on the train or driving an hour out of the city. But I can see a simulator range a few blocks away having a lot of appeal.

    Throw in some goofy games like the Zombie thing and put them into places like Dave & Busters and now you have more people playing at night or during the winter and it’s fun for the average non-serious golf person similar to how TopShot golf is.

    I guess it comes down to the definition of growing the game, though. I mean I consider myself a pretty serious golfer even though most of time is spent on the typical outdoor range not on a course. How is that any different than playing on a simulator? Might even be better for my game simulating holes instead of standard range work

  5. Josh

    Apr 18, 2017 at 10:41 am

    So trackman gets crushed on these boards for being ‘too expensive’ but this will grow the game? Seems like sponsored content and should be labeled as such in all fairness.

  6. Patrick norm

    Apr 18, 2017 at 7:27 am

    Golf grew because of the advent of seeing players like Palmer and Nicklaus on television. There was an explosion of players and courses throughout the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. There was also the explosion of baby boomers who when unable or unwilling to jog or play tennis transitioned to golf. Now that boomers are slowly leaving golf, they are not being replaced by millennial athletes . I introduced my 3 kids to golf at an early age and currently non of them play because of time and expense.
    I don’t know if this less expensive launch monitor will re introduce them to golf , but it fits the explosion of the smart phone, tablet and lap tops. And most importantly, time. Maybe these guys are onto a trend. We need more meillenials in golf to,replace the baby boomers. It’s called critical mass and golf is barely hanging on.

  7. Mat

    Apr 18, 2017 at 7:10 am

    So Wall-E was a documentary, huh…

  8. Harry

    Apr 17, 2017 at 4:52 pm

    Likely to grow the acade space game but not the actual game unless it gets a few new folks to step outside to a course. Plus it’s not like an arcade will be selling clubs (and if so not decent ones). The real market is as it has been- pros, instructors, and fitters.

  9. Tyler

    Apr 17, 2017 at 3:06 pm

    i think the GC2 is what the major golf retailers use in their hitting bays. Employees have told me they are off about 30% on distance.

    For example i was hitting a 9 iron 125-130 in a bay. Same day went to the outdoor range, no wind. I was about 135 all day with it. My usual distance for a nine iron.

    Just give me the outdoor’s and a laser.

  10. chinchbugs

    Apr 17, 2017 at 1:41 pm

    $14k makes that $3k set of irons seem not that bad…. #SorryBob (Parsons)

  11. Barry

    Apr 17, 2017 at 1:18 pm

    I can see this being a great way for newer teachers and average golfers to have a more affordable launch monitor.

  12. Ron

    Apr 17, 2017 at 12:14 pm

    This is not the future of golf. Notwithstanding the investment, which I’ll get to next, there is NO ONE I currently know that calls me up on a beautiful summer day and asks me to come spend a few hours in their dark basement rather than playing the real sport outdoors. Simulated rounds are good for winter, and that’s it. And even then, I still golf in Jan and Feb if we get a mild day. The market for these is fitters and indoor simulators. People who do personally purchase will do it for two reasons. 1) Practice and the need for good information. And these are the serious ones who know what to do with that information. or 2) for fun. If you are buying it for the practice, not only do they need to be serious golfers, but they also have to be able to afford a $15k investment. The market there is SO small. If you are buying it for fun, you already have affordable options out there like Opti Shot that cost less than $500. Sure the accuracy and data isn’t great, but it’s just for fun. If simulated golf was truly the “future of golf”, I would have expected by now to see a lot more of my buddies owning Opti Shots. And here’s the other thing, you also need SPACE to use it! You can’t just set this up in your living room and even most basements don’t have the required ceiling height. There are so many reasons why these things are never going to take off. They’re great in the markets they are in right now. I think the only time we will see somewhat of an uptick in this market for personal LMs, is when affordability meets accuracy. The closest I’ve seen so far is the SkyTrack that you can get for under $2k. But even that isn’t jumping off the shelves. Get out there and play.

    • larrybud

      Apr 17, 2017 at 3:23 pm

      You realize half the country doesn’t play golf for the better of 3-4 months?

  13. KC

    Apr 17, 2017 at 11:35 am

    A $14K launch monitor is going to grow the game?! This is honestly the stupidest thing I’ve read on WRX.

    • Thus

      Apr 17, 2017 at 4:09 pm

      Indoor golf facilities are growing, people are too busy too play 4 hour rounds, and the weather is not always sunny.
      These things are growing golf whether you are a hater or not.
      Not all units are being brought for personal use only.

