Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 3122 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

I still use it as there are still a number of decent deals on a handful of area courses that make up for the fees charged.  There are still some good courses on it, but most of them are a little out of the way so it would make sense for them I suppose to still have a few heavily discounted slots to offer.

I still use it as there are still a number of decent deals on a handful of area courses that make up for the fees charged.  There are still some good courses on it, but most of them are a little out of the way so it would make sense for them I suppose to still have a few heavily discounted slots to offer.


Posted

It was a good idea that didn't work for every course. Our pro hated it because of the fees and the hot deals, it simply didn't bring in enough people to justify the expense. It was never about the end user the perks were offered as bait to drive paying customers to the courses. At the time many had archaic booking systems, some were still using tee sheets. Our course has changed systems 3x in 3 years. GN missed an opportunity to expand.

Dave :-)

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I don't understand them taking away the rewards program from 3-4 years ago with the Cleveland/Srixon rewards.  Cleveland/Srixon has to benefit everytime someone goes to their website and buys new stuff. Even at 10 percent off or whatever the perks were. 


Posted

I haven't used GN in 3 years.  There is apparently just no course in Idaho that uses the service, but even before I stopped using it the great deals started getting much harder to find.  I'm a little surprised it's still going actually because, yeah, it looked like they were getting greedy with the fees and like courses were having a change of heart about the prices they were putting out there.


Posted

They actually called me about 3 weeks ago.    They said they had a free round for four and all I had to do was show up, play and review Golfnow and the course.   Sadly I had a prior tee time that I didn't want to relinquish.  

From the land of perpetual cloudiness.   I'm Denny

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I tried out golfnow for about 2 weeks. The hot deals are actually some pretty good deals, too bad the courses that are listed near me are not the best quality. I'd rather set up a tee time on a courses website for full price when I know they keep their course in good shape. $8 for 18 in Detroit has me curious though...

-Justin

My Swing

SLDR C 10.5, Aeroburner 3W/3H, MX-200 4-GW, Vokey Chrome 200 56 & 60, TM White Smoke

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I will only use them if it is such a hot deal I can't pass it up. The fees are too much.

Trollin' is the life


Posted

The tee time search procees is broken. There needs to be one site that will search all public tee times in the area.

Does anyone know the terms or processes for courses to share their tee times? Would courses share tee time info if they offered listing free?


Posted
5 hours ago, wheresmydriver said:

The tee time search procees is broken. There needs to be one site that will search all public tee times in the area.

Does anyone know the terms or processes for courses to share their tee times? Would courses share tee time info if they offered listing free?

This really isn't a "requirement" like you make it sound. Some clubs have their own website for their tee times. If this site was available, someone has to pay for it and it is not going to be done without profit. Most courses like control of the tee times in house. I am hoping to have member accessibility to setting tee times online at my course someday but I don't know if it will be feasible.

"My ball is on top of a rock in the hazard, do I get some sort of relief?"

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Even when I wasn't a member of a course I never really considered using GolfNow.  A couple times I used a Groupon for a nice local course that was good for the year.  No commitment for a specific date.

Sounds like GolfNow's business model needs to change...or die.

Fairways and Greens.

Dave
 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3122 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
    • Wordle 1,668 2/6* 🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.