Jump to content
MaxEntropy

Arccos versus Shotscope V2

Recommended Posts

@MaxEntropy great comparison review!  I have played a little less than half as much golf as I anticipated over the past 3 months.  Consequently I am a little behind on getting a review done for this.  But I'll chime in soon!  I share some of the issues you mentioned.  The worse is pin placement and having a phone in my pocket for Arccos, but the handicaps for different parts of the game are awesome.   I don't want to spoil my thoughts so I'll leave it at that for now. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Can you post some screen shots of the putting dashboard. This is one I was wondered about. I had Arccos eventually sold all the sensors because I was tired of having to edit pin location and I didnt like the watch integration with the shot detection they released. I saw the Golfcitiy guys using Shotscope and it always intrigued me. 

 

Another thing I didnt like Arccos was some of my yardages were way off with the 'Smart Distance' from punch shots and things like that. I could see a lot of the disatnces and a lot of the shots that were thrown out were the proper distances. I wish there was a manual option you could do and go back over and edit the shots if one was a punch shot, or one out of bushes, etc. 

Edited by patrickleeleep
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, patrickleeleep said:

Can you post some screen shots of the putting dashboard. This is one I was wondered about. I had Arccos eventually sold all the sensors because I was tired of having to edit pin location and I didnt like the watch integration with the shot detection they released. I saw the Golfcitiy guys using Shotscope and it always intrigued me. 

 

Another thing I didnt like Arccos was some of my yardages were way off with the 'Smart Distance' from punch shots and things like that. I could see a lot of the disatnces and a lot of the shots that were thrown out were the proper distances. I wish there was a manual option you could do and go back over and edit the shots if one was a punch shot, or one out of bushes, etc. 

I'll post some screen shots tomorrow. Unfortunately, the phone app doesn't display the same details for Shotscope compared to a PC. I agree with the smart distances, but didn't think of it as I was writing. The P-ave in Shotscope takes out outliers (good and bad) and you can mark shots as "recovery" when you punch out and they seem to be ignored. Is Arccos smart enough to remove those? I don't think so, because I have used my 3h for a couple punch shots to stay under branches. I think I've really only hit a couple and they were farther than the distance in the in the image above, so the average is being drug down, it appears.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MaxEntropy said:

I'll post some screen shots tomorrow. Unfortunately, the phone app doesn't display the same details for Shotscope compared to a PC. I agree with the smart distances, but didn't think of it as I was writing. The P-ave in Shotscope takes out outliers (good and bad) and you can mark shots as "recovery" when you punch out and they seem to be ignored. Is Arccos smart enough to remove those? I don't think so, because I have used my 3h for a couple punch shots to stay under branches. I think I've really only hit a couple and they were farther than the distance in the in the image above, so the average is being drug down, it appears.

I never really experienced Arccos being smart enough to detect which is why I always wanted a "recovery" option. I didnt know shotscope had that which is great. 

