Awesome Golf vs Garmin App

[Longdriver295]

I don't do a whole lot of simulator stuff, Most of mine is Range practice sessions with my outdoor setup into net. For those that have used both of these, which one is the more Accurate Software? I used the RCT balls today for first time on both And the actual spin was read much better Pro V1x RCT. The Garmin App seemed a little Short but hard to tell if it was more accurate than AG or not.  

[kiwihacker]

I have Awesome Golf and since buying it I never use the Garmin Golf App. I just find the Awesome Golf app far superior in all aspects, graphics, features, training modes, target practice, drills etc

 

In terms of accuracy I've heard that the Garmin Golf App has improved a lot, especially with the RCT balls and is now also pretty accurate but I just find the user experience and interface far superior with AG.  

 

There is a guy in Australia named David Maxfield who has done a lot of YouTube videos on this very topic. He is a massive proponent of Awesome Golf. See the links below. He has evolved from hitting into a net to an indoor screen but he is a big fan of AG. The 3rd link is a recent one he did proving that the Garmin app is now similarly accurate but he just loves using AG for his range practice. I've found his videos excellent so hope they help you too. 

 

 

 

 

[hammersia]

It will be in the R10 thread, but I did do a similar head to head with Awesome golf after the original David Maxfield video, both bench marked against TopTracer, because I was a bit surprised him claiming it was way more accurate (this was before the spin update in September). 

The figures Awesome generated were definitely different to Garmin, but statistically the accuracy levels were the same - e.g. if the R10 was reading 2% short of reality, Awesome might be reading 2% longer (just a made up example), etc. etc.

 

I can see that the user experience with Awesome, being able to have a big laptop screen, clicking through numbers and averages, is far better suited to a studio setup than the mobile Garmin app. 

[Longdriver295]

4 hours ago, hammersia said:

It will be in the R10 thread, but I did do a similar head to head with Awesome golf after the original David Maxfield video, both bench marked against TopTracer, because I was a bit surprised him claiming it was way more accurate (this was before the spin update in September). 

The figures Awesome generated were definitely different to Garmin, but statistically the accuracy levels were the same - e.g. if the R10 was reading 2% short of reality, Awesome might be reading 2% longer (just a made up example), etc. etc.

 

I can see that the user experience with Awesome, being able to have a big laptop screen, clicking through numbers and averages, is far better suited to a studio setup than the mobile Garmin app. 

I just like simplicity. My setup location is outside of wifi and having to hotspot my phone to a Laptop and all that is aggravating. So I just use my Android tablet. But I can run both garmin or AG. I'm just trying to decide if it's really worth that chunk of change for AG. I do think garmin is pretty dang close to AG especially now since I'm using the RCT balls with it. 

[Longdriver295]

10 hours ago, kiwihacker said:

I have Awesome Golf and since buying it I never use the Garmin Golf App. I just find the Awesome Golf app far superior in all aspects, graphics, features, training modes, target practice, drills etc

 

In terms of accuracy I've heard that the Garmin Golf App has improved a lot, especially with the RCT balls and is now also pretty accurate but I just find the user experience and interface far superior with AG.  

 

There is a guy in Australia named David Maxfield who has done a lot of YouTube videos on this very topic. He is a massive proponent of Awesome Golf. See the links below. He has evolved from hitting into a net to an indoor screen but he is a big fan of AG. The 3rd link is a recent one he did proving that the Garmin app is now similarly accurate but he just loves using AG for his range practice. I've found his videos excellent so hope they help you too. 

 

 

 

 

See that's another thing I've been debating to whether I would just be better off getting the Club sensors and just strictly using on course numbers. To me that would be the dead on numbers compared to a Launch monitor 

[hammersia]

42 minutes ago, Longdriver295 said:

See that's another thing I've been debating to whether I would just be better off getting the Club sensors and just strictly using on course numbers. To me that would be the dead on numbers compared to a Launch monitor 

Club sensors as in Arccos or Shot Scope etc.?

