Shot Scope Users Group

[PhilM75072]

5 hours ago, tony@CIC said:

Just uploaded the new firmware - I'll be interested in how well the "scoring widget" works with the penalty feature for those rare () occasions I have one. 

Scoring and tracking are still not connected to one another.

Played this morning with the new firmware. Flawless execution. Not one missed shot, no issues, and I used it unlocked. I don't use all the features, however. I don't use scoring or the Pin Reminder. I did use pause and resume, checked some distances of my last shot, scrolled through some screens and used manual putting. The club used is much more readable, with white text on a black background circled in blue.

[tony@CIC]

5 minutes ago, PhilM75072 said:

Scoring and tracking are still not connected to one another.

Played this morning with the new firmware. Flawless execution. Not one missed shot, no issues, and I used it unlocked. I don't use all the features, however. I don't use scoring or the Pin Reminder. I did use pause and resume, checked some distances of my last shot, scrolled through some screens and used manual putting. The club used is much more readable, with white text on a black background circled in blue.

Glad to hear the new firmware is working. I won’t get a chance to try it til Saturday. 

[GolfSpy BOS]

I'll get my first chance to fully use the x5 on Saturday.  I was able to pull my old arccos grip sensors out and there was just enough depth to screw the Shot Scope sensor in securely above the cavity from the arccos sensors.  I may do a light wrap of electrical tape too.  Should only be a few rounds before I decide on new wedges or new grips for the old wedges this year.  

Last time out I didn't have those in, and it closed down a few times.  But I was running arccos at the same time (to compare readouts) and capture the wedge shots maybe not doing that and the new firmware will provide a cleaner experience.  

 

[cksurfdude]

Updated to the latest firmware this morning, and played 18 at a new to me course this afternoon - everything seemed to work well!

Shot tracking, putting, hole to hole advancement, etc plus "Pause" and "Resume" at the turn .. it found #10 as we approached and kept on tracking through #18 (yea!).

Something else that seemed to also work better (on my old Samsung) was "Connect to Device" .. app didn't hang; connected right away.

Side note, fyi, re: battery life - turned the watch on maybe an hour and a half before tee time .. round was slooow at 5 hours (with a brief stop at the halfway house where I paused tracking) .. then back to watch mode for about another two hours .. battery was at 12%.

[MattF]

15 hours ago, PhilM75072 said:

Scoring and tracking are still not connected to one another.

You know from another forum that Gavin has said they're not going to be right at the moment.

[tony@CIC]

1 hour ago, MattF said:

You know from another forum that Gavin has said they're not going to be right at the moment.

For me that's a 'nice to have' - I much prefer a stable platform that's bullet proof (for existing features).

[nupezb]

For me that's a 'nice to have' - I much prefer a stable platform that's bullet proof (for existing features).

I Second your statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paul Hedrick]

39 minutes ago, tony@CIC said:

For me that's a 'nice to have' - I much prefer a stable platform that's bullet proof (for existing features).

Once again, I have to agree. All the 'features' in the world have no value if they reside on a platform that is not reliable.

[PhilM75072]

Another round in this morning with the 2.1.13 firmware. Zero issues to report. I don't use the scoring feature as I still keep a scorecard, mostly so I can make corrections for FIRs, GIRs and number of putts based on GPS inaccuracy.

[JerryB]

I feel I've asked this before, but do you guys use the "positional" option when editing your round?  I do, but generally only for punchouts or other shots that weren't meant to go full distance.  Where I don't use it (and this is what I'm curious about others' usage) is on shots that were supposed to be full shots and weren't, like chunks or shots that bounced off trees.

Another thing I've never really paid attention to when editing is the putting.  I usually check to make sure the other clubs are on and mostly accurate, then glance towards the green, see "2 putts" or whatever, and move on.  I've never been much of a putter so I figured if the count was correct, that was close enough.  Looked at my last couple rounds today and noticed that a lot of my putt locations and lengths were off.  It would read two putts that were both within 2 feet of the pin.  Not a complaint, mind you, but something I've realized that I need to be a little more cognizant of and adjust accordingly.