I would love to do shotscope but I use my apple watch and wouldnt want to trade off for the shotscope for golf purposes. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back in January, I was very torn on which of these two systems to purchase. The reviews on both here were great and I spent way too much time reading them. Ultimately, the sale Shotscope had at just the right time made the decision for me and I played most of the year using the Shotscope. As part of the #cobraconnectchallenge, I won an Arccos system and have been using it since the last week of August and now have 3 18 hole rounds and 6 9 hole rounds compared to 4 18 hole rounds and 17 9 hole rounds with the Shotscope.
My intention here is to describe each system, present what I like and dislike about each (in no particular order), and leave it to potential buyers to decide which might be best for them. Both systems claim to help golfers improve by identifying areas for improvement on their game.
I know there are others who have used both systems ([mention=74192]Nunfa0[/mention] and [mention=70071]JohnSmalls[/mention]), so I would invite them to add their input. Obviously, anyone else can provide input on either system if they have something to add.
Arccos: The sensors for this system are activated by light, so the act of pulling a club and addressing a ball turns it on (they recommend carrying clubs grip down if you have to walk a fair amount with a club out of your bag to avoid potential false positives). As I understand it, shots are detected by sound, which is the reason you are required to have your phone in your leading front pocket (left front pocket for right-handers). There have been a couple occasions where the system has missed a shot which may be due to light being too low to turn on the sensor – it’s not a huge deal and is noticed quickly since you likely have your phone out for the next shot.
Likes:
  1. Data presentation on their dashboard – in particular, I really like the breakdown of handicap by individual facet of the game (driving, approach, chipping, sand, and putting). It provides a quick snapshot of how you are trending in each and helps identify which area(s) you need to work on.
  2. Using a phone as the GPS interface – this makes getting yardages to things like doglegs, a specific tree, or whatever much easier, which is not possible with the Shotscope.
  3. Accounting for slope and “wind” – I really like the “plays like” feature with Arccos. Since I use an old phone as a GPS only, the weather does not update so I have no idea how well the system accounts for the wind.
  4. This is a little nit-picky, but the sensors look better to my eye, even though they are substantially larger than the Shotscope sensors.
Dislikes:
  1. Pin location – Arccos claims to be using AI to help determine the pin location on each hole. In my experience, it is terrible. I have not seen any hole where it was close enough that I did not feel compelled to fix it. Perhaps I walk around the green too much? As a result of the uncertainty in the pin location, presumably Arccos does not feel comfortable providing as detailed putting stats as Shotscope? Just guessing, though.
  2. Phone in front pocket – I have gotten used to having my phone in my pocket, but that does not mean I am a fan of it. The Link will get here eventually and render this issue obsolete.
  3. Phone battery life – for whatever reason, this system chews through the battery on my phone at a ridiculous rate (Samsung Galaxy S9+). Recently, I pulled out my old phone (Huawei Honor 6X) and have been using it without a SIM card. Its battery life has always been very, very good and I usually still have 70-ish% battery left after playing 18. The GPS on the old phone takes a little longer to settle down than my Samsung, but at least I know I could play 36 in a day without an external charger.
  4. Zoom level for hole editing – Shotscope has much better detail when zooming as tight as possible, making it easier to place a shot location more accurately.
FirstGreenArccos.png.fbe6ac983f99e9779919050609f7f617.png
Arccos view of first green
FirstGreenShotscope.png.3bf7db549dd151f69ee51d22d10731db.png
Shotscope view of same green
Shotscope V2: The sensors for this system are activated by practice swings (inertial sensor?), which is why Shotscope recommends 2 practice swings along the direction of the shot near the ball. The sensors communicate with the watch you need to wear to tag the location of your shot. I would guess they use some sort of inertial sensor/gyroscope, and I assume the impact with the ball provides enough “shock” up the shaft that the sensor can differentiate the real swing from practice swings. I am not 100% sure on this, just making my best guess. If anyone knows for sure, I welcome the feedback.
Likes:
  1. Putting stats – Shotscope putting stats are far superior to Arccos, in my view. The ability to see make percentage as a function of first putt distance is great, but you are required to make sure putt locations are accurate for the data to have any meaning!
  2. Tagging pin location – in my mind, it is not a big deal to hit a button on the watch to mark the hole location. I have found that if you are too quick to hit the button you can end up with some erroneous results so I started hovering at the hole location just a couple seconds and the accuracy was greatly improved. I also find it easier to get putts placed properly when the pin is in its correct location.
  3. Editing shots – as mentioned above, the level of detail at high zoom levels is much better for Shotscope, making editing easier, in my opinion. Editing on a computer is easier than on the phone and I believe the interface for editing is better for Shotscope than Arccos. I prefer editing with Shotscope on a computer and Arccos on my phone.
  4. Extra tags – I really like the fact that Shotscope sends 4 extra tags. It makes it much easier to test different clubs and compare the data. As I understand it, for Arccos you need to create a new club, but it seems you have to call it something that is not already in your bag to get the data to be separate (i.e. calling a different 7 iron a 7 wood, or something). Is this true? If not, let me know how as I periodically swap out a few clubs when I feel like it.
Dislikes:
  1. Dashboard interface – I think the Shotscope dashboard has the biggest room for improvement. Presenting similar to the Arccos breakdown would be great.
  2. Big-a$$ watch – like the phone in the pocket, I got to the point where it didn’t bother me, but my preference is to have nothing on my wrist. Also, the cuff of a glove will occasionally advance the hole unintentionally. This only happened to me a few times as I had read warnings about it, so I wore the watch further up my wrist.
  3. Battery life of the watch – the battery does not last long, at all. I seriously doubt one could play 36 in a day without a recharge. Even if you tried to charge between rounds, the charging is very slow, so it may not do you any good.
Summary
Both systems claim to help you improve by identifying areas for improvement. With one exception, neither systems has told me anything I did not already know – I suck off the tee. Both confirmed my short game is pretty stout for my handicap and putting is a relative strength. The one surprise came from Arccos, thanks to it breaking down facets of our game. I have always considered irons a relative strength of my game, but Arccos disagrees with me so far. I believe I have always felt that way because I tend to hit irons solid much of the time, but apparently a solid strike in the wrong direction doesn't really help you score . My left/right misses are higher than they should be and GIR is lower than it should be. Arccos shows my left/right misses as identical at 13.3% and the distribution in Shotscope looks pretty balanced left-to-right. I would suggest this is because my usual “miss” is a fade/slice so I always aim to the left of my target. Sometimes I hit the ball dead straight, resulting in a left miss, others with too much fade, missing to the right. 
In terms of gapping, they are fairly close considering the number of shots I have with Arccos so far, although I started playing with Arccos in August, so I was getting actual roll from from tee shots instead of stopping where it landed. I find the Shotscope data interesting with 5, 6, and 7 irons, but that is pretty easy to explain. The vast majority of my golf is played at one course, with all 5 par3’s having similar yardages and can range from a 5 to an 8 depending on tee placement, pin placement, and weather. In little to no wind, I would normally use the following clubs (prevailing wind direction also indicated):
#3 – 8 iron (cross wind)
#5 – 8 iron (downwind)
#9 – 7 iron (downwind)
#12 – 6 iron (cross/downwind)
#17 – 7 iron (into the wind)
Also, on this course the par 4’s/5’s rarely call for those clubs to be used so I would suggest the data is a little skewed by when/how I have to use clubs depending on the wind. For example, in little/no wind, #17 is a 7. In light wind it becomes a 6 and when the wind kicks up, it has become a 5, so all three clubs show up as the same distance.
ArccosGapping.png.62307d7184675b568509d3603b850519.png
ShotscopeGapping.png.b0ea0250f39791bfac5b0968ce1765ad.png
In my opinion, both of these systems are good and I would be hard pressed to say one is better than the other – they each have their flaws, we just have to decide which flaws are more tolerable to the individual. More than anything, I have a lot more confidence in what I should hit in a given situation because I have a much better grasp on my distances in “real life” situations rather than making educated guesses.
Have either of these systems really identified areas for improvement? Yes, but for the most part I already knew the answer. I’m assuming most avid golfers know their issues, as well. Is it possible I am missing some level of detail (like what you periodically see in the blog)? Maybe, but I’ll worry about it once I get some lessons and figure out why I can’t hit a driver.
Neither of these systems are all that hands off, and both require editing to get the most accurate data. Maybe someday one of these will get to the point of being completely hands off, but buyers need to understand what they are getting into, in my opinion, and not just assume they have to do no editing to get the most out of the data.
So, which one will I be keeping? Arccos. I do not feel the Arccos is that much better than Shotscope, but ultimately, I like having the GPS interface on a phone so I can see and check yardages to features that are not in Shotscope. I also like the game breakdown they use, I just wish the putting stats were better/more informative. I’m committed now, because I gave the Shotscope to a friend after having the Arccos a couple weeks.
Thanks for reading and I welcome any input you may have!

