How does arccos work around the green?

[BrendanKre]

It says you have to return your clubs to the bag after use but if i take 2 clubs and a putter to the green how would that work? they’re offering them free with my fitting so i’m thinking may as well.

[UNDY24]

26 minutes ago, BrendanKre said:

It says you have to return your clubs to the bag after use but if i take 2 clubs and a putter to the green how would that work? they’re offering them free with my fitting so i’m thinking may as well.

 

Arccos registers the shot to the club that was used after impact if that makes sense. Never really an issue for me with wedges, but I find myself having to adjust the putting results on my phone to roughly how far each putt was.

[J_Tizzle]

1 minute ago, UNDY24 said:

 

Arccos registers the shot to the club that was used after impact if that makes sense. Never really an issue for me with wedges, but I find myself having to adjust the putting results on my phone to roughly how far each putt was.

 

This is kinda the same with the ShotScope H4.  Which I'd wildly recommend.  Its $150ish, comes with 16 low profile tags and a GPS that clips to your belt and NO SUBSCRIPTION cost.  I've never used an Arccos and only got the ShotScope because I won a giveaway here on WRX (loved the H4, HATED the rangefinder), but I'd recommend the H4 to everyone.  Only difference is you gotta tap the tags on the GPS and get a slight little buzz, then hit your shot.  Like @BrendanKre mentioned I usually have a few adjustments post round, but overall its a pretty solid product.  Here is an example of my last round (-1) and the types of information we get from Shotscope.  Plus I'll add, they created a "gimmie" putt on the system that makes it way easier when you are trying to put in that someone slapped back a 2ft putt to you (they even have a "short gimmie" and a "long gimmie" lol).  Here is a link to the reviews - 

 

 

 

[UNDY24]

1 hour ago, J_Tizzle said:

 

This is kinda the same with the ShotScope H4.  Which I'd wildly recommend.  Its $150ish, comes with 16 low profile tags and a GPS that clips to your belt and NO SUBSCRIPTION cost.  I've never used an Arccos and only got the ShotScope because I won a giveaway here on WRX (loved the H4, HATED the rangefinder), but I'd recommend the H4 to everyone.  Only difference is you gotta tap the tags on the GPS and get a slight little buzz, then hit your shot.  Like @BrendanKre mentioned I usually have a few adjustments post round, but overall its a pretty solid product.  Here is an example of my last round (-1) and the types of information we get from Shotscope.  Plus I'll add, they created a "gimmie" putt on the system that makes it way easier when you are trying to put in that someone slapped back a 2ft putt to you (they even have a "short gimmie" and a "long gimmie" lol).  Here is a link to the reviews - 

 

 

 

 

Looks very similar to Arccos in terms of the strokes gained data. Definitely something to look into if you want to avoid the annual subscription fee. I've so used to Arccos now that I don't want to change lol.

 

[J_Tizzle]

27 minutes ago, UNDY24 said:

 

Looks very similar to Arccos in terms of the strokes gained data. Definitely something to look into if you want to avoid the annual subscription fee. I've so used to Arccos now that I don't want to change lol.

 

 

Thats totally fair, I just hated how big the Arccos sensors are.  Plus I side saddle, so I'd have one of them on the top of my side saddle that would add like 1/2" on the grip (I put my thumb on the top of the grip) so it would be VERY odd.

 

It's interesting to have that kind of data, like some days I know exactly where I stand, but when I look at my strokes gained I'm like -4 on approach shots and I just think "boy I need to work on my irons" lol.

[UNDY24]

9 minutes ago, J_Tizzle said:

 

Thats totally fair, I just hated how big the Arccos sensors are.  Plus I side saddle, so I'd have one of them on the top of my side saddle that would add like 1/2" on the grip (I put my thumb on the top of the grip) so it would be VERY odd.

 

It's interesting to have that kind of data, like some days I know exactly where I stand, but when I look at my strokes gained I'm like -4 on approach shots and I just think "boy I need to work on my irons" lol.

agree on the sensors - I actually have ones that are embedded into the grips.

 

having the data is great only if you actually practice in my opinion. Doesn’t make sense to have it if you play one round/week and don’t practice.

