Jay.P.Emm Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 The Maltby Playability Factor (MPF) was developed by Ralph Maltby as a way to evaluate and differentiate the playability of iron designs. Located at: https://www.golfworks.com/iron-head-mpf-ratings/a/870/ Iron heads are rated from ultra game improvement to player classic. All manufacturers, all versions. Anyone have an opinion on how accurate or helpful the ratings?? Quote Link to comment
thechrisgibbs Posted July 30, 2021 Share Posted July 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, Jay.P.Emm said: The Maltby Playability Factor (MPF) was developed by Ralph Maltby as a way to evaluate and differentiate the playability of iron designs. Located at: https://www.golfworks.com/iron-head-mpf-ratings/a/870/ Iron heads are rated from ultra game improvement to player classic. All manufacturers, all versions. Anyone have an opinion on how accurate or helpful the ratings?? I like the distinction breakdown. I'm curious which tour pros currently play Game Improvement and up though. Also, I'm shocked it put the Taylormade TW irons in the Classic category vs. the Player Classic. Doesn't get smaller than the TW irons! fixyurdivot 1 Quote Driver: Stealth 8* turned down to 6* X-Stiff, Graphite Design Tour AD XC-6 3 Wood: Sim 14* X-Stiff, Aldila Rogue Silver 2 Iron/2 Hybrid: Mizuno MP-20 HMB, Graphite Design Tour AD; Forged Tec set to 17* X-Stiff, Catalyst 6.0 P-4 Irons: MP20, Dynamic Gold X100 Wedges: Vokey SM9 50 degree 08F, 56 degree 08M and 60 degree 08M My Putter: B.2, LA Golf Shaft Ball: AVX 5.3 Handicapped; Right Hander; from Salt Lake City, Utah Link to comment
Maxilim Posted August 1, 2021 Share Posted August 1, 2021 Doesn't seem very reliable or accurate. I play Ping S55 (594) and they're listed as Game improvement. They're not designed to improve your game... The I210s (338) are Classics, iBlades (430) are Conventional, and the Blueprints (458) are conventional. I wouldn't consider the cavity back i210s to be harder to hit than the blade Blueprints. null, cnosil and fixyurdivot 3 Quote Taylormade SIM2 8* w/ Smoke RDX Blue 60 6.5 Callaway Mavrik SubZero 15* w/ Aldila Rogue White 70x Taylormade Stealth 19* w/ RDX Smoke Red 70x Mizuno MP 223 w/ Nippon 120 Stiff Bettinardi Studio Stock 28 Link to comment
Siamese Moose Posted August 1, 2021 Share Posted August 1, 2021 I've always thought it was over simplistic. His numbers are based purely on physical size and the location of the cg. I haven't checked in a while, but I think MOI might be in there as well. There's not any accounting of the subtleties of design. It's a useful start, but not a definitive system. Kansas King and fixyurdivot 2 Quote Moose, my cat, is Siamese Link to comment
russtopherb Posted August 1, 2021 Share Posted August 1, 2021 I give very little credence to those ratings. There are often a number of headscratchers in those listings that make no sense, and the "accuracy" of the ratings has been questioned more than once over the years. Quote In my Big Max hybrid bag: ST-X 10.5* Kai'li Blue R Flex ST-Z 15* Kai'li Blue R Flex ST-Z 4h Linq Blue R Flex Launcher 5h D200 6i-GW CBX 54* & 58* Huntington Beach #10 Tour S Link to comment
null Posted August 1, 2021 Share Posted August 1, 2021 7 hours ago, Maxilim said: Doesn't seem very reliable or accurate. I play Ping S55 (594) and they're listed as Game improvement. They're not designed to improve your game... The I210s (338) are Classics, iBlades (430) are Conventional, and the Blueprints (458) are conventional. I wouldn't consider the cavity back i210s to be harder to hit than the blade Blueprints. Yup. Been discussed here a lot It’s basically a marketing tool NM01 and TR1PTIK 2 Quote Link to comment
TheProfessor Posted August 3, 2021 Share Posted August 3, 2021 It's interesting to look at but as others have said there have to be flaws with it. My current MP-20 MBs are rated as slightly more forgiving than JPX-900 Tours (which I used to play) and that is definitely not the case in my experience. fixyurdivot 1 Quote 917 D3 9.5* Kiyoshi Black 65-05 917 F3 15* VA Drago 75-X 818 H2 19* Ventus Black 10-TX MP-20 MB 3-9 PX 6.5, T20 47* PX 6.5 SM7 54-10S/60-08M PX 6.5/6.0 Scotty Cameron Special Select Squareback 2 Link to comment
NCDuffer Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 http://ralphmaltby.com/what-is-mpf/ It’s simply a tool for comparison of the head characteristics. Some like it and some don’t. Just like some like certain swing ideas and others don’t. Its C-dimension and Actual Vertical COG are keys for me when looking for clubs. Really it’s the head “physics” only. For example, for irons the formula evaluates five dimensional and mass properties of an iron head Vertical Center of Gravity Horizontal Center of Gravity Rearward Center of Gravity Geometric Center of the Face Moment of Inertia fixyurdivot 1 Quote TSi2 Driver, Titleist TSi2 4 Wood, Ping G410 3 Hybrid, Ping G400 4 Hybrid, Maltby TS1 5-GW, Maltby Max Milled 54, Maltby Max Milled 58, Piretti Forza. Some folks say golf messes up a nice walk. That’s not true, golf makes a nice walk bearable. Link to comment