GPS wise, I have Golfshot, or GolfLogix open when I play so I have yardages, views, etc. Still no phone in the pocket either!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never really experienced Arccos being smart enough to detect which is why I always wanted a "recovery" option. I didnt know shotscope had that which is great. 
I would love to do shotscope but I use my apple watch and wouldnt want to trade off for the shotscope for golf purposes. 


I’m with you Patrick, I hav3 an iWatch Series 3 bu5 have had multiple issues with Arccos since I got the watch. The system freezes up or quits after 12 or 13 holes......have spoken at length with Arccos Customer Service about this, tried several remedies, but alas, no resolution. Guess I’ll be laying Arccos aside and going back to my Garmin.


Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy
Cobra F8(10.5*) w/Mitsubishi Tensei CK Blue Regular; 3-4W(14.5*) & 5-6W(17.0*)w/Mitsubishi Tensei CK Blue Regular; Tour Edge CBX119 22* Hybrid; Ben Hogan PTx 5-PW w/Recoil 460 graphite shafts; Ben Hogan TKt Gw(49*) SW(53*) LW(57*) all w/UST Mamiya Recoil 460 ES regular shafts. Lamkin grips with Arccoss tracking sensors. Putter: Tommy Armour Impact #3 33”. Bag: Cobra Ultralite Cart Bag(Peacoat/Silver).
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love my ShotScope but do have a few issues. I find it's not 100% accurate in recording my shots. It'll miss a shot on one hole and add a shot on another, but the score at the end of the round will be accurate. Also, as @MaxEntropy mentioned, the battery life of the watch is poor at best. There's absolutely no way you could play 36 on one charge and that's something ShotScope will HAVE to address. I've never used Arccos but the phone in the pocket is no bueno for me as I've gotten used to not having it there since I stopped using GolfPad.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thing I should add about both companies - in the interactions I have had with each, primarily related to errors with mapping, both have been very quick to respond/fix issues I have had with courses, so I would rate both "excellent" for that.

The course we play our league on was reconfigured a couple years ago - the 5th used to be a hokey par 5 that was an iron off the tee to a 90 dogleg leaving 200+ up a hill to the green, with the 6th a long par 4. They placed a new green in the landing area of the par 5 and converted it to a par3 and added new tee boxes and made the 6th into a par 5. It is a much better layout that way, imo, but almost no tracking system has it right yet, although Arccos had it the closest. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, patrickleeleep said:

Can you post some screen shots of the putting dashboard. This is one I was wondered about. I had Arccos eventually sold all the sensors because I was tired of having to edit pin location and I didnt like the watch integration with the shot detection they released. I saw the Golfcitiy guys using Shotscope and it always intrigued me. 