[MattF]

7 hours ago, JerryB said:

I feel I've asked this before, but do you guys use the "positional" option when editing your round?  I do, but generally only for punchouts or other shots that weren't meant to go full distance.  Where I don't use it (and this is what I'm curious about others' usage) is on shots that were supposed to be full shots and weren't, like chunks or shots that bounced off trees.

Another thing I've never really paid attention to when editing is the putting.  I usually check to make sure the other clubs are on and mostly accurate, then glance towards the green, see "2 putts" or whatever, and move on.  I've never been much of a putter so I figured if the count was correct, that was close enough.  Looked at my last couple rounds today and noticed that a lot of my putt locations and lengths were off.  It would read two putts that were both within 2 feet of the pin.  Not a complaint, mind you, but something I've realized that I need to be a little more cognizant of and adjust accordingly.

Chunked shots etc that were meant to be a full shot at the green shouldn't be marked positional because they weren't. But, they will be tossed out of the p-average because they were "bad".

Putts need to be looked at closer to see that they are correct. Sometimes it will mark a putt on the green when it was taken on the apron or fringe and should go towards your short game stats not your putting stats.

[NCDuffer]

To obtain good putting data with any of the gps trackers, you have to edit putting as the gps simply isn’t accurate enough.  I keep reading that there is another satellite system that will be coming that could change that, but who knows. Being off a yard or two for your iron isn’t really a big deal, but huge for putting.

[BobBC78]

10 hours ago, JerryB said:

I feel I've asked this before, but do you guys use the "positional" option when editing your round?  I do, but generally only for punchouts or other shots that weren't meant to go full distance.  Where I don't use it (and this is what I'm curious about others' usage) is on shots that were supposed to be full shots and weren't, like chunks or shots that bounced off trees.

Another thing I've never really paid attention to when editing is the putting.  I usually check to make sure the other clubs are on and mostly accurate, then glance towards the green, see "2 putts" or whatever, and move on.  I've never been much of a putter so I figured if the count was correct, that was close enough.  Looked at my last couple rounds today and noticed that a lot of my putt locations and lengths were off.  It would read two putts that were both within 2 feet of the pin.  Not a complaint, mind you, but something I've realized that I need to be a little more cognizant of and adjust accordingly.

I mark shots as being "positional" for punchouts and second shots on all Par 5s and Par 4s which are long enough that my third shot will be greater than 50 yards (> 50 yards is considered an approach shot by Shot Scope). I never use it for shots that I mis-hit or shots which ricochet off trees. 

[cnosil]

11 hours ago, JerryB said:

I feel I've asked this before, but do you guys use the "positional" option when editing your round?  I do, but generally only for punchouts or other shots that weren't meant to go full distance.  Where I don't use it (and this is what I'm curious about others' usage) is on shots that were supposed to be full shots and weren't, like chunks or shots that bounced off trees.

Another thing I've never really paid attention to when editing is the putting.  I usually check to make sure the other clubs are on and mostly accurate, then glance towards the green, see "2 putts" or whatever, and move on.  I've never been much of a putter so I figured if the count was correct, that was close enough.  Looked at my last couple rounds today and noticed that a lot of my putt locations and lengths were off.  It would read two putts that were both within 2 feet of the pin.  Not a complaint, mind you, but something I've realized that I need to be a little more cognizant of and adjust accordingly.

 

1 hour ago, BobBC78 said:

I mark shots as being "positional" for punchouts and second shots on all Par 5s and Par 4s which are long enough that my third shot will be greater than 50 yards (> 50 yards is considered an approach shot by Shot Scope). I never use it for shots that I mis-hit or shots which ricochet off trees. 

I basically follow @BobBC78approacy for positional.  For me I simply look at it as a shot where I am not trying to hit the green with the approach shot.  
 

for putting it depends on if you want to evaluate putting performance,   This is the area of shot capturing that is the most off due to accuracy of commercial GPS, how quickly tagging can occur back to back, and time to adjust locations as you are walking around the green. 