Kansas King Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 On 7/31/2021 at 11:57 PM, Maxilim said: Doesn't seem very reliable or accurate. I play Ping S55 (594) and they're listed as Game improvement. They're not designed to improve your game... The I210s (338) are Classics, iBlades (430) are Conventional, and the Blueprints (458) are conventional. I wouldn't consider the cavity back i210s to be harder to hit than the blade Blueprints. The numbers are all derived from real measurements. However, I would not put a lot of weight on the actual MPF numbers. The MPF does not take factors such as sole design into account. The numbers solely look at the mass and dimensional properties of the head. Lots of people like to say the MPF is just for marketing but the reality is that their clubs score higher because they design their clubs with the principles Ralph Maltby preaches in their books and that is baked into how the MPF is calculated. It basically confirms that they practice what they preach. On 8/1/2021 at 6:47 AM, Siamese Moose said: I've always thought it was over simplistic. His numbers are based purely on physical size and the location of the cg. I haven't checked in a while, but I think MOI might be in there as well. There's not any accounting of the subtleties of design. It's a useful start, but not a definitive system. This is a good interpretation. I have personally found the measurements to be a very useful tool because it's nice to look at the numbers of past irons played and see what the characteristics were of the irons I liked versus the ones I didn't like. The C-dimension (distance the COG is away from the hosel) and VCOG (vertical center of gravity) are numbers worth looking at. I've been meaning to make a post one these days using different iron heads built to the same specs and demonstrate the differences in how the head's mass and dimensional properties actually make a difference but I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Overall, I'm a big supporter of what Golfworks does with the MPF measurements. They are the only source in the golf industry that publishes actual measurements. Sure, the MPF number itself may not mean much but the measurements are gold that shouldn't be ignored. Ralph Maltby is one of the few in the golf industry that made a real effort to teach golfers about the physics and design of golf clubs and his books are good. Additionally, the concepts in those books are still applicable today. Lot's of people like to trash Maltby and Golfworks because it's easy to do when they say something that doesn't line up with a multi-million dollar marketing campaign. However, they really just stick with the basic principles of clubhead design. There is a reason Golfworks and Maltby still exist and have influence in the golf equipment manufacturing world. Siamese Moose and fixyurdivot 2 Quote Link to comment
fixyurdivot Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 On 7/31/2021 at 10:57 PM, Maxilim said: Doesn't seem very reliable or accurate. I play Ping S55 (594) and they're listed as Game improvement. They're not designed to improve your game... The I210s (338) are Classics, iBlades (430) are Conventional, and the Blueprints (458) are conventional. I wouldn't consider the cavity back i210s to be harder to hit than the blade Blueprints. Agree that the numbers and subsequent category designations seem peculiar at times but I like that it is principally based on club head design attributes and physics. Used consistently, it provides the best relative comparison that I've ever seen. Kansas King and NCDuffer 2 Quote G410 Plus, 9 Degree Driver G400 SFT, 16 Degree 3w G400 SFT, 19 Degree 5w ZX5 Irons 4-AW Glide 2.0 56 Degree SW (removed from double secret probation ) ER5v Putter (Official Review) AI-One Milled Seven T CH (Official Review) Link to comment
heavygolffeels Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 I'm a big fan. I check the ratings on any iron set before purchase and on any newer release that interest me. Nowhere else can you get such a list of data points on an iron head. NCDuffer and fixyurdivot 2 Quote GARSEN GRIP TESTER Driver: PING G400 MAX, Ventus Blue 6x Woods: COBRA F6 Baffler AD DI 8S Hybrid: CALLAWAY Apex Pro, Ventus Blue 8s Irons: SRIXON ZX5 mk2 5-6, ZX7 mk2 7-PW, Modus 120x Wedges: EDEL 50 C grind, 54 V grind, CLEVELAND 60 RTX6 Low Putter: YES Abbie! Link to comment
Boris119 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 These ratings and numbers are what they are. A lot of how playable an iron is depends on you swing and your comfort with that particular iron. I took a 5 year break from golf, decided to get back into the the game at 65. I was playing a set of Mizuno 850, and truly struggled to hit them when I returned to play. I went out and bought a set of Cobra King Tour and have shot the best rounds I have ever played. So it truly has to do with what pleases your eyes when it comes to playability. Quote Cobra LTDX 10.5driver Cobra LTDX 3 wood Cobra Aerojet 3 hybrid Cobra King Tour irons 4 thru p UST Recoil 680 shafts Cobra Snakebite 48, 54, 60 Cobra Vintage Stingray 40 Snell Prime 3.0 Link to comment
Brooky03 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 MPF overvalues COG. The idea is that a low COG must be more playable than a high COG because it will help get the ball up in the air. It ignores other technologies in irons, especially these days, that necessitate a comparatively high COG because everything else the club is doing is designed to get the ball up in the air. If the COG was placed lower in some of those irons, even a weekend hacker would be putting shots up into the clouds. Like others have said, the actual measurements are useful. The MPF number is less useful. Quote Link to comment
NM01 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 2 minutes ago, Brooky03 said: MPF overvalues COG. The idea is that a low COG must be more playable than a high COG because it will help get the ball up in the air. It ignores other technologies in irons, especially these days, that necessitate a comparatively high COG because everything else the club is doing is designed to get the ball up in the air. If the COG was placed lower in some of those irons, even a weekend hacker would be putting shots up into the clouds. Like others have said, the actual measurements are useful. The MPF number is less useful. While you are correct about what would happen if cog would be moved in some heads it’s actually a much needed measurement because of how one swings. a vcog above the center of the golf ball isn’t good for a sweeper with their irons. It’s why some struggle with ping irons. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.