 

Another thing I didnt like Arccos was some of my yardages were way off with the 'Smart Distance' from punch shots and things like that. I could see a lot of the disatnces and a lot of the shots that were thrown out were the proper distances. I wish there was a manual option you could do and go back over and edit the shots if one was a punch shot, or one out of bushes, etc. 

Here are some images from the putting stats section of the Shotscope dashboard....

ShotscopeMakePercent.png.cbae74fc79fea73b2316307e87a627e4.png

ShotscopeProx.png.9496e313770ee88540233e220e047470.png

ShotscopeStas.png.d258bdfee530a4f19447694cb704c5e3.png

Being able to identify a different putter made the comparison a lot easier for the Stroke Lab test I was a part of this year. The black points are my old Ping putter, the yellow the Stroke Lab, and the grey is an overall average. If you read that review, I started the year on a ridiculous hot streak and was making tons of mid range putts, but the important conclusion I made was the Stroke Lab tech (face and/or shaft) certainly helped with my proximity after first putt from long range (by 1.5 feet), which I think is a big deal. I can also isolate each putter and see that my 3-putt avoidance was better with the stroke lab. I honestly don't know how easy it would be to reproduce this data with Arccos, or if it is even possible.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MaxEntropy .. Great review / comparison; really helpful info!

 

I had a ShotScope earlier this season, and here's a few FYIs I discovered while using it.....

1. Battery - after it's fully charged (at home) turn it OFF. Then don't turn it On until literally a few minutes before you start playing.

In other words, don't use it as a "watch".

2. Distances to doglegs, intermediate hazards,etc. - this is supposedly in their development queue and so will be coming out in a future software update.

3. Positional shots - if you remember to mark a punch-out, etc. as "Positional" then it will not be included in the distance metrics for that club.

*Important! - (super important imho) - ShotScope considers EVERYTHING after the tee shot as an Approach shot!

So... If you're on a Par 5, or long Par 4, or botched your tee shot, or whatever .. and going to hit a layup next then you should mark it as "Positional".

Then that shot won't be included in your "Approaches from .." nor "Shots to Finish from.." metrics. Note  you can also fix this in post-round editing.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this great review. 

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't understand the whole "no manual tagging" mantra. I love my GAME Golf Live precisely for the manual tagging requirement. It integrates well with any pre-shot routine, and if you miss a tag the sensor is often smart enough to pick that a shot occurred anyway. I almost never miss a tag and instead double tag, which is easy to catch and correct post-round.

If I have to go around worrying about exposing the grip end to light too soon, or need to take two specific practice swings to trigger the sensor, isn't that worse than just tapping a tag and making sure the belt clip vibrates? I really fail to see how these newer "touchless" tracking systems are any better (GAME Golf Pro, I'm looking at you...).

Of course, GAME's downfall is (in my opinion) less than stellar support and no real vision for the future. The product seems to be stagnant, GAME Golf Pro is a flop, and I question how much longer they'll be around. I've been looking at the Shotscope as a replacement as a result. But I'm not wild on needing to make sure my practice swings are just so.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, edingc said:

If I have to go around worrying about exposing the grip end to light too soon, or need to take two specific practice swings to trigger the sensor, isn't that worse than just tapping a tag and making sure the belt clip vibrates?

I understand your point, but I was a Golf Pad user for most of last year and I found tagging shots to be more of a disruption to my routine than Shotscope (almost no change in the routine I was already doing). The light activation in Arccos is something I never really think about, it doesn't seem to require that much light and I haven't seen a false positive from carrying a club normally (just repeating manufacturer warning). I did have one particular occasion where Arccos didn't detect a shot that I believe may have been light related. It was getting to be twilight and I was also under a tree, making the light even worse, so I was just guessing the light level may have been too low to activate, but it was also a fairly soft pitch, so maybe it was also too quiet? I'm not really sure if it was one or both effects that caused the missed shot, but I suspect it was light-related because the system has picked up a bunch of similar pitches in full light.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, edingc said:

I've been looking at the Shotscope as a replacement as a result. But I'm not wild on needing to make sure my practice swings are just so.

You can just wave the butt of the club around. The practice swings are really to "wake" the sensors up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MattF said:

You can just wave the butt of the club around. The practice swings are really to "wake" the sensors up.

 

19 minutes ago, MaxEntropy said:

I understand your point, but I was a Golf Pad user for most of last year and I found tagging shots to be more of a disruption to my routine than Shotscope (almost no change in the routine I was already doing). The light activation in Arccos is something I never really think about, it doesn't seem to require that much light and I haven't seen a false positive from carrying a club normally (just repeating manufacturer warning). I did have one particular occasion where Arccos didn't detect a shot that I believe may have been light related. It was getting to be twilight and I was also under a tree, making the light even worse, so I was just guessing the light level may have been too low to activate, but it was also a fairly soft pitch, so maybe it was also too quiet? I'm not really sure if it was one or both effects that caused the missed shot, but I suspect it was light-related because the system has picked up a bunch of similar pitches in full light.

