Can someone explain MPF, and what all the ratings mean/do?

With regard to the Malty Playability Factor rating (specifically for irons), I was wondering if someone could please explain what all the rating mean, and how they impact forgiveness/playability?

The ratings are as follows:

"C" Dim

Basic VCOG

MOI

Actual RCOG

VCOG Adjust

Actual VCOG

VCOG C.F.

MOI C.F.

http://www.golfworks.com/article.asp?ai=870&eid=IronMPF

Thanks

There are a few long threads on here that have all the info you could ever want, probably more, including various strongly felt opinions about the validity of the ratings.

http://ralphmaltby.com/what-is-mpf/

[quote name='Nessism' timestamp='1436492252' post='11920536']
[url="http://ralphmaltby.com/what-is-mpf/"]http://ralphmaltby.com/what-is-mpf/[/url]
[/quote]

Unfortunately this does not tell you the info I am looking for.

I know you have two fields of camp that support and don't support the Maltby Playability Factors.

I did year people that better understand each of the measured items and focus only on those that matter to them and ignore the calculation that uses them all. Then you can resort and review only those clubs tailored to you.

First, I am trying to better understand what each of the items below mean:

"C" Dim

Basic VCOG

MOI

Actual RCOG

VCOG Adjust

Actual VCOG

VCOG C.F.

MOI C.F.

The links above don't tell you what each means and how they are measured.

For me just learning I think I want

1) weight low

2) higher MOI I think to reduce loss of distance on toeside/healside strikes

3) wider face to allow for potentially larger sweet spot

thanks.

Any insight into the specific measurements would be helpful.

This should help:

https://www.golfworks.com/how-playability-factor-is-measured/a/147/

http://ralphmaltby.com/what-is-mpf/

This should help:

https://www.golfwork...measured/a/147/

There are a few long threads on here that have all the info you could ever want, probably more, including various strongly felt opinions about the validity of the ratings.

There are many threads on who likes / dislikes the MPF. Not looking for that. Looking for information on how each factor is measured. I didn't see that in other threads but yes there are a lot on whether they like or dislike the MPF itself.

All you need to know is that it says the Cleveland 588MB blades are "Game Improvement." Apparently solely due to its low CG. Ok, sure.

You might want to read this from Tom Wishon's site first before you invest time understanding all the measurements for MPF.

MPF Technical Analysis

 

For me just learning I think I want

1) weight low

2) higher MOI I think to reduce loss of distance on toeside/healside strikes

3) wider face to allow for potentially larger sweet spot

 

thanks.

Any insight into the specific measurements would be helpful.

The two most important measurements when using detail to select a head design are AVCOG and C-dimension.

C-dimension....otherwise known as "horizontal COG", is the distance of sweet-spot from the hosel. A design that has a longer C-dimension, effectively has a wider face area to work with, because any impact inside of the sweet-spot will twist the head less than a strike that is outside of it. So designs with a short C-d have less face area to work with for relatively solid contact between the edge of the hosel (shank) and the COG (sweet-spot).

Actual Vertical COG is a calculation of the Basic and Rearward COG's, which gives us the actual height of the sweet-spot. A solid strike in the "vertical aspect" of contact is one in which the AVCOG of the head design is 'in line with' or somewhat below the center of the golf ball, which measures .840"....

Contact becomes "thin" and less and less solid, the higher the AVCOG arrives above the .840" center point of the ball. So designs that have AVCOG's near and above .840", have less room to work with vertically for solid contact. In other words, they require a more precise "down and through" with forward shaft lean, in order to get the sweet-spot to or below .840".

MOI is the head's resistance to twisting, when it is stuck off center....particularly outside the COG (sweetspot). A higher MOI only enhances a good sweet-spot position for the given player....it does not make up for a less than ideal one.

In terms of "forgiving horizontally" and towards the toe, always look for a longer C-dimension first. Then in addition to that, a higher MOI will enhance it a bit

All you need to know is that it says the Cleveland 588MB blades are "Game Improvement." Apparently solely due to its low CG. Ok, sure.

