Ever heard about Maltby Playability Factor???

[Jay.P.Emm]

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??

 

[thechrisgibbs]

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!

[Maxilim]

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.  

[Siamese Moose]

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.

[russtopherb]

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.

[null]

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

[TheProfessor]

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. 

[NCDuffer]

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

[Kansas King]

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. 

[fixyurdivot]

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.  

[heavygolffeels]

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.