Thanks, guys, for the clarification. I'm still definitely interested in the ShotScope, but I might ride out GG a little while longer.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, MaxEntropy said:

Back in January, I was very torn on which of these two systems to purchase. The reviews on both here were great and I spent way too much time reading them. Ultimately, the sale Shotscope had at just the right time made the decision for me and I played most of the year using the Shotscope. As part of the #cobraconnectchallenge, I won an Arccos system and have been using it since the last week of August and now have 3 18 hole rounds and 6 9 hole rounds compared to 4 18 hole rounds and 17 9 hole rounds with the Shotscope.

My intention here is to describe each system, present what I like and dislike about each (in no particular order), and leave it to potential buyers to decide which might be best for them. Both systems claim to help golfers improve by identifying areas for improvement on their game.

I know there are others who have used both systems (@Nunfa0 and @JohnSmalls), so I would invite them to add their input. Obviously, anyone else can provide input on either system if they have something to add.

Arccos: The sensors for this system are activated by light, so the act of pulling a club and addressing a ball turns it on (they recommend carrying clubs grip down if you have to walk a fair amount with a club out of your bag to avoid potential false positives). As I understand it, shots are detected by sound, which is the reason you are required to have your phone in your leading front pocket (left front pocket for right-handers). There have been a couple occasions where the system has missed a shot which may be due to light being too low to turn on the sensor – it’s not a huge deal and is noticed quickly since you likely have your phone out for the next shot.

Likes:

  1. Data presentation on their dashboard – in particular, I really like the breakdown of handicap by individual facet of the game (driving, approach, chipping, sand, and putting). It provides a quick snapshot of how you are trending in each and helps identify which area(s) you need to work on.
  2. Using a phone as the GPS interface – this makes getting yardages to things like doglegs, a specific tree, or whatever much easier, which is not possible with the Shotscope.
  3. Accounting for slope and “wind” – I really like the “plays like” feature with Arccos. Since I use an old phone as a GPS only, the weather does not update so I have no idea how well the system accounts for the wind.
  4. This is a little nit-picky, but the sensors look better to my eye, even though they are substantially larger than the Shotscope sensors.

Dislikes:

  1. Pin location – Arccos claims to be using AI to help determine the pin location on each hole. In my experience, it is terrible. I have not seen any hole where it was close enough that I did not feel compelled to fix it. Perhaps I walk around the green too much? As a result of the uncertainty in the pin location, presumably Arccos does not feel comfortable providing as detailed putting stats as Shotscope? Just guessing, though.
  2. Phone in front pocket – I have gotten used to having my phone in my pocket, but that does not mean I am a fan of it. The Link will get here eventually and render this issue obsolete.
  3. Phone battery life – for whatever reason, this system chews through the battery on my phone at a ridiculous rate (Samsung Galaxy S9+). Recently, I pulled out my old phone (Huawei Honor 6X) and have been using it without a SIM card. Its battery life has always been very, very good and I usually still have 70-ish% battery left after playing 18. The GPS on the old phone takes a little longer to settle down than my Samsung, but at least I know I could play 36 in a day without an external charger.
  4. Zoom level for hole editing – Shotscope has much better detail when zooming as tight as possible, making it easier to place a shot location more accurately.

FirstGreenArccos.png.fbe6ac983f99e9779919050609f7f617.png

Arccos view of first green

FirstGreenShotscope.png.3bf7db549dd151f69ee51d22d10731db.png

Shotscope view of same green

Shotscope V2: The sensors for this system are activated by practice swings (inertial sensor?), which is why Shotscope recommends 2 practice swings along the direction of the shot near the ball. The sensors communicate with the watch you need to wear to tag the location of your shot. I would guess they use some sort of inertial sensor/gyroscope, and I assume the impact with the ball provides enough “shock” up the shaft that the sensor can differentiate the real swing from practice swings. I am not 100% sure on this, just making my best guess. If anyone knows for sure, I welcome the feedback.

Likes:

  1. Putting stats – Shotscope putting stats are far superior to Arccos, in my view. The ability to see make percentage as a function of first putt distance is great, but you are required to make sure putt locations are accurate for the data to have any meaning!
  2. Tagging pin location – in my mind, it is not a big deal to hit a button on the watch to mark the hole location. I have found that if you are too quick to hit the button you can end up with some erroneous results so I started hovering at the hole location just a couple seconds and the accuracy was greatly improved. I also find it easier to get putts placed properly when the pin is in its correct location.
  3. Editing shots – as mentioned above, the level of detail at high zoom levels is much better for Shotscope, making editing easier, in my opinion. Editing on a computer is easier than on the phone and I believe the interface for editing is better for Shotscope than Arccos. I prefer editing with Shotscope on a computer and Arccos on my phone.
  4. Extra tags – I really like the fact that Shotscope sends 4 extra tags. It makes it much easier to test different clubs and compare the data. As I understand it, for Arccos you need to create a new club, but it seems you have to call it something that is not already in your bag to get the data to be separate (i.e. calling a different 7 iron a 7 wood, or something). Is this true? If not, let me know how as I periodically swap out a few clubs when I feel like it.