[Frankensteins Monster]

3 hours ago, BrendanKre said:

It says you have to return your clubs to the bag after use but if i take 2 clubs and a putter to the green how would that work? they’re offering them free with my fitting so i’m thinking may as well.

 

Nonissue.

[MysteryV]

If you take multiple clubs, Arccos will often register them and add an additional shot unless you keep them upside down. 

 

The good news is that it's extremely easy to check your phone and delete that shot (I did this several times yesterday when I changed my mind about what club to hit).  It's a bit more of a pain for folks who use the Link as, presumably their phone is in their bag or somewhere.

 

To me (not that you asked) - the Arccos app is really good for course management during the round, and club distance post round (e.g. "I think I pumped that drive / pured that 3w, etc. - how far did it go in real world conditions").  It's also valuable from a club fitting / comparison perspective.

 

The analytics aren't quite there yet.  It does a poor job of accounting for partial shots (punch outs, knock downs, chips), and mishits (if you typically drive the ball 280, and your drive hits a tree at 230, it factors that 230 drive into your average USUALLY).  

 

This idiosyncrasies make data like Average pretty useless imo.  If you want to manually take that data out, it take a bit more time after the round, which becomes cumbersome, but is definitely doable.

 

Putting is also absolute trash (though I believe that's due to legislation constraints on GPS accuracy, but not 100%).

 

Overall, I think there's some good data to be had from Arccos, and again - I really like the Caddie app on course.  I just don't think the analytics are particularly useful quite yet.

 

 

[Frankensteins Monster]

22 hours ago, MysteryV said:

If you take multiple clubs, Arccos will often register them and add an additional shot unless you keep them upside down. 

 

The good news is that it's extremely easy to check your phone and delete that shot (I did this several times yesterday when I changed my mind about what club to hit).  It's a bit more of a pain for folks who use the Link as, presumably their phone is in their bag or somewhere.

 

To me (not that you asked) - the Arccos app is really good for course management during the round, and club distance post round (e.g. "I think I pumped that drive / pured that 3w, etc. - how far did it go in real world conditions").  It's also valuable from a club fitting / comparison perspective.

 

The analytics aren't quite there yet.  It does a poor job of accounting for partial shots (punch outs, knock downs, chips), and mishits (if you typically drive the ball 280, and your drive hits a tree at 230, it factors that 230 drive into your average USUALLY).  

 

This idiosyncrasies make data like Average pretty useless imo.  If you want to manually take that data out, it take a bit more time after the round, which becomes cumbersome, but is definitely doable.

 

Putting is also absolute trash (though I believe that's due to legislation constraints on GPS accuracy, but not 100%).

 

Overall, I think there's some good data to be had from Arccos, and again - I really like the Caddie app on course.  I just don't think the analytics are particularly useful quite yet.

 

 

You can omit shots from the analytics. 

[MysteryV]

13 minutes ago, Frankensteins Monster said:

You can omit shots from the analytics. 

 

I noted that in my response, as well as the fact that it's unnecessary time and effort on the user side, and a task that is extremely easy to do with well coded software.

[Frankensteins Monster]

29 minutes ago, MysteryV said:

 

I noted that in my response, as well as the fact that it's unnecessary time and effort on the user side, and a task that is extremely easy to do with well coded software.

Outliers don’t contribute to the analytics. It is in the code. That was an issue in the early days.

[Poor Mans Ty Webb]

It's generally good, but I have two issues with ARCCOS around the greens:

 

1. If you putt from the fringe, this stroke counts as a putt but it should not.  I've written to ARCCOS about this before, and I don't really know of how to address it.  If you're a regular putter from the fringes/rough, this is going to artificially inflate your number of putts per round.

 

2. ARCCOS claims to aggregate GPS data from users to locate pins on greens and then to track putting distances, but pins in the app are often not close to where they're actually cut, and while ARCCOS is generally good at identifying first putts, the app sometimes struggles with second/third putts, particularly as you get closer to the pin (again, I think a big part of the issue is that the app doesn't always know where the pin is).  The good news is that you can manually adjust these things in the app, which I frequently do as I'm walking off of a green or before I get to the next tee box. 

 

The issue is that the app doesn't alway seem to save or remember what I've manually entered, and will sometimes revert back to its original/default estimations.  This is tricky to spot on the course, and it ends up misconstruing the strokes gained data in terms of putting.  

 

In my last round, I made several putts between 6-10 feet, and notably missed a 3 foot putt.  I manually adjusted the pin locations and distances of my putts after each hole (as I often do), but when I reviewed the SG data after the round, ARCCOS counted all of them as 3-5 footers, and suggested that my make % from 3-5 feet was 100% while my make % from 6-9 feet was 0%.  Again, I manually adjusted the putts and pin locations for every hole (as I almost always do), and ARCCOS did not save my manual adjustments somewhere along the way.  This is an inaccurate reflection of how I putted, and a persistent problem I have with ARCCOS, because it's wrongly inflating my 3-5 foot stats and deflating my 6-9 foot stats.  I don't mind making the manual corrections, but the app sometimes seems more concerned about which hole I'm on as I'm transitioning from green-to-tee than it does about saving what I'm manually adjusting.

 

Unless these are user error issues, they are the biggest drawbacks for me, and are probably a little nitpicky.  Again, the app is generally really good at picking up shots around the greens.

[MysteryV]

31 minutes ago, Frankensteins Monster said:

Outliers don’t contribute to the analytics. It is in the code. That was an issue in the early days.

 

You might be right, but the definition of "outlier" matters quite a bit, as do the developers expected use by the end user.

 

As someone who has used the system extensively for a few years, I can confirm that it includes shots which I consider outliers.  If you typically hit the ball 280, with a fairway delta of +/- 10% - it stands to reason that shots that hit a tree and land in the rough at 240 should be discarded. 

 

In practice, that doesn't happen.  The software frequently includes shots that were obviously errant.  It's worse with irons.

 

The question is - is it valuable to include that data in your average distance?  I don't believe it is as I'd rather have "unimpeded shot average data" when looking to see if I can cover a fairway bunker with my driver / 3w / etc.  Unfortunately, the software doesn't provide that data accurately by default, and requires manual intervention.

 

To your point, the software DOES exclude extremely obviously errant shots - e.g. a 135 yard top or something, but in my extensive experience - it does not do it well enough to provide valuable data without significant manual intervention and data manicuring.

[MysteryV]

30 minutes ago, Poor Mans Ty Webb said:

It's generally good, but I have two issues with ARCCOS around the greens:

 

1. If you putt from the fringe, this stroke counts as a putt but it should not.  I've written to ARCCOS about this before, and I don't really know of how to address it.  If you're a regular putter from the fringes/rough, this is going to artificially inflate your number of putts per round.

 

2. ARCCOS claims to aggregate GPS data from users to locate pins on greens and then to track putting distances, but pins in the app are often not close to where they're actually cut, and while ARCCOS is generally good at identifying first putts, the app sometimes struggles with second/third putts, particularly as you get closer to the pin (again, I think a big part of the issue is that the app doesn't always know where the pin is).  The good news is that you can manually adjust these things in the app, which I frequently do as I'm walking off of a green or before I get to the next tee box. 

 

The issue is that the app doesn't alway seem to save or remember what I've manually entered, and will sometimes revert back to its original/default estimations.  This is tricky to spot on the course, and it ends up misconstruing the strokes gained data in terms of putting.  

 

In my last round, I made several putts between 6-10 feet, and notably missed a 3 foot putt.  I manually adjusted the pin locations and distances of my putts after each hole (as I often do), but when I reviewed the SG data after the round, ARCCOS counted all of them as 3-5 footers, and suggested that my make % from 3-5 feet was 100% while my make % from 6-9 feet was 0%.  Again, I manually adjusted the putts and pin locations for every hole (as I almost always do), and ARCCOS did not save my manual adjustments somewhere along the way.  This is an inaccurate reflection of how I putted, and a persistent problem I have with ARCCOS, because it's wrongly inflating my 3-5 foot stats and deflating my 6-9 foot stats.  I don't mind making the manual corrections, but the app sometimes seems more concerned about which hole I'm on as I'm transitioning from green-to-tee than it does about saving what I'm manually adjusting.

 

Unless these are user error issues, they are the biggest drawbacks for me, and are probably a little nitpicky.  Again, the app is generally really good at picking up shots around the greens.

 

 

Your first point is pretty easy to address.  Simply click the number of putts, and it gives you the option to mark one as a chip.