[JerryB]

Thanks for the responses, guys.  I've always accepted approach and putting as my weak areas (they are), but it appears I need to do a little better post-round to make things more accurate.  I was especially frustrated because I'd put in the effort to improve putting and while it felt good on-course the numbers disagreed.

I'm fairly certain @cnosil and I have had this exchange about approach shots before.  And I suppose it makes more sense given there is at least one par five on my course where I never go for the green on my second shot.  But I have another hole where I can reach the green in two, depending on drive.  Whether feasible or not, mentally I'm always going for it.  Should I mark as positional if I come up short of "short game" in that situation?

[JerryB]

Reading that last part back, I feel kinda dumb.  I'm thinking I should go by initial yardage and whether or not my club can usually get there.  If I'm outside my usual 3 wood range then it's positional and if I happen to nuke it...then yay, I guess?

[tony@CIC]

Where's how Shotscope defines 'positional shots'

A positional shot is an approach shot where you are not attempting to hit the green, instead you are intentionally playing into another part of the course. The two typical scenarios where this would occur would be:

1) On a par 5 when you can't reach the green so lay up to a suitable distance for your third shot.

2) If your drive goes into trouble and you need to play out sideways on the second shot.

By marking a shot as "Positional" it will be excluded from the "Approach' "Short Game" and "Club" stats in your performance data which means your stats stay accurate

[JerryB]

9 minutes ago, tony@CIC said:

By marking a shot as "Positional" it will be excluded from the "Approach' "Short Game" and "Club" stats in your performance data which means your stats stay accurate

Interesting.  I've always kind of assumed that anything inside the Short Game zone was automatically considered positional as far a Club stats go.  But thinking about it, I do have some shots in that zone where I'm not trying to get on the green and should be marking them as positional as well.

[tony@CIC]

5 minutes ago, JerryB said:

Interesting.  I've always kind of assumed that anything inside the Short Game zone was automatically considered positional as far a Club stats go.  But thinking about it, I do have some shots in that zone where I'm not trying to get on the green and should be marking them as positional as well.

I think the course might dictate it also - for instance a dogleg just before the green or a blind approach to the green. We have the latter on a par 5 on one of our 9 hole courses.  

[PhilM75072]

12 hours ago, JerryB said:

I feel I've asked this before, but do you guys use the "positional" option when editing your round?  I do, but generally only for punchouts or other shots that weren't meant to go full distance.  Where I don't use it (and this is what I'm curious about others' usage) is on shots that were supposed to be full shots and weren't, like chunks or shots that bounced off trees.

 

I only use "positional" for short shots designed to get the ball back in play from trouble, and for layups on par 5s (unless I was close enough to actually be going for the green with my 2nd shot). I do not use "positional" for chunks, duffs, etc. Those aren't counted in the P-AVG distances anyway.

[cnosil]

27 minutes ago, JerryB said:

Interesting.  I've always kind of assumed that anything inside the Short Game zone was automatically considered positional as far a Club stats go.  But thinking about it, I do have some shots in that zone where I'm not trying to get on the green and should be marking them as positional as well.

Nope. Try to think about what the stats are reporting. 

when we hit clubs it reports information about how far we hit clubs.  A punch out would skew that data so it becomes positional.  So we think that that full shot on a par 5 should not be positional because it want the shot distance.  True,  but then shotscope counts it as proximity to the hole which skews the distance you hit shots from the hole when going for the green; thus positional.   If I hit the green when I don’t expect too, I might not mark it as positional but it would depend on how far out of range I really was… was I expecting to be inside or outside some arbitrary distance.  

The 50 yard distinction is simply whether the shot is counted as approach or short game.  You then get people that will say I want my 100 yard shot to be positional because I don’t use a full swing so it will skew distances.   
 