Dislikes:

  1. Dashboard interface – I think the Shotscope dashboard has the biggest room for improvement. Presenting similar to the Arccos breakdown would be great.
  2. Big-a$$ watch – like the phone in the pocket, I got to the point where it didn’t bother me, but my preference is to have nothing on my wrist. Also, the cuff of a glove will occasionally advance the hole unintentionally. This only happened to me a few times as I had read warnings about it, so I wore the watch further up my wrist.
  3. Battery life of the watch – the battery does not last long, at all. I seriously doubt one could play 36 in a day without a recharge. Even if you tried to charge between rounds, the charging is very slow, so it may not do you any good.

Summary

Both systems claim to help you improve by identifying areas for improvement. With one exception, neither systems has told me anything I did not already know – I suck off the tee. Both confirmed my short game is pretty stout for my handicap and putting is a relative strength. The one surprise came from Arccos, thanks to it breaking down facets of our game. I have always considered irons a relative strength of my game, but Arccos disagrees with me so far. I believe I have always felt that way because I tend to hit irons solid much of the time, but apparently a solid strike in the wrong direction doesn't really help you score 😉. My left/right misses are higher than they should be and GIR is lower than it should be. Arccos shows my left/right misses as identical at 13.3% and the distribution in Shotscope looks pretty balanced left-to-right. I would suggest this is because my usual “miss” is a fade/slice so I always aim to the left of my target. Sometimes I hit the ball dead straight, resulting in a left miss, others with too much fade, missing to the right. 

In terms of gapping, they are fairly close considering the number of shots I have with Arccos so far, although I started playing with Arccos in August, so I was getting actual roll from from tee shots instead of stopping where it landed. I find the Shotscope data interesting with 5, 6, and 7 irons, but that is pretty easy to explain. The vast majority of my golf is played at one course, with all 5 par3’s having similar yardages and can range from a 5 to an 8 depending on tee placement, pin placement, and weather. In little to no wind, I would normally use the following clubs (prevailing wind direction also indicated):

#3 – 8 iron (cross wind)

#5 – 8 iron (downwind)

#9 – 7 iron (downwind)

#12 – 6 iron (cross/downwind)

#17 – 7 iron (into the wind)

Also, on this course the par 4’s/5’s rarely call for those clubs to be used so I would suggest the data is a little skewed by when/how I have to use clubs depending on the wind. For example, in little/no wind, #17 is a 7. In light wind it becomes a 6 and when the wind kicks up, it has become a 5, so all three clubs show up as the same distance.

ArccosGapping.png.62307d7184675b568509d3603b850519.png

ShotscopeGapping.png.b0ea0250f39791bfac5b0968ce1765ad.png

In my opinion, both of these systems are good and I would be hard pressed to say one is better than the other – they each have their flaws, we just have to decide which flaws are more tolerable to the individual. More than anything, I have a lot more confidence in what I should hit in a given situation because I have a much better grasp on my distances in “real life” situations rather than making educated guesses.

Have either of these systems really identified areas for improvement? Yes, but for the most part I already knew the answer. I’m assuming most avid golfers know their issues, as well. Is it possible I am missing some level of detail (like what you periodically see in the blog)? Maybe, but I’ll worry about it once I get some lessons and figure out why I can’t hit a driver.

Neither of these systems are all that hands off, and both require editing to get the most accurate data. Maybe someday one of these will get to the point of being completely hands off, but buyers need to understand what they are getting into, in my opinion, and not just assume they have to do no editing to get the most out of the data.

So, which one will I be keeping? Arccos. I do not feel the Arccos is that much better than Shotscope, but ultimately, I like having the GPS interface on a phone so I can see and check yardages to features that are not in Shotscope. I also like the game breakdown they use, I just wish the putting stats were better/more informative. I’m committed now, because I gave the Shotscope to a friend after having the Arccos a couple weeks.

Thanks for reading and I welcome any input you may have!

This is a great review. I have used Game Golf in the past and actually stoped using it this year to focus more on the feel and not tracking my shots. 

Did you look at Game Golf at all? 

Thanks 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, the_hammer said:

Did you look at Game Golf at all? 

I did not. Part of my reason was I did not know much about it and since MGS had a bunch of official and unofficial reviews for both Shotscope and Arccos, I narrowed it down to those two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cksurfdude said:

Important! - (super important imho) - ShotScope considers EVERYTHING after the tee shot as an Approach shot!

