Jump to content
MaxEntropy

Arccos versus Shotscope V2

Recommended Posts

Right, I shall now share some thoughts. I actually did a comparison during the CCC3 pre chatter so I thought I would rehash that.

First up I have to give a win to Shot Scope for the greens and putting. It gives you more accurate data for the second putts and so forth, is easier to accurately plot the pin with a click of a button and doesn't miss as many short putts.

Both lots of sensors are easy to install but the Arccos sensors fit and sit soooo much better on top of the grip. They just look better and not as fragile as the Shot Scope ones do on grips with a rounded top.

Both systems are easy to use but Arccos for me is by far easier.

The ability to check if your shot registered and edit the hole as you play is a massive win for Arccos. No more editing the round later that night for me 😁. I was even able to finish a round in virtual darkness, when the sensors wouldn't work, by adding shots as I hit them.

Being able to look at a map of the hole as you play is fantastic so another win for Arccos. Yes Shot Scope gives yards to the front, middle and back of the green no matter what angle you are on and distance to hazards but to see the layout of the hole really helps me visualize the shot.

Both systems give fantastic stats and can really help focus your mind on the problem areas of your game but the way Arccos present the data makes so much sense to me. I love the handicap presentation for each category and after just a couple of rounds it has already pointed out the areas I knew I had to work on. Good grief my chipping sucks 🤮

Having my phone in my front pocket was very easy to get used to and ended up being far more comfortable than the watch. In fact the position I had to wear the watch on my wrist to ensure it recorded shots correctly was causing pain in my hand. I had reached the point where I had to stop wearing it and stop using Shot Scope because of the pain. Since changing to Arccos the pain has gone completely.

So there are a few thoughts and I think we know who the winner is 😊. I have to say that I still love the Shot Scope and think it is a fantastic product. I would definitely recommend it to anyone looking for a good, solid, easy to use tracking system. But now I am sold on Arccos. To me Shot Scope is the solid analogue system and Arccos is digital all the way.

 

 

 

  •  
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2019 at 8:40 PM, 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 @MaxEntropy - thanks for doing it. I am a ShotScope user, and this is the review I'd have loved before buying.

 

In honesty, after reading this, I'm glad I went for shotscope. It's interesting to hear that the UI is better on Arccos - I agree, the ShotScope one could be presented better. Granted, the data that shotscope provides is great, just not presented too well.

Totally agree on shotscope battery life, definitely needs improved. I honestly don't mind the watch, and quite like that it shows distances to the front and back of hazards like water and bunkers. Though I do find it annoying that if your left wrist weakens at all (I do this when playing a cut), your glove sometimes presses the hole skip button!

I personally find the putting on shotscope pretty ropey when using a tag. On getting a new counterbalanced putter, I don't want to drill a tag into the grip, so I've moved onto the manual tagging of putts, and I've found that really helpfull in improving accuracy. I even do that when I have a putter with a tag in now - the stats are much more precise. The hovering you do, I've also learned is very helpful.

Thanks so much for taking the time to do this.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 cents....

I bought a used set of the original Arccos sensors. They did a good job of picking up shots (they were not light activated). But having my phone in my pocket was not for me. Tried putting the app on a smaller phone but it was too old for their app. So I stopped using them.

The other reason I stopped using them was I got a set of Skygolf game tracker sensors. They had a thing you put on your belt to register each club before you used it, which seemed much better for me than the phone in the pocket. For the life of me I could not get it to work. They sent a replacement and it wouldn't work either.

So I bought a ShotScope v2. I really like it. The watch is not attractive but I don't find it a problem or obtrusive. I like having the front/middle/back yardages (as well as hazards) on my wrist. With that and my Bushnell rangefinder I get everything I need. I have trouble remembering to mark the pin placements but it is very easy to do. Just need to build the habit. I find editing the round afterwards easy. I've had 2 support issues and both were resolved very well. One was a mapping issue on my course. The other was a faulty seal on my watch (fogged up after a round in the rain). They acknowledged the issue and sent me a new watch promptly.

It seems most of the differences of opinion boil down primarily to whether you prefer the phone in your pocket or watch on your wrist.

When the Arccos offer for free sensors came up I jumped on it. I haven't used the sensors yet but am wondering why I did that since I still don't want a phone in my pocket! Just got caught up in the "Free" I guess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interested in review - In UK shotscope has reduced price down to around $160. I currently use a Garmin X40 which does generally a good job in club tracking - activated by motion (X40 also does fitness stuff as well). It can track clubs used but you can manually enter on band after making shot or can update afterwards on PC (or phone - but PC better).

I was after something that did it completely without my need to do anything. Also the stats from Garmin are not the best and cant track putts. (I think you can buy sensors to fit on clubs like arccos/shotscope - but more expensive than either and still have issue with quality of stats). If anyone has feedback?

I have used it for 2+ years (playing 1-2 times per week) so has been very helpful but the interpretation has been more manual. It works as just a standard GPS distance tool. (There are watch versions available but I just wanted a fitness band size.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think price is a huge consideration in this discussion. Shotscope is much more affordable than Arccos, shotscope is $160 US versus $250 for arccos and another $80 for the link device if you can get it. I would love to get a shot measuring system and these are the two best, but the dollar bottom line is a big part of the review I think. 

Based on these reviews it certainly doesn't seem to me the arccos is worth double what the shotscope is. Especially considering you could buy another wedge (or play more golf) with the savings. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point I forgot to mention, is that the ShotScope customer service is absolutely outstanding. I had a couple of small issues with software that they replied to and helped within 24 hours. Furthermore, I had a bit of a hardware issue in that playing in the rain, some moisture got under the screen - shotscope replaced the entire system immediately - absolutely top notch.