IMO shotscope provides guidance and we as users need to apply that guidance to what reports the information we want.  Some of that guidance is provided based on issues encountered with the products like counting putts as any shot that uses the putter.  This seems to apply more to the watches than the h4.   
 

This is the type of stuff that can get really complex and unless you are a stats geek might be too in depth for a “casual” golfer.   In my review of the h4 I found that all the data was overwhelming and even though I love diving in, it was sensory overload. 

[Paul Hedrick]

 I just got home from a round of golf. My V3 performed perfectly.  I had a feeling that I was hitting my driver better today, and when I got home I looked at the data and see today I was hitting that stupid little white ball 19.3% further. I think that is due to the fact I tried a new ball today.  I will continue to use this ball to see if the trend continues.

Now, IF I could putt life would be really good!  LOL

Edited May 26, 2023 by Paul Hedrick

[PhilM75072]

4 hours ago, JerryB said:

Interesting.  I've always kind of assumed that anything inside the Short Game zone was automatically considered positional as far a Club stats go.  But thinking about it, I do have some shots in that zone where I'm not trying to get on the green and should be marking them as positional as well.

Shots within 50 yards of the hole location are not included in club distance data. They are accounted for in the Short Game section.

[JerryB]

3 hours ago, PhilM75072 said:

Shots within 50 yards of the hole location are not included in club distance data. They are accounted for in the Short Game section.

Okay, good, that's what I assumed/hoped.  I think I may have been doing things backwards, though.  If I used a non-wedge for a bump and run-type shot, I would mark that as positional.  But if I had a short look where I couldn't get on the green (shrub or something directly in the way) I would chip to the side and not mark it as such.  After saying it out loud/typing it out, those scenarios should be switched, shouldn't they?

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, JerryB said:

Okay, good, that's what I assumed/hoped.  I think I may have been doing things backwards, though.  If I used a non-wedge for a bump and run-type shot, I would mark that as positional.  But if I had a short look where I couldn't get on the green (shrub or something directly in the way) I would chip to the side and not mark it as such.  After saying it out loud/typing it out, those scenarios should be switched, shouldn't they?

Sounds like youhave them switched.    

The bump and run would be a short game shot and would be in the data to show how well you get up and down with clubs used for the short game.

chip to the side is to get into a better position so it would be positional

 

[JerryB]

I'm not gonna lie, sometimes I'm amazed that I'm allowed to function in regular society!

[PhilM75072]

10 hours ago, JerryB said:

I'm not gonna lie, sometimes I'm amazed that I'm allowed to function in regular society!

That's OK. You are not alone! 

[tony@CIC]

23 hours ago, cnosil said:

This is the type of stuff that can get really complex and unless you are a stats geek might be too in depth for a “casual” golfer.   In my review of the h4 I found that all the data was overwhelming and even though I love diving in, it was sensory overload. 

+1, Like a lot of technology that I have, I probably use (a lot) less then half of the available options/data. 

[BobBC78]

I have been a Shot Scope user for the past 18-months or so, starting with the V3 and earlier this year moving to the X5. It has finally dawned on the that on the desktop results from 9-hole rounds are doubled, I suppose for comparison purposes with 18-hole rounds. What really drove this point home for me was in last night's 9-hole round, I had a driving penalty resulting in having to re-tee for my third shot. Clearly, this resulted in a shots gained of -2.00 for this shot. The problem is that by doubling the results, Shot Scope assumed I did it again, meaning 4 shots lost due to penalties. 

It strikes me that this actually messes up the overall statistics, but I am open to anyone's input regarding how you deal with this from an analytical standpoint. 

[tony@CIC]

Used the X5 today and it worked great - including scoring. I use the unlock feature and found on 2 instances that the watch reverted to the 'last shot' feature (operator error as I had the band on too tight)  I loosened the band and that cured the problem. However, I did notice that after 18 holes - just shy of 4 hours I had 39% battery remaining. I'm ok with that given that I always charge it after 18. But do hope that they figure out the battery drain given they advertise it as a watch you can wear daily.