So... If you're on a Par 5, or long Par 4, or botched your tee shot, or whatever .. and going to hit a layup next then you should mark it as "Positional"

This is a great observation, that I had never considered, thanks for adding that info! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2019 at 8:40 AM, MaxEntropy said:

Back in January, I was very torn on which of these two systems to purchase. The reviews on both here were great and I spent way too much time reading them. Ultimately, the sale Shotscope had at just the right time made the decision for me and I played most of the year using the Shotscope. As part of the #cobraconnectchallenge, I won an Arccos system and have been using it since the last week of August and now have 3 18 hole rounds and 6 9 hole rounds compared to 4 18 hole rounds and 17 9 hole rounds with the Shotscope.

My intention here is to describe each system, present what I like and dislike about each (in no particular order), and leave it to potential buyers to decide which might be best for them. Both systems claim to help golfers improve by identifying areas for improvement on their game.

I know there are others who have used both systems (@Nunfa0 and @JohnSmalls), so I would invite them to add their input. Obviously, anyone else can provide input on either system if they have something to add.

Arccos: The sensors for this system are activated by light, so the act of pulling a club and addressing a ball turns it on (they recommend carrying clubs grip down if you have to walk a fair amount with a club out of your bag to avoid potential false positives). As I understand it, shots are detected by sound, which is the reason you are required to have your phone in your leading front pocket (left front pocket for right-handers). There have been a couple occasions where the system has missed a shot which may be due to light being too low to turn on the sensor – it’s not a huge deal and is noticed quickly since you likely have your phone out for the next shot.

Likes:

  1. Data presentation on their dashboard – in particular, I really like the breakdown of handicap by individual facet of the game (driving, approach, chipping, sand, and putting). It provides a quick snapshot of how you are trending in each and helps identify which area(s) you need to work on.
  2. Using a phone as the GPS interface – this makes getting yardages to things like doglegs, a specific tree, or whatever much easier, which is not possible with the Shotscope.
  3. Accounting for slope and “wind” – I really like the “plays like” feature with Arccos. Since I use an old phone as a GPS only, the weather does not update so I have no idea how well the system accounts for the wind.
  4. This is a little nit-picky, but the sensors look better to my eye, even though they are substantially larger than the Shotscope sensors.

Dislikes:

  1. Pin location – Arccos claims to be using AI to help determine the pin location on each hole. In my experience, it is terrible. I have not seen any hole where it was close enough that I did not feel compelled to fix it. Perhaps I walk around the green too much? As a result of the uncertainty in the pin location, presumably Arccos does not feel comfortable providing as detailed putting stats as Shotscope? Just guessing, though.
  2. Phone in front pocket – I have gotten used to having my phone in my pocket, but that does not mean I am a fan of it. The Link will get here eventually and render this issue obsolete.
  3. Phone battery life – for whatever reason, this system chews through the battery on my phone at a ridiculous rate (Samsung Galaxy S9+). Recently, I pulled out my old phone (Huawei Honor 6X) and have been using it without a SIM card. Its battery life has always been very, very good and I usually still have 70-ish% battery left after playing 18. The GPS on the old phone takes a little longer to settle down than my Samsung, but at least I know I could play 36 in a day without an external charger.
  4. Zoom level for hole editing – Shotscope has much better detail when zooming as tight as possible, making it easier to place a shot location more accurately.

FirstGreenArccos.png.fbe6ac983f99e9779919050609f7f617.png

Arccos view of first green

FirstGreenShotscope.png.3bf7db549dd151f69ee51d22d10731db.png

Shotscope view of same green

Shotscope V2: The sensors for this system are activated by practice swings (inertial sensor?), which is why Shotscope recommends 2 practice swings along the direction of the shot near the ball. The sensors communicate with the watch you need to wear to tag the location of your shot. I would guess they use some sort of inertial sensor/gyroscope, and I assume the impact with the ball provides enough “shock” up the shaft that the sensor can differentiate the real swing from practice swings. I am not 100% sure on this, just making my best guess. If anyone knows for sure, I welcome the feedback.

Likes:

  1. Putting stats – Shotscope putting stats are far superior to Arccos, in my view. The ability to see make percentage as a function of first putt distance is great, but you are required to make sure putt locations are accurate for the data to have any meaning!
  2. Tagging pin location – in my mind, it is not a big deal to hit a button on the watch to mark the hole location. I have found that if you are too quick to hit the button you can end up with some erroneous results so I started hovering at the hole location just a couple seconds and the accuracy was greatly improved. I also find it easier to get putts placed properly when the pin is in its correct location.
  3. Editing shots – as mentioned above, the level of detail at high zoom levels is much better for Shotscope, making editing easier, in my opinion. Editing on a computer is easier than on the phone and I believe the interface for editing is better for Shotscope than Arccos. I prefer editing with Shotscope on a computer and Arccos on my phone.
  4. Extra tags – I really like the fact that Shotscope sends 4 extra tags. It makes it much easier to test different clubs and compare the data. As I understand it, for Arccos you need to create a new club, but it seems you have to call it something that is not already in your bag to get the data to be separate (i.e. calling a different 7 iron a 7 wood, or something). Is this true? If not, let me know how as I periodically swap out a few clubs when I feel like it.

