Jump to content

ChiefMikeOfficer

 
  • Posts

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChiefMikeOfficer

  1. Mike Wisconsin Callaway Epic, 10.5*, Accra TourZ X465, M5 flex Fit - Yes, sort of. The original driver "fitting" was trial and error, not convinced it was the right head (or shaft) due to limited options available; later fitting took the same head and found a shaft that worked better. There is still room for improvement.
  2. I'm a little late to this thread, but I've used both, so hopefully I can help. I used Arccos 360 for about a year, then switched over to Shot Scope v2 for the last couple months. They have had similar results, but there are definite pros/cons to each. It really comes down to personal preference -- right now, I prefer Shot Scope (mostly because of the tags), but I am considering giving Game Golf Pro a shot when it finally comes out in September (I switched to Shot Scope because of product delays with Game Golf, and there's no way I'm tapping before every shot like the old Game Golf requires). I'll separate them into a few categories that are important to me, giving a winner to each category: ***Important note: I made the switch without trying Arccos Caddie 2.0, so I don't what kind of improvements came with that. Tracking Hardware: Toss-up. Arccos 360 requires a phone or similar device in your pocket; Shot Scope requires you wear their bulky (and ugly) watch. I'm not a fan of the phone in the pocket, especially the larger ones (I currently have a Pixel XL); as far as the watch goes, I normally wear my Garmin Fenix while playing, so the Shot Scope feel is fine with me, but I'd prefer to wear my normal watch (activity tracking, etc.). I've heard that Arccos is going to get rid of the phone-in-pocket requirement in the near future, but don't know when or how that is happening. Tags: Shot Scope. This is the biggest deal for me. The Arccos tags are too big - they are noticeable as you grip the club (especially the putter tag, which is HUGE), and they add a counterweight to the club. Shot Scope's feel cheaper, but they are lower profile and lighter, so they don't get in the way as much as Arccos. If you want to track a different club, you need to reprogram your Arccos tag, while Shot Scope gives you a handful of extras. Battery: Toss-up. Arccos drains my phone, especially if I do anything else with it, so I need to make sure it has a good charge before the round. Shot Scope seems to last 5-6 hours on a full charge. Neither would make it through 36 holes. I've heard reports that the Shot Scope watch battery drains when not in use, but I haven't seen that as an issue. Software (General): Arccos. Both have a phone app providing sufficient functionality. Both have an online dashboard that shows more information than the app. The key difference is that Arccos can do almost everything in the phone app, while Shot Scope bounces between phone app, desktop app, and online dashboard to manage things. Ease of Use - Startup: Arccos. With Shot Scope, you need to prepare courses in advance, first selecting courses then transferring to the watch. The transfer process is easy if you use the desktop app and cord, but wireless transfers are slow. With Arccos, you need to download the course to your phone, but I've done this many times on the first tee with no issue. Similarly, Arccos uses your phone's GPS, so it picks up location very quickly, while the Shot Scope watch sometimes takes a couple tries or a few minutes to figure out where you are (the last time I used it, it missed the whole first hole). Ease of Use - Finishing the Round: Shot Scope. If you want accurate approach and short game stats with Arccos, you need to edit your round and place the hole location on each green (or do it from your phone mid-round), otherwise it just assumes center of the green. Shot Scope lets you do this on the course with the watch's PinCollect functionality, just pushing a button to mark the hole and the number of times you hit the putter. Accuracy: Toss-up. Other accuracy data: Both seem to miss a similar number of shots. Both have picked up on movement that is not a swing (e.g. knocking sand off of my shoes after a bunker shot tagged a swing outside of the bunker). Neither have done all that well adjusting to knockdowns, punch shots, etc. Shot Scope asks you how many putts you have on each hole, while Arccos requires that you set up to every putt to track them (even then it misses some short ones), or just add the tap-ins later. Statistics: Arccos (again, I have not used the new Arccos Caddie 2.0 features, so they may have even more to offer now). Most of the stats are comparable -- they both track actual distances and perform some analysis to give you true expected distances for the clubs; they both track proximity (as noted above, Shot Scope is more automated, Arccos is a bit of work); they both drill down into stats for specific clubs. Both have a good amount of statistics in the app, and both have better statistics on their web dashboard. The thing that gives Arccos the leg up is that they compare to other golfers (I assume) to assign handicaps, not just overall but also per category (and per round), which is useful information for game improvement (I haven't found similar Shot Scope functions). For example, it says I'm a 1.5 (actual index 2.8), but also shows that my approach shots are about scratch, while my sand skills are more in line with a 14. For round-by-round, in one round it says I hit approaches like a +4 but putted like a 30 handicap; in another, I drove it like a 13 but chipping and putting were close to scratch (both scores ending up roughly the same). It's not actionable data, just good to know.
  3. Mike Wisconsin, USA 2.8 Mizuno MP-25, Nippon NS Pro 950GH Stiff, 1 upright (looking to go with a heavier shaft in X flex this fall) i210
  4. Mike, Wisconsin TaylorMade M1 2017, Accra FX 2.0 300F, M5 flex 15° Previously used the Exotics E8 Beta with a Rogue Silver 70 X and loved it. Switched to the M1 last year and picked up ~10yds with the same shaft (the Accra dropped back 5yds with tighter dispersion). I'd love to see how the newer Exotics models compare.
  5. Mike Wisconsin / USA Mizuno MP-25, Nippon N.S. Pro 950GH, Stiff 175 yds
  6. Tier 1: Rickie Fowler Tier 2: Paul Casey Tier 3: Zach Johnson Tier 4: Matthew Fitzpatrick Tier 5: Steve Stricker Winning Score: -4
  7. First name: Mike Home State/Province/Country: Wisconsin ​Do you use performance tracking? Yes Do you use a GPS watch? Yes Which ones? Performance tracking: Arccos 360, but actively looking to replace it because the sensors are too big and I don't like having my phone in my pocket while playing. Watch: Garmin vivoactive. Used sparingly for golf.
  8. Mike, Wisconsin Driver: Callaway Epic 3 wood: TaylorMade M1 3 hybrid: TaylorMade R15 4-PW: Mizuno MP-25 52/56/60: Titleist Vokey SM5 Putter: Odyssey O-Works #7 Handicap: 2.4 Goals: 60% GIR, 5 rounds under par (2 tournament), Average less than one 3-putt per 18 holes
×
×
  • Create New...