50 Words or Less
The Foresight GCQuad launch monitor is the industry standard for accuracy. Incredibly easy to use. Great software. My personal choice for all my testing.
Over the last two years, we’ve seen an explosion in the personal launch monitor sector. And while that category continues to improve, all those units come with compromises. For this review, I’m turning my attention to a professional quality launch monitor that makes no such compromises, the Foresight GCQuad.
Set-Up & Ease of Use
The ease of use is a major reason why the Foresight GCQuad is my launch monitor of choice. Set it down, press the power button, and you’re ready to go. The onboard display gives you all the ball and club data, so you never need to connect another device if you don’t want to.
If you want to get complete club data from the GCQuad, you do need to mark the club face with reflective dots. The GCQuad comes with a sticker dispenser that makes the process quite easy. The stickers are very durable and rarely need to be replaced.
There are a few options that you can change with the buttons on the GCQuad. You can switch between imperial and metric measurements and change how spin and face angle data is displayed. There’s also the ability to trade some of the club data in exchange for a larger hitting area. While I generally like having all the data, a larger hitting area can be useful, especially when you’re on grass.
Connecting the GCQuad to the FSX PRO app on a mobile device is another big upgrade from the GC2. The GC2 used Bluetooth, and I found that connection to be spotty at best. The GCQuad creates its own wireless network, and the connection is much more stable. You can also connect your GCQuad to a PC for golf simulation or data collection.
The Foresight GCQuad measures everything imaginable about the swing and the results. Ball data includes ball speed, horizontal launch, vertical launch, spin, spin axis, and carry distance. Club data includes club head speed, smash factor, angle of attack, club path, loft at impact, lie angle at impact, face angle at impact, and impact location on the face. Getting the club data does come at an additional cost, which is discussed below.
In terms of accuracy, this is the industry standard. At every Tour event, you will see players using a GCQuad. Similarly, there are thousands of instructors and club fitters across the world who rely on CGQuad every day.
For me, the thing I love about the GCQuad is that I never have to second guess it. I’ve hit thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of shots on launch monitors of all kinds. With almost all of them, there are times when I look at the numbers, shake my head, and delete the shot because it doesn’t match the ball flight I actually saw. That is simply never the case with GCQuad.
There are two major upgrades from GC2 to GCQuad that are worth noting. One is the ability to customize the target line. This is done in seconds with the included reflective alignment rod. Simply drop the rod along your target line, wait for the unit to beep, and the GCQuad will use that line.
The second major upgrade is the ability to capture putting data. I’ve come to love this feature, especially for my own practice, and I look forward to doing more in-depth testing with it. You can see our first Golf Myths Unplugged with the GCQuad HERE.
Finally, I know there are certain people who want to spend their time fighting about camera vs. doppler. I’m not one of them because I recognize both are excellent and have specific strengths and weaknesses. If you want to fight that fight, you’re welcome to share your thoughts in the comments section. Please know in advance that disrespectful comments will be deleted.
FSX Pro is far and away the best launch monitor app that I’ve used. Just like the GCQuad itself, it’s easy to get right to work, or you can dig in and customize it.
When you load the app, you can start a new session or jump into the one you last worked on. From there, you select a club and start hitting shots. The software defaults to a driving range view, but the ability to customize your experience is nearly limitless. There are four main displays- Driving Range, Flight, Club, and Table. Within each one, you can further customize the look and decide what data you want to display. I love the ability to see only certain metrics, because it helps me to remain focused during my practice.
For club fitters or tinkerers, you can also add tags (labels) to each shot. During a driver fitting, that may be the name of the club or shaft or the weight or hosel setting. One very thoughtful feature is that you can go back and edit the tags after the fact if you forgot to make a change.
The GCQuad also powers golf simulation with the FSX Play software. This does need to be run on a PC with a fairly powerful graphics card to support the up-to-5K resolution. The game modes include long drive, closest to the pin, and, of course, full rounds. FSX Play comes at an additional cost of $500 and includes La Jolla Pines, a course remarkably similar to a major venue near San Diego.
The Foresight GCQuad is a major investment. The base price is $11,000, but that’s a bit disingenuous. If you don’t have the FSX 2020 software, you’ll need to add that on for $3,000. Adding the club head measurements tacks on another $4,000, and the putting module is an additional $2,500. That brings the cost of a full-featured GCQuad to $20,500. The Foresight GCQuad comes with a two-year warranty.
To me, there are two target consumers for the GCQuad: people who make their living with a launch monitor and the well-heeled. If you need accuracy for club fitting or instruction, this is the industry standard. If the cost isn’t relevant to you, why not get the best? For everyone else, there are a world of less expensive options that deliver huge value with some sacrifice in accuracy.
For a more affordable option, check out the Bushnell Launch Pro HERE
For me, the Foresight GCQuad launch monitor is the best launch monitor available today. It collects every data point you could want for analyzing your equipment and swing, and it does so with tremendous accuracy. When you add in the ease of use and the excellent software, the GCQuad is the obvious choice if you have the means.
Visit Foresight Sports HERE
Latest posts by Matt Saternus (see all)
- Cobra Aerojet Driver Review - May 29, 2023
- TaylorMade BRNR Mini Driver Review - May 25, 2023
- PING G430 SFT Fairway Wood Review - May 24, 2023
Go ahead and put my name in, I’d be more than happy to win this giveaway! :-) I know this is the Gold Standard, but if you were just an average golfer, which personal launch monitor would you choose Matt?
My golf is decidedly average these days, so I don’t have to imagine.
It really just comes down to budget. If I didn’t have Plugged In Golf and I had the money, I would get a GCQuad. I have recommendations for other price points here: https://pluggedingolf.com/the-best-golf-launch-monitor/
Have you had the chance to play around with the Bushnell Launch Pro or the Full Swing Launch monitor? Jut curious on your thoughts on them.
No, but I should have the chance to review the GC3 (same as Bushnell with different branding) sometime this year.
Hey Matt – I’m looking at either the Trackman 4 or the GCQuad for my home simulator setup. Mainly want to use for practice, but will also use it for some simulated rounds during the winter. I’m leaning towards the Quad with club data since I will be using indoors 99% of the time, but would like some unbiased feedback on Trackman vs. Quad. Namely, I’ve heard the software for the Trackman is significantly better than GCQuad’s, but I imagine that’s something Foresight is working on. Think there’s any truth to that? I also just value the accuracy of the Quad over the software. The stickers for the clubface are not a big deal to me as you’ll need stickers on balls when using a Trackman anyway. I don’t have many lefty friends, so not too worried about the need to switch sides with the Quad. Finally, I’ve heard Quad distances are a bit exaggerated at higher swing speeds and lower spin, but that wouldn’t apply to me anyway. Any additional thoughts on one vs. the other I should be considering?
My preference, especially indoors, is the GCQuad. I’ve used both extensively and would not agree that the Trackman is “significantly better.” Both have their pluses and minuses, and I don’t think software is the determining factor between the two. In all my indoor testing, I see consistently “better” numbers from the GCQuad, plus the ease of use is much higher.
I’ve had an indoor Trackman for over a year and am utterly impressed. I haven’t seen a flaw in it. What specific advantages do you see that the GCQuad has over the Trackman?
I don’t read any malice into your comment, but I am going to say up front that I am not going to engage in a Trackman vs. Foresight argument with you or anyone else. Both are great.
With that said, in my experience, Trackman does miss some shots indoors, it has plenty of “estimated spin” shots, and it occasionally produces weird numbers, especially with club delivery. I’ve not seen any of those things with my Foresight.
No malice intended, Matt. Thanks for your feedback.