  14. david

    Apr 17, 2017 at 10:56 am

    What an f’d up world…all phones have done aside from turning the human race into fat fat zombies who look down at a screen all day as they walk into oncoming cars, is slowly put an end to human communication and interaction. I suppose golf courses will eventually be obsolete in the same way. I’m glad I’m now in my 60’s and won’t be around to see the ugly future we have painted for our race.

    • JD

      Apr 17, 2017 at 11:05 am

      Those microchips in those phones also make devices keeping you alive well into your 90’s pal…

      • Pal

        Apr 17, 2017 at 11:23 am

        Yeah pal. Keep your opinion to yourself and be thankful for all those amazing microchips keeping you alive.

      • freowho

        Apr 17, 2017 at 8:57 pm

        But the world is overpopulated. We need people to die. Have you seen the movie Wall-E? Playing golf on simulators is not about being time poor. It’s because people can’t walk anymore.

  15. toad

    Apr 17, 2017 at 10:40 am

    Companies like this are definitely the future of golf. Kinda sad… golf is meant to be played outside in the fresh air. That being said, you’ll see more Zombie golfers in the future.

    • JD

      Apr 17, 2017 at 11:01 am

      Totally agree, but would you rather play virtual golf at Pebble Beach in your own home, or drive 30min for a $60 tee time, only to play on crap greens and bunkers that aren’t taken care of…. Unless you’re paying $100+, you’re not playing true golf on a well manicured course.

      • Truth

        Apr 17, 2017 at 11:32 am

        Sounds like you need to move somewhere with better golf courses if all you’re playing on are those with crap greens and unkept bunkers. I play “true golf” all the time on great semi-private courses that run me $40-50/round. If you define “true golf” as a round that is only played on PGA tour quality tracks then maybe you should find a different hobby. And, frankly, if you’re investing $14K in a LM or sim because you’re such a course snob then you’re part of the reason why those local courses can’t keep up with the high standard of conditions you so nobly demand.

        • ooffa

          Apr 17, 2017 at 12:23 pm

          C’mon, Truth, Leave the guy alone. Just because in the trailer park town you live in you can play a nice course for 50 bucks doesn’t mean it’s like that everywhere.

        • JD

          Apr 17, 2017 at 12:27 pm

          Read below man. Their price point is no where near competitive to create demand. They will continue to just try to grow their market share of pro golfers and golf shops and are completely ignoring 85% of the market…

          I moved from Mich to VA and there is quite the difference with public courses and how far your $ takes you…

      • TR1PTIK

        Apr 17, 2017 at 12:56 pm

        I think your definition of “true golf” is a little different from the guys who invented the game or my own. I agree that bunkers with massive footprints and the like in them is unacceptable, but expecting every course in the world to be of similar quality to PGA Tour courses is a bit unreasonable or realistic. Play it as it lies.

      • toad

        Apr 18, 2017 at 12:10 am

        Very good point… When they get cheap enough I wouldn’t mind having one. Especially if I still live in the Northwest.

  16. N. D. Boondocks

    Apr 17, 2017 at 10:35 am

    Other games I’d like to see and play during our long (long, long) winter….
    Golf Battleship
    whack the ballpicker
    tic tac toe
    caps (like the beer drinking game)
    duck shoot (like the carnival game)
    that challenge shooting range in the dirty harry movie

  17. Adam

    Apr 17, 2017 at 10:14 am

    I can see this being the case in very crowded urban environments or in winter. However, fact is you’re still hitting off a mat. Half of the challenge is dealing with lies, wind, hazards, breaks on the green, green speeds, etc.

    • TR1PTIK

      Apr 17, 2017 at 11:39 am

      Probably the most valid comment so far. Regardless of price (and $14K is a good price currently) the ability for larger facilities to incorporate this kind of technology will help grow the game because it makes the game more accessible and enjoyable for a whole new demographic. I’d hate to see the traditional golf course go away (hopefully that will never happen), but the potential to grow the game is there. All of you guys complaining about cost because you want one in your garage are completely missing the big picture. It is unlikely that a $1000 LM will ever be made that also incorporates the same level of accuracy. If you want, we can use the smartphone analogy again. Look at the price? Has it changed much over the past decade? If anything, prices have gone up slightly. Yes, there are smartphones available at more affordable prices, but they are inferior in quality and function because they use older technologies to reach those price points. To that point, it is possible one day to get a GC2-quality device for ~$1000, but it will look like a toy in comparison to whatever current-gen products come to market. The biggest drawback of this technology is like Adam said, no wind, no variation in lie, or breaks on the green.

  18. Dat

    Apr 17, 2017 at 9:56 am

    Great! Now reduce the price by $13,500 and then you can “grow the game” lol.

