i500 and i210 MPF - not good

asumnerdawgasumnerdawg Members Posts: 340 ✭✭
MPF rated the i500 with a score of 188 and i210 at 338. These are both WAY below even the iblade at 430. I was hoping they’d both be more forgiving than my i200’s (474), but not according to these numbers. Not then end all but thought it was interesting.
Gamer/Backup
Driver: Cobra F8+ with Evenflow Blue 65 6.5; Cobra LTD PRO w/ Speeder 661 iv
3wd: TEE CB Pro 14.5 Speeder 757 stiff; Callaway XHot 3w
5wd: Cobra F6 Baffler set at 17.5; Titleist 917 2H
3H- Ping G with Evenflow Blue 85 6.0; N/A
4 iron: G400 green dot CFS stiff, It's stamped 5 iron but power spec at 22* I use it as 4 iron; N/A
5-PW: Ping i15 green dot AWT stiff; i200 w/ CFS stiff 3-PW
52/12 F: Vokey sm7 2 up; Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth SS 52
58/12 D: Vokey sm7 2 up; Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth SS 58
Putter: Ping Anser Milled 5; Nike Method Matter B2-05
Ball: Titleist Pro V1 X
«13456

Comments

  • wrmillerwrmiller Members Posts: 1,569 ✭✭
    I stopped by a PGA superstore the other day to try both. But they only had one each in black dot.



    My iBlades are +.5" and white dot. Needless to say I didn't hit either very well. Managed a few good shots, but they were the exception.



    I'm not a numbers kind of guy, but given that experience I think I'll be sticking with my iBlades for a bit longer. image/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
    Primary bag:
    Titleist 913 D3 8.5
    Titleist 915Fd 13.5
    Titleist 913h 17
    Mizuno MP-18 4-PW
    Scratch wedges 50, 55, and 60
    Bettinardi mid-shank putter

    Backup bag:
    Ping G400 9
    Ping G30 fw 13
    Ping G30 hybrid 19
    Ping iBlade 4-PW power spec
    Macgregor VIP wedges 51, 56, and 60
    Bettinardi mid-shank putter
  • iteachgolfiteachgolf Members Posts: 16,721 ✭✭
    MPF is essentially useless
  • DaveMacDaveMac Members Posts: 3,113 ✭✭
    High VCoG is causing the extremely low Playiability Factor.
  • Big BenBig Ben Members Posts: 8,974 ✭✭
    What the **** is MPF?
    Irons: 19' Cobra CB's
    Drivers: Titleist TS3 & Cobra F9
    Fairway: Titleist 917F2
    Hybrid: A-Grind
    2 iron: Ping Rapture
    Wedges: Ping Gorge 2.0 Stealth's
    Putter: Evnroll 9.1
    Balls: ProV1
  • iteachgolfiteachgolf Members Posts: 16,721 ✭✭
    DaveMac wrote:


    High VCoG is causing the extremely low Playiability Factor.




    Same reason he ranked Cleveland blades as game improvement irons and significantly easier to hit than Adams OS hybrid irons. Like I said his rating is worthless
  • dmeeksDCdmeeksDC ClubWRX Posts: 2,196 ClubWRX
    Have not hit the 500 but any rating that shows the i200 as unforgiving is not a real world measurement. I find MPF to be useless.



    Most of my favorite clubs have low MPF ratings. A low MPF score seems to be a mark of excellence. It also rated the Vapor Pro Combos and MP5 as too difficult to play. Ridiculous.