Dislikes:

  1. Dashboard interface – I think the Shotscope dashboard has the biggest room for improvement. Presenting similar to the Arccos breakdown would be great.
  2. Big-a$$ watch – like the phone in the pocket, I got to the point where it didn’t bother me, but my preference is to have nothing on my wrist. Also, the cuff of a glove will occasionally advance the hole unintentionally. This only happened to me a few times as I had read warnings about it, so I wore the watch further up my wrist.
  3. Battery life of the watch – the battery does not last long, at all. I seriously doubt one could play 36 in a day without a recharge. Even if you tried to charge between rounds, the charging is very slow, so it may not do you any good.

Summary

Both systems claim to help you improve by identifying areas for improvement. With one exception, neither systems has told me anything I did not already know – I suck off the tee. Both confirmed my short game is pretty stout for my handicap and putting is a relative strength. The one surprise came from Arccos, thanks to it breaking down facets of our game. I have always considered irons a relative strength of my game, but Arccos disagrees with me so far. I believe I have always felt that way because I tend to hit irons solid much of the time, but apparently a solid strike in the wrong direction doesn't really help you score 😉. My left/right misses are higher than they should be and GIR is lower than it should be. Arccos shows my left/right misses as identical at 13.3% and the distribution in Shotscope looks pretty balanced left-to-right. I would suggest this is because my usual “miss” is a fade/slice so I always aim to the left of my target. Sometimes I hit the ball dead straight, resulting in a left miss, others with too much fade, missing to the right. 

In terms of gapping, they are fairly close considering the number of shots I have with Arccos so far, although I started playing with Arccos in August, so I was getting actual roll from from tee shots instead of stopping where it landed. I find the Shotscope data interesting with 5, 6, and 7 irons, but that is pretty easy to explain. The vast majority of my golf is played at one course, with all 5 par3’s having similar yardages and can range from a 5 to an 8 depending on tee placement, pin placement, and weather. In little to no wind, I would normally use the following clubs (prevailing wind direction also indicated):

#3 – 8 iron (cross wind)

#5 – 8 iron (downwind)

#9 – 7 iron (downwind)

#12 – 6 iron (cross/downwind)

#17 – 7 iron (into the wind)

Also, on this course the par 4’s/5’s rarely call for those clubs to be used so I would suggest the data is a little skewed by when/how I have to use clubs depending on the wind. For example, in little/no wind, #17 is a 7. In light wind it becomes a 6 and when the wind kicks up, it has become a 5, so all three clubs show up as the same distance.

ArccosGapping.png.62307d7184675b568509d3603b850519.png

ShotscopeGapping.png.b0ea0250f39791bfac5b0968ce1765ad.png

In my opinion, both of these systems are good and I would be hard pressed to say one is better than the other – they each have their flaws, we just have to decide which flaws are more tolerable to the individual. More than anything, I have a lot more confidence in what I should hit in a given situation because I have a much better grasp on my distances in “real life” situations rather than making educated guesses.

Have either of these systems really identified areas for improvement? Yes, but for the most part I already knew the answer. I’m assuming most avid golfers know their issues, as well. Is it possible I am missing some level of detail (like what you periodically see in the blog)? Maybe, but I’ll worry about it once I get some lessons and figure out why I can’t hit a driver.

Neither of these systems are all that hands off, and both require editing to get the most accurate data. Maybe someday one of these will get to the point of being completely hands off, but buyers need to understand what they are getting into, in my opinion, and not just assume they have to do no editing to get the most out of the data.

So, which one will I be keeping? Arccos. I do not feel the Arccos is that much better than Shotscope, but ultimately, I like having the GPS interface on a phone so I can see and check yardages to features that are not in Shotscope. I also like the game breakdown they use, I just wish the putting stats were better/more informative. I’m committed now, because I gave the Shotscope to a friend after having the Arccos a couple weeks.

Thanks for reading and I welcome any input you may have!

Excellent stuff @MaxEntropy, I will add something to this soon...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for opening this thread - just the information that I needed - I have Shot Scope but Ping is now offering sensors and three months of Accros free for anyone who purchased certain equipment (I bought a qualifying club.)  My gut is that I would not like the phone in my front pocket although I would get used to it.  Having written that it is at times so hot in Florida that my phone will go to sleep - I could see that becoming an issue - that may also be the reason why Foz is missing shots with Accros.

I'd love to have the greater amount of GPS data that Accros offers as well as the relative handicaps for each part of my game - I don't know how much I'm willing to pay for it or what other issues I might experience with it.

 

I have had absolutely no issues with Shotscope missing shots - it may have happened once in 20 or so rounds that I have data for.  I don't consciously need to take practice swings either so I must be active enough with my clubs that I'm waking the censor up - I do take some practice swings but not always. 

I don't think I hit a drive 220 yesterday (wet and cross winds all day) and shot 76 - how's that for making the most out of one's game. 🙂

 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...