A lower sweet-spot, makes a head design much easier to hit solid on a consistent basis, for a lot of players. This detail can actually "improve their game", especially if they had been playing with another design with a high sweet-spot. Nothing worse in iron design for a player who has more of a "sweeping" AOA and an impact pattern that tends to be lower on the face, than using one that has a sweet-spot higher than the center of the ball (.840")

An iron doesn't necessarily need to be large in overall size with a full undercut cavity, in order to help a large segment of players with certain impact/flight characteristics

I am not getting much better insight into the actual parameters. does anyone have an approximate formula he uses to calculate MPF. I can then modify based on my tendencies. Thanks.

I am not getting much better insight into the actual parameters. does anyone have an approximate formula he uses to calculate MPF. I can then modify based on my tendencies. Thanks.

Here's another link that shows some of the calculations...http://ralphmaltby.com/method-of-determining-mpf/

It's a lot of math with all the formulas, that arrives at the final "score". You really should get his book that explains everything and is outstanding. It's called "The Maltby Playability Factor, understanding golf club dynamics"

All you need to know is that it says the Cleveland 588MB blades are "Game Improvement." Apparently solely due to its low CG. Ok, sure.

For me just learning I think I want

1) weight low

2) higher MOI I think to reduce loss of distance on toeside/healside strikes

3) wider face to allow for potentially larger sweet spot

 

thanks.

Any insight into the specific measurements would be helpful.

 

The two most important measurements when using detail to select a head design are AVCOG and C-dimension.

 

C-dimension....otherwise known as "horizontal COG", is the distance of sweet-spot from the hosel. A design that has a longer C-dimension, effectively has a wider face area to work with, because any impact inside of the sweet-spot will twist the head less than a strike that is outside of it. So designs with a short C-d have less face area to work with for relatively solid contact between the edge of the hosel (shank) and the COG (sweet-spot).

 

Actual Vertical COG is a calculation of the Basic and Rearward COG's, which gives us the actual height of the sweet-spot. A solid strike in the "vertical aspect" of contact is one in which the AVCOG of the head design is 'in line with' or somewhat below the center of the golf ball, which measures .840"....

 

Contact becomes "thin" and less and less solid, the higher the AVCOG arrives above the .840" center point of the ball. So designs that have AVCOG's near and above .840", have less room to work with vertically for solid contact. In other words, they require a more precise "down and through" with forward shaft lean, in order to get the sweet-spot to or below .840".

 

MOI is the head's resistance to twisting, when it is stuck off center....particularly outside the COG (sweetspot). A higher MOI only enhances a good sweet-spot position for the given player....it does not make up for a less than ideal one.

 

In terms of "forgiving horizontally" and towards the toe, always look for a longer C-dimension first. Then in addition to that, a higher MOI will enhance it a bit

So for what you are saying I am playing TM PSI Tour Forged. These are rated as classic 303 below that of a players club. Very hard to hit. But the data lines up. cDim 1.120 one of the smallest faces. AVCOG = 0.845 which is > 0.840 which explains why there are a lot of thin shots. MOI 12.5. Not so bad for MOI but given the cDim and AVCOB explains why these are harder to hit than "playes" clubs.

So for me it looks like if I keep these three in mind and get a list then look at them and rule out the looks "ie thick top line, offset, etc" I have my list that should look playable but are more forgiving. Thanks.

So for what you are saying I am playing TM PSI Tour Forged. These are rated as classic 303 below that of a players club. Very hard to hit. But the data lines up. cDim 1.120 one of the smallest faces. AVCOG = 0.845 which is > 0.840 which explains why there are a lot of thin shots. MOI 12.5. Not so bad for MOI but given the cDim and AVCOB explains why these are harder to hit than "playes" clubs.

 

So for me it looks like if I keep these three in mind and get a list then look at them and rule out the looks "ie thick top line, offset, etc" I have my list that should look playable but are more forgiving. Thanks.

Those wouldn't necessarily be hard to hit, for some players, depending on their angle of attack and impact pattern.....although most could find a design that is more "friendly".

Don't look at a higher MOI as a top priority. Look for something that has a longer C-d and a lower AVCOG and you will most likely find a design that is easier to hit solid and more forgiving. A higher MOI would just enhance the better sweet-spot (COG) and make them a little more forgiving towards the toe.