    MPF is a set of static measurements that spit out a number. It seems unable to account for all the internal ways and computer-allotted weight distribution that designers are using these days to make clubs very forgiving.
    Ping G400 9 degrees, Ping Tour stiff shaft, 65 grams
    Callaway XHot2 Pro 5 wood, 17 degrees, Aldila Tour Blue stiff shaft
    Titleist 915F fairway, 21 degrees, Diamana Blue 70 stiff
    Srixon 565 4 iron, Nippon 980GH stiff shaft
    Adams CMB irons, 5-PW, KBS C Taper regular shafts (110g)
    Titleist Vokey SM7 50 degree, F grind, Dynamic Gold S200 shaft
    Callaway Mack Daddy 2 54-degree wedge, S grind, DG wedge shaft
    Ben Hogan TK wedge, 59 degree, KBS black wedge shaft
    TaylorMade TP Chaska putter, sliver, 34 inches
  • SwingManSwingMan SwingMan Members Posts: 6,800
    I've not looked at MPF when purchasing an iron -- I demo and see if the club fits my game. MPF also does not account for bounce/grind. You have a lot of advocates saying the numbers work, but has MPF been amended over the years as design ideas have changed? Or is it someone's idea of their factors of forgiveness that sometimes does not apply in the real world? Dunno. Don't really want to know. Seems like a marketing gimmick.
    "My swing is so bad, I look like a caveman killing his lunch" - Lee Trevino

    Bag: Ping G400 Max/TPT Golf Series 17 ● Exotics EX10 Beta 4, 5 wd ● PXG 0317 4H/Tensei CK Pro Red 70 ● Mizuno 919F 5-GW/Accra i80 ● Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth 56ES, 60SS ●Evnroll ER8
  • PT1911PT1911 Members Posts: 1,113 ✭✭
    With those numbers, MPF is proving to be bogus. I have i500’s and have hit them side by side with iblades, and I can tell you the i500 is much more forgiving.
    Ping G410+ 9* Tour AD-IZ 7
    Ping G410 LST 3 wood Tour AD-IZ 7
    Ping G410 3H Tensei Pro Blue
    Ping i500 4-PW Recoil SmacWrap
    Ping Glide 2.0 52* & 58*
    Toulon Atlanta
  • lawsonmanlawsonman Members Posts: 5,256 ✭✭
    iteachgolf wrote:


    MPF is essentially useless




    Wish I could like this more than once.
    Welcome to where dumb opinions are better than no opinion. :)

    Ping G400 9°
    Ping Anser 17,20,23, hybrid
    Ping G410 6-UW
    Ping Glide 54,58ES
    Ping Ketsch Vault 2.0
    Ping DLX Bag

    Snell MTB Black
  • br61br61 3x Hackin' Hall of Shame SW MissouriMembers Posts: 2,626 ✭✭
    lawsonman wrote:

    iteachgolf wrote:


    MPF is essentially useless




    Wish I could like this more than once.




    Ha, me too! I forgot about that MPF until now, it's a big joke. Haven't looked at it for years, maybe in last decade.



    I've hit both i500 and i210, I like them both and don't find them hard to hit at all.
    My bag of hacking utensils;

    Titleist TS3 9.5 PX Even Flow White 6.0(45")
    917F2 16.5* Diamana D+ 80 stiff
    816H1 19 & 23 Speeder 8.8 stiff
    Z585 5-AW Modus 105 stiff
    J15CB 4-PW Modus 120 stiff
    TM MG Bronze, 52*, 56* & 60* Modus Wedge 115
    Bobby Grace LFI 43"


  • ArpeggiArpeggi Members Posts: 3,686
    Nothing interesting about useless numbers from a bogus system.
    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Current bag:
    Titleist TS3 Oban Kiyoshi Purple 65 [/font]
    [font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Titleist TS2 GD Tour AD-MT 7[/font]

    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Titleist 818H1 19, 818H1 23 GD Tour AD-DI 85[/font]
    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Epon AF-705 5-AW MRC OT-I 95
    Vokey Wedgeworks SM7 Raw 54M, 58D[/font]