 

@as1440I have both a Garmin watch and the shotscope. Depends what you want - if you want distances and basic tracking, the garmin is fine, and does that job pretty well. If you're after shot tracking, there's absolutely no question that the shotscope is superior. They're a Scottish company too, so customer service in the UK is fantastic. You could buy the Garmin tags, but for the money, I'd go for the dedicated system. Don't think you'll be disappointed.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for me to weigh in here as I've now played four rounds with ARCOSS after four months or so with Shot Scope.  I will preface to saying that I like both systems.  Neither the watch nor the phone in the pocket present an issue for me although it's a pain to remember to charge the watch and the watch seems to take a bit longer to get up and running prior to the start of the round. 

 

I have to say that I wonder about ARCOSS accuracy at times - not in the GPS yardages but the recorded ones.  The last hole that I played the other day was a good example.  It gave me 147 middle, 170 back and I shot the pin at 154 with my bushnell - I'm confident that all of those yardages were accurate.  My shot ended up just past pin high, 15 feet left of the hole, on the green.  There's no way the ball didn't travel in excess of 154 (in fact the ball mark was just past the pin about 5 feet left) but I was credited with 141 yards on the shot.  I'm wondering if it didn't pick up my shot as my walking or putting the club back in the bag.  I think this has happened a few times and it skews yardages with so few rounds.  I also end up on the wrong screen occasionally - no big deal just an observation.

 

My only real complaint about Shot Scope is that I sometimes forget to click the watch at the pin.  I don't mind editing shots post round as I like to review my round at some point anyway and that process never takes more than 15 minutes.  I wonder if the editing feature on the phone doesn't lead to undo delays or more than likely isn't a bit of an annoyance to my playing partners.  They've yet to complain and I've yet to be in a group that is holding people up - I'm just wondering though.

 

Given that I own the ShotScope with no additional fees and would have to pay an annual subscription for ARCOSS I think that my choice will be for the ShotScope.  Either one of these systems is a great upgrade over keeping track of fairways, greens hit, up and downs and number of putts which was for the longest time the best method that we had.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopped on the ShotScope bandwagon since it was $119 for Cyber Monday.

On my small wrists, the band is huge. I have it to the smallest clasp and still need to move it up my forearm a bit for it to be secure.

Very light, however, and in taking some practice swings I can tell it won't bother me at all.

Excited to get it out on the course! I didn't hate my GAME Golf Live, but their stats were lacking, and I have the feeling they may not be around much longer.

IMG_06122019_172023_(800_x_1067_pixel).jpg.0d8bde1742a2b6e2ae25c7dfc791b110.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, edingc said:

Hopped on the ShotScope bandwagon since it was $119 for Cyber Monday.

On my small wrists, the band is huge. I have it to the smallest clasp and still need to move it up my forearm a bit for it to be secure.

Very light, however, and in taking some practice swings I can tell it won't bother me at all.

Excited to get it out on the course! I didn't hate my GAME Golf Live, but their stats were lacking, and I have the feeling they may not be around much longer.

IMG_06122019_172023_(800_x_1067_pixel).jpg.0d8bde1742a2b6e2ae25c7dfc791b110.jpg

If you end up hating it, and want to try Arccos, you know who to PM for a good deal on some barely used sensors w/ caddie subscription 🙂

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hopped on the ShotScope bandwagon since it was $119 for Cyber Monday.

On my small wrists, the band is huge. I have it to the smallest clasp and still need to move it up my forearm a bit for it to be secure.

Very light, however, and in taking some practice swings I can tell it won't bother me at all.

Excited to get it out on the course! I didn't hate my GAME Golf Live, but their stats were lacking, and I have the feeling they may not be around much longer.

IMG_06122019_172023_(800_x_1067_pixel).jpg.0d8bde1742a2b6e2ae25c7dfc791b110.jpg

Really enjoy mine. The size was a little bit to get used to, but after a handful of rounds, I don't even notice anymore.

 

The thing to get used to is tapping for pin location and if you hit an extra shot/putt, having to go back and fix that.

 

Sidenote... You can use the "provisional shot" option if you want to hit an extra full swing shot... And then just say "ball not lost".

 

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, yungkory said:

If you end up hating it, and want to try Arccos, you know who to PM for a good deal on some barely used sensors w/ caddie subscription 🙂

It's the subscription that ultimately turned me off to Arccos. I think it's probably "best of breed," but I also didn't want to wait for Link to be ready.

1 hour ago, dhartmann34 said:

Really enjoy mine. The size was a little bit to get used to, but after a handful of rounds, I don't even notice anymore.

The thing to get used to is tapping for pin location and if you hit am extra shot/putt, having to go back and fix that.

I hadn't considered the extra shot thing because GG Live required tagging so you didn't have to worry about it. On the flip side, I'm really excited for the PinCollect feature because GG Live had no such thing. It forced your to go back and correct pin locations post-round.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I have it to the smallest clasp and still need to move it up my forearm a bit for it to be secure.

It's not a bad idea to push it up your wrist a bit anyway - I did that to help avoid the glove advancing the hole on accident. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, edingc said:

It's the subscription that ultimately turned me off to Arccos. I think it's probably "best of breed," but I also didn't want to wait for Link to be ready.

I hadn't considered the extra shot thing because GG Live required tagging so you didn't have to worry about it. On the flip side, I'm really excited for the PinCollect feature because GG Live had no such thing. It forced your to go back and correct pin locations post-round.

I think if you bought the full retail version, you don't have to pay for the yearly subscription? I'm not entirely sure how that works.

  • Like 1

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...