If you do a search on here, for "Maltby Cwebb", you'll find some of the many discussions on this topic that go into more detail about how to understand and use the MPF

You might want to read this from Tom Wishon's site first before you invest time understanding all the measurements for MPF.

 

MPF Technical Analysis

While i agree mpf is pretty useless for woods its great for irons. This is because as stated MOI doesnt mean as much in irons and gear effect is almost non existant.

You might want to read this from Tom Wishon's site first before you invest time understanding all the measurements for MPF.

 

MPF Technical Analysis

 

While i agree mpf is pretty useless for woods its great for irons. This is because as stated MOI doesnt mean as much in irons and gear effect is almost non existant.

Yeah, any discussion of drivers/woods concerning the MPF, has gone well off course. It is about the "mass and dimensional properties" of irons.

In addition, disregarding longer C-dimensions or sweetspots (COG) which are further out from the hosel, because they will "increase a slice", is also missing the boat. If this were the case, every player who has played the most forgiving Pings since the company started, would complain about how much they fade/push with Ping irons. Which is not the case.....Pings have always been regarded as some of the most easy to hit solid and forgiving irons.

Here's an article and then a video from Ralph Maltby...http://ralphmaltby.com/comparing-playability-of-two-iron-designs/

Take note in this video, that he specifically says they've done lots of player testing and he's worked with tour players as well. So the notion that the aspects within the MPF, were never confirmed with actual player testing is completely false. http://ralphmaltby.c...ctor-for-irons/

You might want to read this from Tom Wishon's site first before you invest time understanding all the measurements for MPF.

 

MPF Technical Analysis

 

While i agree mpf is pretty useless for woods its great for irons. This is because as stated MOI doesnt mean as much in irons and gear effect is almost non existant.

 

Yeah, any discussion of drivers/woods concerning the MPF, has gone well off course. It is about the "mass and dimensional properties" of irons.

 

In addition, disregarding longer C-dimensions or sweetspots (COG) which are further out from the hosel, because they will "increase a slice", is also missing the boat. If this were the case, every player who has played the most forgiving Pings since the company started, would complain about how much they fade/push with Ping irons. Which is not the case.....Pings have always been regarded as some of the most easy to hit solid and forgiving irons.

 

Here's an article and then a video from Ralph Maltby...http://ralphmaltby.com/comparing-playability-of-two-iron-designs/

 

Take note in this video, that he specifically says they've done lots of player testing and he's worked with tour players as well. So the notion that the aspects within the MPF, were never confirmed with actual player testing is completely false. http://ralphmaltby.c...ctor-for-irons/

Imo that's a bit of a misinterpretations as to what he actually says in the video. All he really said was that during the years he designed clubs there were lots of players who tested clubs that he worked with. He has not to my knowledge actually ever put the MPF ratings to a player or robot test and come up with any data which supports the premise that the higher the rating is the more playable the iron is.

Anyway I don't want to get into yet another MPF dicussion this deep ..lol. I have always agreed the that the measurements are good to understand how the club was designed but I just have not seen any data that indicates there is a proven connection between MPF and ease of play with any club including irons.

 

Imo that's a bit of a misinterpretations as to what he actually says in the video. All he really said was that during the years he designed clubs there were lots of players who tested clubs that he worked with. He has not to my knowledge actually ever put the MPF ratings to a player or robot test and come up with any data which supports the premise that the higher the rating is the more playable the iron is.

 

I would assume that when he does a video or writes a large book specifically about the MPF,....that when he says they've done lots of player and also "robot" testing as well, that he is talking about doing this to verify what is in the MPF.

In addition in his book, he also has a section where he talks about working with tour player Craig Stadler, who was on staff with Tommy Armour at the time. He goes into detail about how Stadler was used to the shorter blade length/longer hosel irons that he had played for his entire career...but after getting over the initial appearance difference of the design that Maltby had in the prototype stages for Tommy Armour, he quickly grew to prefer the "higher playability" and played them on tour for several years....

This was the Tommy Armour 845c, forged cavity back. These were very similar in appearance and design to the Maltby M0-5 from that time period,....which is now the Maltby TE and the dark finish DBM.