 

Lengthy threads on these, lots of people like them, for me I tried for a while but I just concluded that if you're regularly playing the same course you quickly get a lot of bias in the numbers, i.e. if there's a downhill par 3 that normally play downwind with an 8 iron you're going to get jacked 8 iron numbers.

[Longdriver295]

37 minutes ago, hammersia said:

Club sensors as in Arccos or Shot Scope etc.?

 

Lengthy threads on these, lots of people like them, for me I tried for a while but I just concluded that if you're regularly playing the same course you quickly get a lot of bias in the numbers, i.e. if there's a downhill par 3 that normally play downwind with an 8 iron you're going to get jacked 8 iron numbers.

Yes and I tried the arccos free Trial and within 2 weeks I told them to cancel it, I hated it!! I really like a LM though because I can go hit 20 decent shots with one club and know my avg Carry/total distance fir that club. Went out this morning though with driver, only thing I think was accurate about it was spin. Everything else seemed off to me. I hit driver 240-250 total on course and everyone I hit on the R10 was 210-215. Also the Launch angle was around 10° I'm pretty sure I hit my drives much higher than that! My spins was 2400-3000. 

[Bubbtubbs]

3 hours ago, Longdriver295 said:

Yes and I tried the arccos free Trial and within 2 weeks I told them to cancel it, I hated it!! I really like a LM though because I can go hit 20 decent shots with one club and know my avg Carry/total distance fir that club. Went out this morning though with driver, only thing I think was accurate about it was spin. Everything else seemed off to me. I hit driver 240-250 total on course and everyone I hit on the R10 was 210-215. Also the Launch angle was around 10° I'm pretty sure I hit my drives much higher than that! My spins was 2400-3000. 

Considering your swing speed with 8i is lower than my wedges, I'd think the low launch angle (whether perceived or real) is the root cause of 210y carry with driver. Generally, the lower the ball speed, the higher the launch angle needed to optimize carry. Tour driver average is just under 11° so you'll definitely need more than that.

 

Edit: check the Flightscope optimizer and input your data but play with the launch angle and see what you can get, keeping all other parameters the same. 

 

https://trajectory.flightscope.com/

Edited November 24, 2022 by Bubbtubbs

[North Butte]

20 hours ago, Longdriver295 said:

Yes and I tried the arccos free Trial and within 2 weeks I told them to cancel it, I hated it!! I really like a LM though because I can go hit 20 decent shots with one club and know my avg Carry/total distance fir that club. Went out this morning though with driver, only thing I think was accurate about it was spin. Everything else seemed off to me. I hit driver 240-250 total on course and everyone I hit on the R10 was 210-215. Also the Launch angle was around 10° I'm pretty sure I hit my drives much higher than that! My spins was 2400-3000. 

It's a classic measurement tradeoff. In a lot of (non-golf) scientific studies, you can get lots of high quality data in a laboratory or other controlled setting or you can get a smaller amount of possibly tricky to measure data in real-world settings. That's akin to you being able to hit 20 shots on a launch monitor versus hitting a few shots on-course and lasering the distance.

 

Somehow you need to get both and triangulate between them to gain the best insight. You could hit 20 or 200 shots in an artificial seting with the LM and you still won't know exactly how much of what you measure in an artifact of the context. But if you carefully gather whatever on-course information you can (for instance by lasering a target before and after each shot) and keeping records of the distances as well as any unusual conditions, then you can notice when the LM results seem "off" compared to what you've seen in the real world. 

 

A lot of the marketing of launch monitors tends to gloss over the fact that, unlike Dustin Johnson spending hundreds of hours dialing in his wedge game with Trackman, amateur golfers don't have an unlimited supply of brand new TP5X off and an unlimited supply of pristine turf to hit them from while monitoring the entire downrange flight. 

[Longdriver295]

2 hours ago, North Butte said:

It's a classic measurement tradeoff. In a lot of (non-golf) scientific studies, you can get lots of high quality data in a laboratory or other controlled setting or you can get a smaller amount of possibly tricky to measure data in real-world settings. That's akin to you being able to hit 20 shots on a launch monitor versus hitting a few shots on-course and lasering the distance.