  19. JD

    Apr 17, 2017 at 9:53 am

    If they’re going to compare these to smartphones, then lets continue with the analogy…

    Apple was only widely successful as a company when they put a device (iPhone) in our hands that was 1st better than anything else, and 2nd affordable to the masses. Prior that they were branded as a luxury computer company, marketed for all but available for few.

    Now to Foresight… without question putting launch monitor data in people’s hands makes golf affordable because you can practice for free and play virtual courses for free… something everyone would take advantage of…. for the right price…

    These things need to get to the $1000 range to have any sort of ROI for us golf fans. If they are truly looking to “grow the game” and grow their business, they should really learn from Apple… your software is your IP, get the cost to manufacture down and make it a reasonable price point, and these would be in the garage of every MILDLY interested golf fan…

    Avg golfer does not need club path data and all that noise, we want distance, club head speed, spin rate and enough data to put a reliable line on the ball. If you had $1000 for a golf season, would you spend it on 10-12 rounds of golf, or unlimited rounds of virtual golf, rain or shine, in the comfort of your own home…

  20. Dick Kusleika

    Apr 17, 2017 at 9:51 am

    Action Figure Man: the how to buy action figure man episode

  21. Jack Nash

    Apr 17, 2017 at 9:13 am

    14 G’s? Grow the Game? Why, if that’s the case, I’ll take 2.

  22. Pike

    Apr 17, 2017 at 8:55 am

    Zombie golf… What a time to be alive.

  23. ooffa

    Apr 17, 2017 at 8:54 am

    Nice Ad

    • Cris

      Apr 17, 2017 at 11:40 pm

      I think there should be some disclosure stating that this is paid advertisement. This sound like an article, but rather like an advertorial.

Leave a Reply

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

pga tour

Ian Poulter WITB 2018



Equipment is accurate as of the 2018 Honda Classic (2/20/2018).

Driver: Titleist 917D2 (9.5 degrees)
Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei Orange CK 60TX

3 Wood: Titleist 917F2 (16.5 degrees)
Shaft: Matrix Ozik TP7HDe 7X

Hybrid: Titleist 816 H2 (21 degrees)
Shaft: Aldila Tour Green ATX85H TX

Irons: Titleist 716 T-MB (4), Titleist 718 AP2 (5-PW)
Shaft: Project X LZ 130 7.0

Wedges: Titleist Vokey SM7 (52-12F, 56-14F, 60-04L)
Shaft: Project X LZ 7.0 (52), True Temper Dynamic Gold Tour Issue S400 (56, 60)

Putter: EvnRoll Tour ER
Grip: Odyssey Pistol

Putter: Rife Antigua Island Series
Grip: Odyssey Pistol

Ball: Titleist Pro V1x


Discussion: See what GolfWRX members are saying about Poulter’s clubs. 

Your Reaction?
  • 4
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK1

Continue Reading


10 interesting photos from Wednesday at the Honda Classic



From our featured image of Rory McIlroy putting in a different kind of work on the range in the pre-dawn hours of Wednesday morning, to shots of Tiger Woods’ similarly early pre-pro-am range work, to some intriguing shots Patrick Reed’s prototype Bettinardi putter, GolfWRX has plenty of fantastic photo content from PGA National.

Here are some of the best shots from Wednesday.

Tiger Woods at work prior to his crack-of-dawn pro-am tee time. Gentleman in the foreground: You do know that as the sun has not yet risen, you do not need a hat to aggressively combat its rays, right?

“My feet do not look like that at impact.”

All eyes on the Big Cat…except those focused on the live video on their cell phone screens…

Let’s take a closer look at Patrick Reed’s yardage book cover. Yep. As expected.

Do you think these two ever talk?

It looks like Captain Furyk already has some pre-Ryder Cup swag in the form of a putter cover.

If you’ve ever wondered why Rickie Fowler selected these interesting locations for his tattoos, this may be the answer: Visible when he holds his finish.

We’ve got a Pistol Pete sighting!

Patrick Reed’s droolworthy Bettinardi Dass prototype.

Fun fact: Wedges double as magnetic putter cover holders, as Jon Curran illustrates here. Healthy application of lead tape, as well, from the tour’s resident graffiti artist.

Wednesday’s Photos

Discussion: See what GolfWRX members are saying about the photos in our forums.

Your Reaction?
  • 12
  • LEGIT3
  • WOW1
  • LOL2
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK6

Continue Reading

Accessory Reviews

Review: FlightScope Mevo



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.


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?
  • 118
  • LEGIT10
  • WOW2
  • LOL6
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP7
  • OB3
  • SHANK25

Continue Reading

19th Hole