This kind of information and much more, is in his book, for anyone that really wants to get the full picture of this

I think people disagree with the actual calculation and relative position to other rankings because he may weight one measurement more than the other for your given swing.

That is why I think if you understand the measurements and your swing characteristics then build search for the clubs based on that and not his actual full MPF calculation you will be more successful.

Who can argue that 1) larger face / sweet spot (cDim) 2) larger MOI, and 3) lower AVCOG will be more forgiving on slight mishits even in a player club design.

I just noticed a recent Nike iron, something Speed, has a avcog above 1 inch! LOL!

I was told a story by a golf business guru that when MPF was discussed among some OEM club designers, one major designer said they had problems with MPF as their testing on two of their own iron models showed the opposite of what MPF showed. To them, the model they considered less forgiving had a higher MPF rating (more forgiving) then the other model.

Imo that's a bit of a misinterpretations as to what he actually says in the video. All he really said was that during the years he designed clubs there were lots of players who tested clubs that he worked with. He has not to my knowledge actually ever put the MPF ratings to a player or robot test and come up with any data which supports the premise that the higher the rating is the more playable the iron is.

 

 

I would assume that when he does a video or writes a large book specifically about the MPF,....that when he says they've done lots of player and also "robot" testing as well, that he is talking about doing this to verify what is in the MPF.

 

In addition in his book, he also has a section where he talks about working with tour player Craig Stadler, who was on staff with Tommy Armour at the time. He goes into detail about how Stadler was used to the shorter blade length/longer hosel irons that he had played for his entire career...but after getting over the initial appearance difference of the design that Maltby had in the prototype stages for Tommy Armour, he quickly grew to prefer the "higher playability" and played them on tour for several years....

 

This was the Tommy Armour 845c, forged cavity back. These were very similar in appearance and design to the Maltby M0-5 from that time period,....which is now the Maltby TE and the dark finish DBM.

 

This kind of information and much more, is in his book, for anyone that really wants to get the full picture of this

If he has done as you suggest then where is the testing data? Until I see that... I will continue to disagree with your assumptions.

I was told a story by a golf business guru that when MPF was discussed among some OEM club designers, one major designer said they had problems with MPF as their testing on two of their own iron models showed the opposite of what MPF showed. To them, the model they considered less forgiving had a higher MPF rating (more forgiving) then the other model.

They never seem to explain what the parameters and measurements would be, for what they consider "more forgiving" or easier to hit in an iron design

I was told a story by a golf business guru that when MPF was discussed among some OEM club designers, one major designer said they had problems with MPF as their testing on two of their own iron models showed the opposite of what MPF showed. To them, the model they considered less forgiving had a higher MPF rating (more forgiving) then the other model.

 

They never seem to explain what the parameters and measurements would be, for what they consider "more forgiving" or easier to hit in an iron design

I agree. FYI it was some 10-12 years back and it was a Callaway club designer that said so but I forget the models.

I was told a story by a golf business guru that when MPF was discussed among some OEM club designers, one major designer said they had problems with MPF as their testing on two of their own iron models showed the opposite of what MPF showed. To them, the model they considered less forgiving had a higher MPF rating (more forgiving) then the other model.

 

They never seem to explain what the parameters and measurements would be, for what they consider "more forgiving" or easier to hit in an iron design

 

I agree. FYI it was some 10-12 years back and it was a Callaway club designer that said so but I forget the models.

That's odd, because nearly every design that Callaway released in that era, rated very high in the MPF

I was told a story by a golf business guru that when MPF was discussed among some OEM club designers, one major designer said they had problems with MPF as their testing on two of their own iron models showed the opposite of what MPF showed. To them, the model they considered less forgiving had a higher MPF rating (more forgiving) then the other model.

 

They never seem to explain what the parameters and measurements would be, for what they consider "more forgiving" or easier to hit in an iron design

 

I agree. FYI it was some 10-12 years back and it was a Callaway club designer that said so but I forget the models.

 

That's odd, because nearly every design that Callaway released in that era, rated very high in the MPF

There is someone in the business that posts on here who may remember all the details. Let us see if he replies.