Arccos Vs Golf Shot

[FloodedGolf]

12 minutes ago, Walkerdb7 said:

Yes, I have used it on and off for 3 years. I love the data and it's amazing how much they have improved it, but it rarely tells me something I don't know? That's why I get stuck with what to do with the data, haha.

It tells me to hit less balls OB and my sore will come down... like Thanks arccos, I wish it were that easy! Only years of lessons on that particular topic!!!

I like it, but not sure I make an impactful use of it

 

Yeah very true, you can only do so much with the data. One thing that I feel like more helpful then the others is the Approach stats. Like mine tells me that my GIR% is higher on 120 yard shots compared to 80 so have been more inclined to club down to be in that range. Just little things like that I feel like have been able to help my course management.

Either way to me I just really enjoy seeing all the analytics to tell me how much I suck lol.

[bobfoster]

On 5/25/2023 at 4:24 PM, x4me84 said:

With the subscription price increases, I am going away from Arccos too when my current subscription expires. I have used Arccos for a long time, but I know my club distances now and don't see the justification to pay even more for the same data. I mostly used it for gps distances, but will probably switch to Golfshot for that.

Completely with you. Been playing for a long time. Know my distances cold, and certainly don't need an app to recommend a club. Have been using GolfShot for close to a year now, and actually love it. Distance are usually quite accurate. Really intuitive user interface. Good distances to everything (i.e., not just to hole, but to traps, water, doglegs, etc.). Lot's of apps do this though. GolfShot let's me "drag and drop" distances however. One hole on a local course, for instance, is a long par 5, with a sharp left dogleg (at about 320 yards) around a lake. It's a great risk/reward shot depending on the drive, and how much water you want to try to fly. GolfShot does give distance to the green, but you can drag the marker (in the app) from the green up the fairway (i.e., if you don't want to challenge the entire lake), and it will give you the distance to the spot you're aiming at, and the distance from that spot to the green. (That was convoluted, hope it made sense.)

 

You can manually enter a few variables for each hole if you are using it to keep score and want stats - fairways hit, GIR, putts, sand shots - but I don't really use it for that. I haven't bothered to keep a handicap for several years, but I'm thinking I might start again this year just for fun. GolfShot makes it pretty convenient - you enter the tees you are playing, enter your scores, have your GHIN number in your profile, and it will automatically post the score to the system at the end of the round. 

 

I didn't think the watch functioned completely apart from the phone (as a couple folks seem to indicate). But it has an odd, quirky feature. I'm now using with a (new) Samsung S24 Ultra, and a Samsung Smartwatch 6.  The watch app won't load until you first open the phone app. However (this is the quirky part), if your watch has it's own internal GPS, you can tell it to use the watch GPS on the watch. Again, sorta convoluted, but in practice (for instance) if you are riding in a cart (where your phone is), on a cart path only day, you can walk across a fairway to your ball, and the watch won't simply keep displaying the phone distance, it will display the distance you (and the watch) are from the hole (i.e., you don't need to get all Pythagorean Theorem to adjust the distance).

 

Oops. Didn't mean to start writing a review. Point is, for the purposes the OP is talking about, GolfShot probably isn't the solution he is looking for. But it is a very solid, functional, feature rich golf app. 

[Walkerdb7]

2 hours ago, FloodedGolf said:

 

Yeah very true, you can only do so much with the data. One thing that I feel like more helpful then the others is the Approach stats. Like mine tells me that my GIR% is higher on 120 yard shots compared to 80 so have been more inclined to club down to be in that range. Just little things like that I feel like have been able to help my course management.

Either way to me I just really enjoy seeing all the analytics to tell me how much I suck lol.

And this is why I ask, haha, I never thought about that.

 

I usually lay up on a Par 5 based on whatever long club I am the most comfortable for a particular shot  which should have a trouble free landing area. Never much worried if it was 100 or 120... but maybe I should consider that. thanks

[North Butte]

On 3/6/2024 at 3:15 PM, FloodedGolf said:

 

Yeah very true, you can only do so much with the data. One thing that I feel like more helpful then the others is the Approach stats. Like mine tells me that my GIR% is higher on 120 yard shots compared to 80 so have been more inclined to club down to be in that range. Just little things like that I feel like have been able to help my course management.

Either way to me I just really enjoy seeing all the analytics to tell me how much I suck lol.

Way back before Strokes Gained or even the ShotLink data it's based on, I did lots of analytics on my own game. Manually, pencil, paper then wrote computer programs to analyze it.

 

My expected strokes to hole out from 100-125 yards were definitely lower than from 75-100 yards. Actually it was a pretty big difference. So I ran a few tables and charts and showed them to my teaching pro.

He look at the numbers for about 60 seconds and said, "Come on, we need to work on your wedge game".

 

He showed me how a "full swing" or "stock swing" with a wedge is done differently than a stock short iron swing. Three lessons and quite a few hours of practice later, I finally "got it" and that difference in result flipped back to the expected direction.

 

That's just about the only actionable insight I've ever truly gained from golf analytics. It was a fascinating ride for 20 years or so looking at everything, every which way, both manually and with various devices and apps to collect the data. But every single thing I've ever seen other than that one wedge game problem circa Y2K had been the stats telling me things in great detailed that I already knew in general. And never did the details matter much. But interesting!