TST Explores GAME Golf

[club ho]

Just thought I would pass this along from my conversation with the ARCCOS folks:

In terms of becoming ANDROID compatible it will be  while because the ANDROID BLUETOOTH compatibility is not as advanced as APPLES. As it was explained to me each  of the 14 sensor caps has an individual BLUETOOTH transmitter. THe IPHONE can handle multiple BT transmissions and ANDROID can only take one at a time. At least that is how I understood it.

[cipher]

Just thought I would pass this along from my conversation with the ARCCOS folks: In terms of becoming ANDROID compatible it will be  while because the ANDROID BLUETOOTH compatibility is not as advanced as APPLES. As it was explained to me each  of the 14 sensor caps has an individual BLUETOOTH transmitter. THe IPHONE can handle multiple BT transmissions and ANDROID can only take one at a time. At least that is how I understood it.

That may explain why their end caps are so big.

[iacas]

Just thought I would pass this along from my conversation with the ARCCOS folks:

In terms of becoming ANDROID compatible it will be  while because the ANDROID BLUETOOTH compatibility is not as advanced as APPLES. As it was explained to me each  of the 14 sensor caps has an individual BLUETOOTH transmitter. THe IPHONE can handle multiple BT transmissions and ANDROID can only take one at a time. At least that is how I understood it.

So much for 300% potential customers… :) At this point, please start an Arccos thread. This is the GG thread.

[club ho]

So much for 300% potential customers… :) At this point, please start an Arccos thread. This is the GG thread.

A bit OT here:

Given that APPL is coming out with the new pay with your IPHONE instead of having a wallet full of obsolete plastic credit cards.

I would say ANDROID had better get up with the technology or kiss there market share good bye. It is no longer just a cell phone market.

APPL is rated by Motley FOOL adviser as the number one of 5 stocks that are a better investment  than BRK.A or BRK.B

[iacas]

A bit OT here:

Agreed.

Plus, it's AAPL. :)

[club ho]

Agreed.

Plus, it's AAPL. :)

Perhaps you may know what happened to my last post iacas?

So much for freedom of speech.

[iacas]

Perhaps you may know what happened to my last post iacas?

So much for freedom of speech.

A moderator deleted it. Note says "Rude and OT."

There's no such thing as freedom of speech on a forum.

The GAME Golf guy is going to be on the Open Forum panel with Dave, me, Stuart Leong, and Mark Broadie. Looking forward to it.

[RFKFREAK]

Cool!  Is it going to be webcasted or streamed?

[iacas]

Cool!  Is it going to be webcasted or streamed?

I think it's just for instructors.

[mvmac]

Cool!  Is it going to be webcasted or streamed?

I might try to record some off my phone or something. I think they're putting together a dvd but nobody really cares about the other people talking ;-)

[dsc123]

I've only used GG for 3 rounds since I haven't played in a few months, but it drives me nuts looking at the stats because it seems to me that they have a device that can be a A+ product and they're failing to unleash its power.  I think they focus too much on trying to figure out what data to present in a pretty way instead of just giving the users everything.  If they would just let us tag each shot (full, chip, pitch, mishit, uphill, etc.) and filter what we want, we would have an incredible stat tool.

This would solve the problem of having my SW average distance showing up as 58 yards, with a range of 9 to 83.  My home course is also very hilly, so my driver shows an average of 223 with a range of 190 to 267.  Its not just matter of mis-hits, there are just some holes that are very uphill.  Literally, 10 holes on my home course have approach shots were the elevation makes a full club (and in some cases a 2 club) difference.  My averages are pretty much useless.  But if I could exclude those, I'd at least have 40% of my approach shots providing useful data.

They can do this sort of thing relatively easily--its all in their website/computer software/not-the-device-itself.  But since Game Golf launched, has anyone noticed any significant advancements in the stats?

[Golfingdad]

I've only used GG for 3 rounds since I haven't played in a few months, but it drives me nuts looking at the stats because it seems to me that they have a device that can be a A+ product and they're failing to unleash its power.  I think they focus too much on trying to figure out what data to present in a pretty way instead of just giving the users everything.  If they would just let us tag each shot (full, chip, pitch, mishit, uphill, etc.) and filter what we want, we would have an incredible stat tool.

