Shot scope case study

[romeopapazulu]

I really enjoy the data analysis of all the information collected from these new shot tracking systems. But as several people have commented on the latest shot scope case study, something seems a bit off.

 

Driver distance indicates a 103ish swing speed.

8 iron distance indicates an 80ish swing speed.

A scratch golfer hasn't noticed his 9 iron goes a full club longer than his 8 iron?

 

Maybe this is just a theoretical case study. But if so, call it that. Or give an example that is a bit more realistic. It kind of feels like one of those as seen on tv ads where the make some task look so frustrating that you just have to buy their gadget.

[GB13]

I agree. I am only a 9 handicap but know my distances to the nearest 5 yards or so. I am not sure how a scratch golfer couldn't notice a 20-30 yard gapping problem. I also am not sure how a scratch golfer who is below average in approach, chipping, and putting is really scratch? This seems strange. Is it all made up off the tee?

[null]

It doesn't seem right to me either. My guess would be is shot scope doesn't take into account partial shots or chips and it is is throwing all of the his yardages out of whack

[dhartmann34]

I love the Shotscope. It's been great and the distances are pretty spot on. It measures actual distances and then it has the P-Distance, which is essentially what it would expect that club to go on a normal shot... essentially throwing out all the bad, partial, punch shots.

 

Those distances will also matter because weather comes into play. Wind, temps, dew, rain, soft and rock hard ground, flier lie, ball in a trap, etc . It tracks it quite well, but the user has to take into account that it won't be perfect.... especially until you get 15-20 rounds in for a sample size. But look how far it's come from the first one... And it's head and shoulders above the other options out there on the market.

 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[JTexGolfer]

Agree with everyone above. This seems like too low hanging of a fruit for an ex professional player to have missed. I will say that if you play in windy conditions you can pretty much disregard the distances it shows you hitting your irons because it can't factor that in and you won't have a true “stock” shot reading. Also whatever clubs you hit a lot of partial shots with will be skewed as well. These were two of the main reasons I traded mine, that and the fact I didn't like wearing the watch.

 

They do provide a ton of great short game information however. If I played somewhere with clearer prevailing weather I would be tempted to get another one.

[dhartmann34]

I think the P-Distance accounts pretty well for non normal shots. And honestly, with any tracker, one still must know their own game. It's given me great stats that I'm learning from and giving me belief in the distances I have been seeing and getting used to with my new bag setup.

 

I think the average distances that they pulled are probably correct, but include all the punches, mishits, and such. They should have shown the P-Distance as I have mentioned. And 34 putts for a scratch golfer seems insane.... especially if he's only hitting 49%. I can't figure out how he would stay at a scratch level that way.

 

Also, if he only hits it about 270 (good, but on a 6800+ yard course, he's going to have a lot of 5, 6 and 7 irons in to par 3's and 4's... I'd guess, which on average is below 50% accuracy according to the numbers..

 

I just don't understand how he remains a 0 handicap with those stats, distances and seemingly lack of knowledge of his own game. I know why my scores and stats are what they are... At least I believe I do.

 

I'd be willing to be the next Case Study..... And give all my comments and concerns on the process. I love numbers.

 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk