Arccos Rate Hike and Why I'm Returning my Unit

[North Butte]

Yes you can do it for absolutely free by simply writing down the distance and lie for every shot, either during or (if your memory is good) after the round.

 

Still a lot of effort once you've noticed that nothing meaningful changes from year to year to year. I've been intermittently tracking my performance for over 15 years and while my handicap has gradually worked down from around 22 to more like 15-ish, the relative strengths and weaknesses have hardly changed at all over that time. I've just gotten slightly better at everything with more experience. 

 

So I can't imagine going back to any for for shot tracking (manual or electronic) any time in the foreseeable future. Just no real return on the time and effort invested. And my innate curiosity is long since satisfied. 

 

As for distance estimates with each club, I agree with your take. I already know that on its own merits (I own a laser rangefinder) and have never really looked at that information when it is presented by Game Golf, Arccos or similar devices. 

[Luv2kruz]

On 6/9/2021 at 8:05 PM, North Butte said:

Still a lot of effort once you've noticed that nothing meaningful changes from year to year to year. I've been intermittently tracking my performance for over 15 years and while my handicap has gradually worked down from around 22 to more like 15-ish, the relative strengths and weaknesses have hardly changed at all over that time. I've just gotten slightly better at everything with more experience. 

I'm kinda surprised by that. I'm a low single digit player and it's really hard to shave strokes off the game the lower you are. And yet I still see a need to collect the data and figure out my next area of improvement. For example, I've really worked hard over the last year or so at improving my iron accuracy. Eventhough I've plateaued a bit on GIR, I've steadily improved my approach proximity from about 53 to 42 feet and it's had a meaningful impact on my scoring. My next target area is chipping proximity. Currently at about 14 ft and will target 8ft.

 

So at a 15, I'd still think there's lot of areas where stats could show where you could improve. I think it just boils down to time and drive to improve. If you're happy with your game, then I agree there's little point to track stats. Just get out, play and enjoy. But if you have strong desire to improve, then stats are a key element to know where to target and to monitor progress over time.

[TimAZ]

On 6/8/2021 at 8:28 AM, MattM97 said:

 

 

Question about the link is it worth it? I've gotten used to my phone in my pocket but wouldn't mind a lighter option but only if it works as well as the phone. 

 

I'm not the one you're replying to, but I find the Link device worth it so far. I don't mind my phone in my pocket, but as another poster mentioned, what I don't like it having to use my phone during my round. Since I'm not using the Caddie feature, the Link allows me to pretty much ignore Arccos during the round. I start it up on the first tee and switch it off after #18. For me, the shots is struggles to pick up are mostly putts, so I expect to spend a few minutes after the round cleaning that up. And if we're stuck waiting for a group in front of us, sometimes I'll do some of that during the round.

[TimAZ]

On 6/9/2021 at 5:05 PM, North Butte said:

Yes you can do it for absolutely free by simply writing down the distance and lie for every shot, either during or (if your memory is good) after the round.

 

Still a lot of effort once you've noticed that nothing meaningful changes from year to year to year. I've been intermittently tracking my performance for over 15 years and while my handicap has gradually worked down from around 22 to more like 15-ish, the relative strengths and weaknesses have hardly changed at all over that time. I've just gotten slightly better at everything with more experience. 

 

So I can't imagine going back to any for for shot tracking (manual or electronic) any time in the foreseeable future. Just no real return on the time and effort invested. And my innate curiosity is long since satisfied. 

 

As for distance estimates with each club, I agree with your take. I already know that on its own merits (I own a laser rangefinder) and have never really looked at that information when it is presented by Game Golf, Arccos or similar devices. 

 

I like that Arccos feedback is based on strokes gained. It adds a lot more subtlety to the analysis, much more than what I was getting with Garmin's feedback. And while in many cases it does match up with my own impressions of my strengths and weaknesses, it has identified some things that are surprising. I enjoy having some of those really specific things to focus on when I practice, or just when I'm warming up before a round. For example, I'm losing strokes on approach shots between 100 and 150 yards, so I'll use those clubs when I'm at the range before I tee up.

 

But as I mentioned in another post, I know that some (many?) folks don't want or need feedback to that level of detail, and certainly may not see it as "worth it" if it costs them money or disrupts the way they enjoy the game during a round. I think it's largely a matter of personality, and I'm a data nerd; my playing partners are not, so I've never pushed them to try Arccos. One even has Ping clubs and can get the sensors (and trial) for free, but I know that Arccos isn't for him.

 

Quick edit to add: I really like that I can filter my comparisons/data by handicap. So I can set it to what my goal is for this year (in terms of lowering my 'cap) and see how I stack up against those folks. Again, I just feel like it's giving me actionable information.

Edited June 11, 2021 by TimAZ

[MattM97]

29 minutes ago, TimAZ said:

 

I'm not the one you're replying to, but I find the Link device worth it so far. I don't mind my phone in my pocket, but as another poster mentioned, what I don't like it having to use my phone during my round. Since I'm not using the Caddie feature, the Link allows me to pretty much ignore Arccos during the round. I start it up on the first tee and switch it off after #18. For me, the shots is struggles to pick up are mostly putts, so I expect to spend a few minutes after the round cleaning that up. And if we're stuck waiting for a group in front of us, sometimes I'll do some of that during the round.

 

That's good info thanks, I don't want to seem like an a** on the course with my phone out. Some may think I'm on Instagram or texting when I'm just fixing my score. 

[North Butte]

3 hours ago, Luv2kruz said:

I'm kinda surprised by that. I'm a low single digit player and it's really hard to shave strokes off the game the lower you are. And yet I still see a need to collect the data and figure out my next area of improvement. For example, I've really worked hard over the last year or so at improving my iron accuracy. Eventhough I've plateaued a bit on GIR, I've steadily improved my approach proximity from about 53 to 42 feet and it's had a meaningful impact on my scoring. My next target area is chipping proximity. Currently at about 14 ft and will target 8ft.

 

So at a 15, I'd still think there's lot of areas where stats could show where you could improve. I think it just boils down to time and drive to improve. If you're happy with your game, then I agree there's little point to track stats. Just get out, play and enjoy. But if you have strong desire to improve, then stats are a key element to know where to target and to monitor progress over time.

There are plenty of areas where I could improve. It's just the same things that I needed to improve five years ago. 

 

I actually bailed on the whole "improvement" thing years ago in terms of lessons, going to the gym, practicing, etc. Just not my thing. I show up and play and if something gets really bad (start blocking half a dozen tees shots a round into the woods, go through a spell of not being able to get out of bunkers) I'll go see my teaching pro and try to straighten that out. But in the long run, my relative weaknesses are what they are and I don't worry too much about it. 

 

If I ever did make some sort of major change in my game it would be nice to collect stats for a few months and see how it pays of or doesn't. But even then the stats probably tell me things I already know. Viewing my game from a Stroke Gained type perspective over many, many years means for better or worse I can't have many illusions about my game. 😬

[taskerc]

On 6/8/2021 at 5:16 PM, Hoyoymac said:

I prefer the Link. Never liked having my phone in my front pocket.  The Link also picks up shots better and is easier to use to set the pin location for more accurate stats.

What @Hoyoymac said is same for me

[MattM97]

28 minutes ago, taskerc said:

What @Hoyoymac said is same for me

 

How do you set the pin with the Link? That's the most annoying part on the phone at times cause I don't know which way the green is oriented half the time. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by MattM97

[kleydejong]

I did the Ping deal where I registered, got the screw in sensors for free, then paid the yearly subscription.  I have 30 rounds in so far.  I love it and am finding a ton of great value. 

 

I use the on course GPS function a ton.  I have a rangefinder and will use it some, but find the GPS to be helpful.  I love how it gives me both a true yardage and its estimate playing yardage taking into account wind or elevation etc...  I find it helps me be confident in picking a club into wind for example.  I even did a 9 hole round test where I looked at the estimated yardage and club to the middle of the green and obeyed the recommendation blindly with no other consideration.  I hit 7/9 greens which is excellent for me. 

 

Tracking the stats is not perfect.  It definitely misses shots on occasion.  I also have to manually enter the pin location.  But I find it is a very convenient way to spend 5 minutes after a round to do a debrief.  I go through each hole and try to think from a strokes gained perspective on where I went wrong.  It gives great and clear feedback on why I'm a 4 hcp and not scratch. 

 

I always thought I really knew my game quite well.  This revealed that I actually do not.  My weakness is approach.  I miss greens and my proximity to the hole is sporadic.  Therefore I've put some concerted efforts into improving that.  Both from a technique perspective, and it pushed me to find DECADE to help me pick better targets.  This has resulted in some solid improvement.  It helps me realize that my weakness isn't driving distance.  I'm about 106mph club speed with a driver and have been about 250-260 off the tee.  Average scratch is 259. 

 

I think this is a phenomenal tool towards improving your scoring.  It takes some commitment and you have to use it well to get value, but the value has really been there for me.

Edited June 12, 2021 by kleydejong

[Hoyoymac]

To set the pin location with the Link you depress the middle button of the Link for about a second while standing next to the pin on the green.  

 

I have found this to be convenient because generally you are going to be near the pin on every green to either remove the pin while putting, retrieving your ball from the cup or replacing the pin after your done.

 

Why is setting the pin important?  It improves the approach, chipping and putting statistics accuracy and helps identify where your strengths and weaknesses are more clearly.

 

 

[North Butte]

3 minutes ago, Hoyoymac said:

Why is setting the pin important?  It improves the approach, chipping and putting statistics accuracy and helps identify where your strengths and weaknesses are more clearly.

 

I'd go farther and say if you don't set the pin location pretty close to correct on each green, you can not believe what the chipping and putting stats tell you. It's pretty much an absolute requirement that your chipping and putting distances be accurate if they're going to be meaningful. Not necessarily to within a foot but certainly to within a yard of the actual location.

[phil75070]

7 hours ago, North Butte said:

Not necessarily to within a foot but certainly to within a yard of the actual location.

Not sure that GPS is currently even that accurate.

[North Butte]

In my experience with these devices, you're correct. GPS will not consistently get you within even 5-10 feet of the correct first putt distances. I've had to manually edit each of the 18 hole locations and/or first putt locations to agree with my remembered first putt distances, no matter what device or app I've tried. 

 

If you had a 10-foot first putt on one hole and the app/device guesses it was 40 then on the next hole you have a 25-footer and the app guesses 15 feet, that does not all average out. Your putting and potentially short game stats for both holes will be wrong and misleading.

 

But I'll bet not five percent of holes in the Arccos or ShotScope or Game Golf databases reflect the correct first putt distances anywhere close to correctly. Garbage in, garbage out when you try to do analytics on that data. 

[phil75070]

15 hours ago, North Butte said:

Garbage in, garbage out when you try to do analytics on that data. 

You are correct, and we haven't even taken into account any mapping errors. Major errors tend to be reported and corrected, but what is the typical mapping error (+/-) in general? Until L5 GPS is fully operational providing 30cm accuracy, any data in regard to putting and short game may not be totally "garbage" but does have to be taken with a good deal of skepticism as to its accuracy.

[North Butte]

13 minutes ago, phil75070 said:

You are correct, and we haven't even taken into account any mapping errors. Major errors tend to be reported and corrected, but what is the typical mapping error (+/-) in general? Until L5 GPS is fully operational providing 30cm accuracy, any data in regard to putting and short game may not be totally "garbage" but does have to be taken with a good deal of skepticism as to its accuracy.

I don't know about quoted specs for accuracy but every golf GPS unit I've ever seen will frequently change its mind by a yard or two while I'm standing stock still. So that tells me they are reliably repeatable to maybe 2-3 yards at best. Which is like 5-10 feet.

 

Unedited rounds will have a few long putts listed as inside 10 feet and an awful lot of short putts (no more than 5-6 feet) listed as much longer. Either of those really screw up the calculations. 

[larrybud]

Smartphone GPS is only good to ~ +/- 5 yards.

[Luv2kruz]

On 7/18/2021 at 11:19 AM, larrybud said:

Smartphone GPS is only good to ~ +/- 5 yards.

 

And that's why I find it hilarious that people will spend hundreds of dollars on hardware and annual subscriptions for an 'automated' solution that needs to be corrected all the time. Doesn't sound that automated to me. Far cheaper solutions exist to do the exact same thing. I manually enter all my stats into an app using my rangefinder and pacing off putts which is far more accurate than any GPS. It literally takes seconds to do so and is not distracting or cumbersome. Just as good as Arccos without all the expense and hassle. I think people get enamored with fancy gadgets. 

Edited July 24, 2021 by Luv2kruz

[larrybud]

That's just it, you manually enter that info.

[North Butte]

4 hours ago, Luv2kruz said:

 

And that's why I find it hilarious that people will spend hundreds of dollars on hardware and annual subscriptions for an 'automated' solution that needs to be corrected all the time. Doesn't sound that automated to me. Far cheaper solutions exist to do the exact same thing. I manually enter all my stats into an app using my rangefinder and pacing off putts which is far more accurate than any GPS. It literally takes seconds to do so and is not distracting or cumbersome. Just as good as Arccos without all the expense and hassle. I think people get enamored with fancy gadgets. 

99% of people who use a device like Arccos let it place the shots wherever it does and then pore over the stats as though they are detailed and meaingful. The only corrections most people make are when the number of shots recorded on a hole is wrong.

 

If you don't edit and correct after the round it'll mostly be garbage in/garbage out but hey, it's only a game right? 

[mulliganman30]

How’s the Strokes Gained info compare between Arccos and Shotscope?   

[golfortennis]

On 6/11/2021 at 1:46 PM, North Butte said:

There are plenty of areas where I could improve. It's just the same things that I needed to improve five years ago. 

 

I actually bailed on the whole "improvement" thing years ago in terms of lessons, going to the gym, practicing, etc. Just not my thing. I show up and play and if something gets really bad (start blocking half a dozen tees shots a round into the woods, go through a spell of not being able to get out of bunkers) I'll go see my teaching pro and try to straighten that out. But in the long run, my relative weaknesses are what they are and I don't worry too much about it. 

 

If I ever did make some sort of major change in my game it would be nice to collect stats for a few months and see how it pays of or doesn't. But even then the stats probably tell me things I already know. Viewing my game from a Stroke Gained type perspective over many, many years means for better or worse I can't have many illusions about my game. 😬

 

I don't mean to sound crass, but if you have bailed on improving your golf game, why do you continually post in threads about stats?  You're a good poster here so I mean it from a straight perspective, not complaining you can't.  But I have yet to meet anyone who keeps stats who isn't looking to improve.  So to post about how the weaknesses are the same as always so why bother keeping stats is a bit misleading when you yourself haven't looked to improve.

 

There's nothing wrong with going and playing for fun, and have at it.  But telling guys that stats won't tell you anything you don't already know based on your experience, when you are not looking to improve your game, is kind of like me telling my pitcher nephews that charting pitches won't do them any good because I never pitched at a level where it mattered.

[North Butte]

1 minute ago, golfortennis said:

 

I don't mean to sound crass, but if you have bailed on improving your golf game, why do you continually post in threads about stats?  You're a good poster here so I mean it from a straight perspective, not complaining you can't.  But I have yet to meet anyone who keeps stats who isn't looking to improve.  So to post about how the weaknesses are the same as always so why bother keeping stats is a bit misleading when you yourself haven't looked to improve.

 

There's nothing wrong with going and playing for fun, and have at it.  But telling guys that stats won't tell you anything you don't already know based on your experience, when you are not looking to improve your game, is kind of like me telling my pitcher nephews that charting pitches won't do them any good because I never pitched at a level where it mattered.

I learned a lot about my game and my tendencies during the first few years I kept and studied shot by shot statistics. And for anyone willing to do the work to make sure they're collecting correct information, I think it's worth doing in order to gain some insight. My first analysis of about half a year (50+ rounds) of shot by shot data was in 2002 using a set of metrics I came up with along with a couple of online acquaintances. We ended up with something not miles from Strokes Gained although we had only our own games to use as baselines. 

 

But after nearly 20 years of (intermittently) tracking and analyzing my own game there's nothing left to learn. Each weakness that I know about would take prolonged, fairly intensive effort to improve to any useful extent.

 

About fifteen years ago I shared my what I'd learned about my game with my friend who's a teaching pro. He set up a program for improvement and over a period of a year and a half I made definite progress on a couple of fronts. But we're talking hours a week of doing stuff I hated, just in the pursuit of being able to hit better shots and shoot better scores when I played golf. It wasn't worth it. 

 

If you're not like that, if you genuinely expect to devote a lot of time to improving your golf game I totally advise tracking at least a good, representative sample of your rounds shot by shot and analyzing them. If you're going to put in the effort, it makes sense to keep it on track for where it's going to have most benefit.

 

But you can't do that by letting Arccos or Shotlink just compile GPS-based "shots" and summarize it all for you. There will be so many errors the results will almost certainly be misleading. You have to edit and check the data while it's being recorded or immediately after. 

[Frankensteins Monster]

On 7/24/2021 at 10:34 AM, Luv2kruz said:

 

And that's why I find it hilarious that people will spend hundreds of dollars on hardware and annual subscriptions for an 'automated' solution that needs to be corrected all the time. Doesn't sound that automated to me. Far cheaper solutions exist to do the exact same thing. I manually enter all my stats into an app using my rangefinder and pacing off putts which is far more accurate than any GPS. It literally takes seconds to do so and is not distracting or cumbersome. Just as good as Arccos without all the expense and hassle. I think people get enamored with fancy gadgets. 

Pacing off putts? 

 

[Luv2kruz]

4 hours ago, Frankensteins Monster said:

Pacing off putts? 

 

 

Not sure if your post is a question or a reaction.

 

If its a question, pacing off putts measures the approximately distance of the putt so that I can enter into my stats. 1 pace = roughly 3 ft,,so if I am 7 paces from the hole, that's roughly a 21 foot putt. The other benefit of pacing off the putt is that I get to feel the green under my feet. Helps me confirm the visual read of the green. And BTW, I am fast player and none of this slows anything down in the least. 

 

If its a reaction, then I can also use that same meme to describe how I feel about Arccos and its exorbitant costs. Complete rip off IMO.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Luv2kruz

[Frankensteins Monster]

15 hours ago, Luv2kruz said:

 

Not sure if your post is a question or a reaction.

 

If its a question, pacing off putts measures the approximately distance of the putt so that I can enter into my stats. 1 pace = roughly 3 ft,,so if I am 7 paces from the hole, that's roughly a 21 foot putt. The other benefit of pacing off the putt is that I get to feel the green under my feet. Helps me confirm the visual read of the green. And BTW, I am fast player and none of this slows anything down in the least. 

 

If its a reaction, then I can also use that same meme to describe how I feel about Arccos and its exorbitant costs. Complete rip off IMO.

You pacing off is no more accurate than using a pointer on a map.

 

You complained about having to slightly adjust location in Arccos, manually, sometimes, you're doing everything manually.

 

You're delusional if you think you're not slowing anything down. Arccos can be done after a round. The way you do it has to be done immediately.

 

The only possible knock about Arccos is the $100/$120 a year fee.

[North Butte]

10 minutes ago, Frankensteins Monster said:

You pacing off is no more accurate than using a pointer on a map.

 

You complained about having to slightly adjust location in Arccos, manually, sometimes, you're doing everything manually.

 

You're delusional if you think you're not slowing anything down. Arccos can be done after a round. The way you do it has to be done immediately.

 

The only possible knock about Arccos is the $100/$120 a year fee.

I eyeball my first-putt distances, although I started out by pacing the ones that were longer than 15 feet or so until I was confident in my eyeballing judgement. 

 

I am sure that I routinely record 40 foot putts as 35 feet or 50 feet on occasion. Or 12 foot putts as 9 feet or 16 feet. Outside of about 15 feet I'm rounding off to the nearest 5 or 10 feet anyway and even the rounded off numbers may be off by one "bin" quite frequently.

 

But I never, ever record a 40 foot putt as 3 feet or a 10 foot putt at 25 feet. GPS-based automated shot tracking do that sort of thing all the time. The concern isn't that you might make a 30% error in manually estimating the length of a putt. The concern is that GPS measures frequently mis-assign first putt distances by 200% or even 500% at times. 

[Frankensteins Monster]

22 minutes ago, North Butte said:

I eyeball my first-putt distances, although I started out by pacing the ones that were longer than 15 feet or so until I was confident in my eyeballing judgement. 

 

I am sure that I routinely record 40 foot putts as 35 feet or 50 feet on occasion. Or 12 foot putts as 9 feet or 16 feet. Outside of about 15 feet I'm rounding off to the nearest 5 or 10 feet anyway and even the rounded off numbers may be off by one "bin" quite frequently.

 

But I never, ever record a 40 foot putt as 3 feet or a 10 foot putt at 25 feet. GPS-based automated shot tracking do that sort of thing all the time. The concern isn't that you might make a 30% error in manually estimating the length of a putt. The concern is that GPS measures frequently mis-assign first putt distances by 200% or even 500% at times. 

And you can adjust that in under five seconds.

[North Butte]

I think your "under five seconds" is an underestimate by the time I fish a phone out of my pocket, unlock the screen, get the view zoomed in on the green and reposition both the flag and the ball location all while wearing a golf glove and sunglasses. More like 15-20 seconds I'd say. But even if it were five seconds, I refuse to mess with my phone during a round of golf.

 

So it means manually estimating the first putt distance, either remembered it or writing it down and then doing all those edits after the round. That was my workflow when I used Arccos. I'm just not willing to spending $100/year or more to pay for an "automated" system that requires me to manually estimate and recall important data and edit it into each round after the fact. That's an automatic at all. 

 

I'm not saying it's not worth it if you value the information you're gaining. But the cost is the acquisition cost of the sensors, the subscription costs and (to do things to the level of detail I consider necessary) about 15 minutes of effort after you get home, working from memory to check and correct the entire round. Not a total deal-breaker but I stand by my earlier assertion than 99% of the rounds current recorded in Arccos have had no meaningful editing or correction done. People in general take whatever the "automated" shot tracking tells them. 

[Luv2kruz]

13 hours ago, Frankensteins Monster said:

You pacing off is no more accurate than using a pointer on a map.

 

You complained about having to slightly adjust location in Arccos, manually, sometimes, you're doing everything manually.

 

You're delusional if you think you're not slowing anything down. Arccos can be done after a round. The way you do it has to be done immediately.

 

The only possible knock about Arccos is the $100/$120 a year fee.

Plus the cost of hardware, which can run another couple hundred. And all for a solution that needs constant correction. That's the real delusional part. 

[Mcgeeno]

Things I didnt like about Arccos (which came with my new cobras)

 

I had to keep my cellphone in a pocket. No go for me.

I got a 3 month trial and then it was 120+ a year after that. No go for me.

It had a difficult time in my 4-5 rounds reading putts or close chips around the green etc. Did not seem efficient in this area.

When I went to cancel the subscription (even though I was still in the free trial) it took 3-4 emails and 2-3 phone calls before they finally let me out. I remember the last guy asked me why and I said I didnt like carrying my phone in a front pocket. He recommended an arcos caddy system (I think?) for an additional fee etc.

 

Just one dudes opinion. I really wanted to like it but it wasnt a fit for me.