 

Your second points may or may not be valid.  I have no idea as I completely gave up on tracking anything but number of putts when they made the switch to the most recent format.  

 

Unfortunately the terrible putting app experience greatly reduces the value of the overall app for total game improvement imo.  

[Frankensteins Monster]

1 hour ago, MysteryV said:

 

You might be right, but the definition of "outlier" matters quite a bit, as do the developers expected use by the end user.

 

As someone who has used the system extensively for a few years, I can confirm that it includes shots which I consider outliers.  If you typically hit the ball 280, with a fairway delta of +/- 10% - it stands to reason that shots that hit a tree and land in the rough at 240 should be discarded. 

 

In practice, that doesn't happen.  The software frequently includes shots that were obviously errant.  It's worse with irons.

 

The question is - is it valuable to include that data in your average distance?  I don't believe it is as I'd rather have "unimpeded shot average data" when looking to see if I can cover a fairway bunker with my driver / 3w / etc.  Unfortunately, the software doesn't provide that data accurately by default, and requires manual intervention.

 

To your point, the software DOES exclude extremely obviously errant shots - e.g. a 135 yard top or something, but in my extensive experience - it does not do it well enough to provide valuable data without significant manual intervention and data manicuring.

Just to prove to myself that the programmers were honest in what they told me about how outside your range affects your average, I omitted 52 driver shots after I made the earlier post. My average dropped a single yard.

 

I’ve been using it since gen 1.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Frankensteins Monster

[MysteryV]

14 minutes ago, Frankensteins Monster said:

Just to prove to myself that the programmers were honest in what they told me about how outside your range affects your average, I omitted 52 driver shots after I made the earlier post. My average dropped a single yard.

 

I’ve been using it since gen 1.

 

I certainly appreciate you giving it a shot in an effort to understand where I'm coming from.

 

I did the same exercise yesterday with a very new driver, and it changed the average by 40 yards.  Sample size and size of error matter quite a bit here.

 

In either case, it seems like your experience is different from mine, and that's great.  Hopefully our discussion helps others make informed decisions and get the most out of their products.

[Frankensteins Monster]

2 hours ago, MysteryV said:

 

I certainly appreciate you giving it a shot in an effort to understand where I'm coming from.

 

I did the same exercise yesterday with a very new driver, and it changed the average by 40 yards.  Sample size and size of error matter quite a bit here.

 

In either case, it seems like your experience is different from mine, and that's great.  Hopefully our discussion helps others make informed decisions and get the most out of their products.

Of course. If there’s no data, it can’t know what your average is to eliminate outliers. For all it knows, your 275 yard drive may be an outlier!

 

I make recommendations to them all the time. Quite a few have actually be designed into the system. You ever “mark pin here?” You can thank me for that!

Having said that, their choice to only give one year free membership to new customers turned me off. If I want to buy a new set of clubs and put Arccos grips on them, that’s $375 (cost of grips plus yearly fee)! That’s a no go for me. That’s why I created a thread asking about alternate stat tracking apps.

 

For a first time customer, it’s a no brainer.

[TreqJosh]

On 2/13/2023 at 7:10 AM, MysteryV said:

If you take multiple clubs, Arccos will often register them and add an additional shot unless you keep them upside down. 

 

The good news is that it's extremely easy to check your phone and delete that shot (I did this several times yesterday when I changed my mind about what club to hit).  It's a bit more of a pain for folks who use the Link as, presumably their phone is in their bag or somewhere.

 

To me (not that you asked) - the Arccos app is really good for course management during the round, and club distance post round (e.g. "I think I pumped that drive / pured that 3w, etc. - how far did it go in real world conditions").  It's also valuable from a club fitting / comparison perspective.

 

The analytics aren't quite there yet.  It does a poor job of accounting for partial shots (punch outs, knock downs, chips), and mishits (if you typically drive the ball 280, and your drive hits a tree at 230, it factors that 230 drive into your average USUALLY).  

 

This idiosyncrasies make data like Average pretty useless imo.  If you want to manually take that data out, it take a bit more time after the round, which becomes cumbersome, but is definitely doable.

 

Putting is also absolute trash (though I believe that's due to legislation constraints on GPS accuracy, but not 100%).

 

Overall, I think there's some good data to be had from Arccos, and again - I really like the Caddie app on course.  I just don't think the analytics are particularly useful quite yet.