This would solve the problem of having my SW average distance showing up as 58 yards, with a range of 9 to 83.  My home course is also very hilly, so my driver shows an average of 223 with a range of 190 to 267.  Its not just matter of mis-hits, there are just some holes that are very uphill.  Literally, 10 holes on my home course have approach shots were the elevation makes a full club (and in some cases a 2 club) difference.  My averages are pretty much useless.  But if I could exclude those, I'd at least have 40% of my approach shots providing useful data.

They can do this sort of thing relatively easily--its all in their website/computer software/not-the-device-itself.  But since Game Golf launched, has anyone noticed any significant advancements in the stats?

Pretty much agree with everything you said here.  I've sorta kinda just been waiting and hoping for them to keep adding to the features.  I like the idea of being able to label certain types of shots to add to the filtering capabilities.

Also, I just noticed that under Insights-Club Performance it gives you a number for each club that is, well, I don't know - definitely not the gross average.  This is another thing about the program that leaves something to be desired - no explanation as to exactly what things like club performance mean.  It appears to be some sort of estimate as to your most likely distance with that club.

[dsc123]

Also, I just noticed that under Insights-Club Performance it gives you a number for each club that is, well, I don't know - definitely not the gross average.  This is another thing about the program that leaves something to be desired - no explanation as to exactly what things like club performance mean.  It appears to be some sort of estimate as to your most likely distance with that club.

I read somewhere on their forum that they try to get rid of bad shots and punch outs by using some algorithm to determine your "average."  So its not really an "average" at all.  And its a really complicated way to accomplish what tagging/categorizing each shot would do much more effectively.

Early on the theme seemed to be "don't worry, they can add all this stuff," but here we are.

[iacas]

Early on the theme seemed to be "don't worry, they can add all this stuff," but here we are.

It's been less than a year, at this point, hasn't it?

[dsc123]

It's been less than a year, at this point, hasn't it?

I don't know when it first came out.  I know I bought it for $200 4 or 5 months ago and while I generally like it, I also find it disappointing.

How long after buying the product should I wait before I start to wonder whether issues will be addressed?  These seem like easy fixes to me, though I claim no industry knowledge.  But looking at their list of "completed" feature requests, it looks like they're doing the opposite of what I would like to see.  For example, fixing the average issue by creating an algorithm to guess which shots are not "full" instead of just letting the user say so.  A complicated fix to when a simple solution can achieve much more.

[iacas]

I don't know when it first came out.  I know I bought it for $200 4 or 5 months ago and while I generally like it, I also find it disappointing.

How long after buying the product should I wait before I start to wonder whether issues will be addressed?  These seem like easy fixes to me, though I claim no industry knowledge.  But looking at their list of "completed" feature requests, it looks like they're doing the opposite of what I would like to see.  For example, fixing the average issue by creating an algorithm to guess which shots are not "full" instead of just letting the user say so.  A complicated fix to when a simple solution can achieve much more.

I disagree that I want to do a lot of marking of shots as "chips" or "pitches" or "punches" or whatever. I like the simplicity. I almost never hit a full SW anyway, so… I just ignore my "yardage" for the SW as reported by GG.

If you want to submit some suggestions, do that rather than waiting for others to do so. See if people vote them up.

I like what GG offers.

---

I'm going to be on a panel with someone from GAME Golf at the Open Forum on Tuesday. If users here have questions or suggestions, post them here and I'll give him a list of the questions and seek some answers.

[dsc123]

Similar suggestions have been made and I spent time earlier today voting them up and adding my thoughts in the comments. Hopefully we'll see some improvements on the stat tracking. ill give you a nickel to lobby them for me at the forum :)

[billchao]

I'm going to be on a panel with someone from GAME Golf at the Open Forum on Tuesday. If users here have questions or suggestions, post them here and I'll give him a list of the questions and seek some answers.

I'd like to see more detailed breakdowns of statistics that can help me assess and improve my game. You're a lot more qualified than I am at identifying what those are.

I like what they offer in terms of the insights, I'd just like to see more. The way it's set up now, when you go into the "Approach the Green" analysis part, you can sort by distance or by club. I'd like to see it broken down both ways.

Here are two screenshots of approach shots:

In order for me to figure out what club I used at what distance (I know it can break it down into smaller yardage increments, but I happened to pick inside 100), I have to hover over the dots. It's time consuming to try to map out everything by club and yardage.

Same thing here with just my sand wedge. There is no filter for distance, so I have to check each dot to see if I and hitting it from 60 yards or 100 yards, for example.

I know conditions will dictate what club and shot I choose for approach shots so it might not matter too much, but with enough data points, it should give me a better idea of what club I'm more accurate with from a certain distance.