 

Somehow you need to get both and triangulate between them to gain the best insight. You could hit 20 or 200 shots in an artificial seting with the LM and you still won't know exactly how much of what you measure in an artifact of the context. But if you carefully gather whatever on-course information you can (for instance by lasering a target before and after each shot) and keeping records of the distances as well as any unusual conditions, then you can notice when the LM results seem "off" compared to what you've seen in the real world. 

 

A lot of the marketing of launch monitors tends to gloss over the fact that, unlike Dustin Johnson spending hundreds of hours dialing in his wedge game with Trackman, amateur golfers don't have an unlimited supply of brand new TP5X off and an unlimited supply of pristine turf to hit them from while monitoring the entire downrange flight. 

And this makes good sense and why I'm about to the point of Selling my LM and just use my backyard net to work on my ball striking only. I've got blue Tees rangefinder with slope but I feel there's a better rangefinder out there than the blue tees, it's hard to get locked on a target with it.

[North Butte]

51 minutes ago, Longdriver295 said:

And this makes good sense and why I'm about to the point of Selling my LM and just use my backyard net to work on my ball striking only. I've got blue Tees rangefinder with slope but I feel there's a better rangefinder out there than the blue tees, it's hard to get locked on a target with it.

I guess it depends on whether what you get from selling the R10 is worth not having it at all. Even if you really pay attention just to ball speed and starting direction, when working on your ball striking that's still good feedback. But it's not a trivial amount of money, I know.

 

In my opinion, unless you have access to really elite-level resources the most trustworthy data is always what you see and measure (laser) on the golf course. For me the biggest limitation is I can't afford to pay too much attention to distances and such before it starts distracting me from playing. But I play enough golf I can "play" a lot and still have some separate rounds where I'm practicing and accumulating information. 

[Longdriver295]

17 minutes ago, North Butte said:

I guess it depends on whether what you get from selling the R10 is worth not having it at all. Even if you really pay attention just to ball speed and starting direction, when working on your ball striking that's still good feedback. But it's not a trivial amount of money, I know.

 

In my opinion, unless you have access to really elite-level resources the most trustworthy data is always what you see and measure (laser) on the golf course. For me the biggest limitation is I can't afford to pay too much attention to distances and such before it starts distracting me from playing. But I play enough golf I can "play" a lot and still have some separate rounds where I'm practicing and accumulating information. 

I play alot myself. And I have a 9 hole course near me that this time a year may have 10 cars in the parking lot so not real busy. I may see no one for 3 holes ahead or behind me. So I have days I could just go over just for practice or play whatever I choose to do. 

[hammersia]

2 hours ago, Longdriver295 said:

And this makes good sense and why I'm about to the point of Selling my LM and just use my backyard net to work on my ball striking only. I've got blue Tees rangefinder with slope but I feel there's a better rangefinder out there than the blue tees, it's hard to get locked on a target with it.

Still depends what you're trying to do - 

 

Personally I think the R10 is good enough to be help you with ball striking, and adds something to working in a net. The exception might be if you're trying to incorporate new moves / feelings where you know there's going to be a temporary decline in results because your motor patterns aren't there.

[CHM 12]

I’m thinking about buying an r10, if I buy one do I have to pay monthly subscriptions for the Garmin app, or can I just buy the awesome golf lifetime subscription and not have to pay any more subscriptions?

[Chazb]

One is free but $400 for a lifetime usage is out of my price range for now so I will stick to the garmin and the e6 combo for now.

If I had a more expensive setup then I would go the pay for app. 

 

[CHM 12]

Yeah my neighbor has the awesome golf lifetime membership and said he paid $350 for a one time fee, but still he said he has to pay $10 monthly regardless for the Garmin app to even play any of the apps. I didn’t think that was right. 

[CHM 12]

Also do all the apps display more clearly from iPad to TV screen compared to iPhone to tv when mirroring?

[isitour]

On 12/26/2022 at 11:35 AM, CHM 12 said:

Also do all the apps display more clearly from iPad to TV screen compared to iPhone to tv when mirroring?

 

I just started using an old TV with the apps via mirroring. Its a big upgrade from my phone. Very clear. I use an Apple TV for mirroring.