 

 

 

Just to add to this; bump and runs are also another factor. Granted, as you say, you can delete them from the averages but it's inherent limitation (unless Arccos comes through with an ability to let you describe the shot in the future for better insight). 

[Frankensteins Monster]

8 hours ago, TreqJosh said:

 

Just to add to this; bump and runs are also another factor. Granted, as you say, you can delete them from the averages but it's inherent limitation (unless Arccos comes through with an ability to let you describe the shot in the future for better insight). 

It’s included, but it doesn’t weigh on the average. If that was the case, all wedges would be an average of five yards.

[Poor Mans Ty Webb]

19 hours ago, MysteryV said:

Your first point is pretty easy to address.  Simply click the number of putts, and it gives you the option to mark one as a chip.

Thanks for this. I thought I had to change it from a putt to a chip, but I just went back in and looked at it again, and figured out how to address it.

[chinaski]

20 hours ago, MysteryV said:

 

You might be right, but the definition of "outlier" matters quite a bit, as do the developers expected use by the end user.

 

As someone who has used the system extensively for a few years, I can confirm that it includes shots which I consider outliers.  If you typically hit the ball 280, with a fairway delta of +/- 10% - it stands to reason that shots that hit a tree and land in the rough at 240 should be discarded. 

 

In practice, that doesn't happen.  The software frequently includes shots that were obviously errant.  It's worse with irons.

 

The question is - is it valuable to include that data in your average distance?  I don't believe it is as I'd rather have "unimpeded shot average data" when looking to see if I can cover a fairway bunker with my driver / 3w / etc.  Unfortunately, the software doesn't provide that data accurately by default, and requires manual intervention.

 

To your point, the software DOES exclude extremely obviously errant shots - e.g. a 135 yard top or something, but in my extensive experience - it does not do it well enough to provide valuable data without significant manual intervention and data manicuring.

 

 

I was curious about this and this was the reason I never tried one of these systems. I hit a lot of partial mid-short iron shots. I don't always hit a full swing. Those yardages can fluctuate around 30 yards per club depending on tee shot vs flighted 3/4 to 1/2 shot. 

 

I still see value, especially with course management, but too many variables/circumstances with yardage.

[MysteryV]

47 minutes ago, chinaski said:

 

 

I was curious about this and this was the reason I never tried one of these systems. I hit a lot of partial mid-short iron shots. I don't always hit a full swing. Those yardages can fluctuate around 30 yards per club depending on tee shot vs flighted 3/4 to 1/2 shot. 

 

I still see value, especially with course management, but too many variables/circumstances with yardage.

 

If you buy something Ping (or otherwise get a free set of sensors) - it's absolutely worth giving a shot.  As I said, I really like the app, and even being able to scroll through after a round and know exactly how far you hit your best shots is of value.  I just got a bit tired of having to a) keep a score card and update the app every hole and b) go through after every round and make edits.

 

I feel like we're about 5 years away from some really amazing insights as they start to leverage advances in ML / AI.

[fullyjosh]

On 2/13/2023 at 3:22 PM, MysteryV said:

 

You might be right, but the definition of "outlier" matters quite a bit, as do the developers expected use by the end user.

 

As someone who has used the system extensively for a few years, I can confirm that it includes shots which I consider outliers.  If you typically hit the ball 280, with a fairway delta of +/- 10% - it stands to reason that shots that hit a tree and land in the rough at 240 should be discarded. 

 

In practice, that doesn't happen.  The software frequently includes shots that were obviously errant.  It's worse with irons.

 

The question is - is it valuable to include that data in your average distance?  I don't believe it is as I'd rather have "unimpeded shot average data" when looking to see if I can cover a fairway bunker with my driver / 3w / etc.  Unfortunately, the software doesn't provide that data accurately by default, and requires manual intervention.

 

To your point, the software DOES exclude extremely obviously errant shots - e.g. a 135 yard top or something, but in my extensive experience - it does not do it well enough to provide valuable data without significant manual intervention and data manicuring.

Second this. For example, my 8 iron -

164, 127 Yard - Excluded
133, 153, 159, 168, 177, 160 - Included

Not obvious to me why the 164 would be excluded, but the 133 would be included.