    [font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Scotty Cameron 009[/font]
    [font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Taylormade TP5x[/font]
  • 300_yard_drives300_yard_drives Jr. Boomers Posts: 1,186 ✭✭
    I think MPF isn't completely useless but you cannot use it to determine if a club is very difficult to hit but only for the very forgiving on the mpf list I generally agree with.
  • Frisco KidFrisco Kid Members Posts: 155 ✭✭
    Yeah I’ve scratched my head more than a couple of times when looking at MPF...
    Ping G30 Driver Tour 65 R
    Ping G30 3 Metal TFC419 R
    Ping G30 5 Metal TFC419 R
    Ping I200 4-P Modus 105 R
    Ping Glide 2.0 50SS, 54SS, 58SS CFS
    Ping G Sigma Tyne Putter
    Ping DLX Cart Bag
  • Bimmer1Bimmer1 Members Posts: 2,538 ✭✭
    Apex CF16’s have a crappy rating too and they are great irons.
  • NewcNewc Members Posts: 138 ✭✭
    I think MPF is only useful for finding out the MOI of irons which will give you a little bit of an idea of the forgiveness. Other than that the math really doesn't add up in my experience.
  • LobberLobber Members Posts: 2,386 ✭✭
    MPF=My Partner Is Flatulent
  • Darth_BladerDarth_Blader Members Posts: 982 ✭✭
    My Product is Fantastic!



    If you see all of the Maltby irons #s , they are in the SUPER DUPER category. I will say measuring the OEM iron's COG/MOI is good info! Then he does some wack-a-doodle math and figures his iron's numbers.



    More like Mystical Polynomial Formula?
    Cobra F9 9* UST Attas Coool
    Rogue 15* Aldila Max 75
    Vsteel 7w Rogue 80
    S55 4-PW CTaper S+
    Scratch 8620 50* KBS CTaper S+
    Scratch 8620 56* KBS CTaper S+
    Scratch TI 60 DG 400
    Odyssey LE PT10
  • 20six20six Members Posts: 563 ✭✭
    MPF = Marketing Ploy Failure for Maltby
  • CwebbCwebb Members Posts: 5,877 ✭✭
    They both have a sweetspot that is higher than the center of a golf ball. This makes them harder to hit solid on a consistent basis, especially from tighter lies, for most players.



    The i500 is at .940" and the i200 is at .913" . The center of a golf ball is .840". With their sweet-spots being that high, it makes them much more difficult to hit in the 'vertical aspect' for what determines solid contact,.... which is getting the sweetspot (COG) of the head design below the center of the ball
  • ScottyrocketScottyrocket Members Posts: 105 ✭✭
    Cwebb wrote:


    They both have a sweetspot that is higher than the center of a golf ball. This makes them harder to hit solid on a consistent basis, especially from tighter lies, for most players.



    The i500 is at .940" and the i200 is at .913" . The center of a golf ball is .840". With their sweet-spots being that high, it makes them much more difficult to hit in the 'vertical aspect' for what determines solid contact,.... which is getting the sweetspot (COG) of the head design below the center of the ball




    I don't really understand this. Does that mean that you would have to cover the ball more than usual to hit the sweet spot? Why would Ping raise this number up? What type of golfer is this designed for?
  • nova6868nova6868 Members Posts: 4,693 ✭✭
    edited Aug 13, 2018 #22
    The issue here is that Maltby places a high value on VCOG when determining the MPF. He will give low MPF every time for high VCOG regardless of other variables.



    The i210 and i500 have very high MOI ratings. The i500 has an MOI as high as the PING G irons!



    However, I would be curious to hear what PING says about the creeping VCOG. Are they doing it for a reason? It should lower launch and increase spin, right?



    Their VCOG is about 1/10th of an inch above the center of the golf ball. Doesn't sound like much, but I would imagine some golfers would struggle with hitting the sweet spot consistently. But again, maybe PING did this on purpose to increase spin or something.



    Here is the trend:





    HVqxYKy.jpg

  • juststevejuststeve Members Posts: 4,745 ✭✭
    A higher VCOG works well for a player who has his hands ahead of the ball at impact, ie. has forward shaft lean. Irons designed as players irons have a higher VCOG than game improvement irons.



    Steve
  • dog flogdog flog Members Posts: 1,364 ✭✭
    i500 gets 368 MPF points less than the Cleveland 588 MB, a game improvement blade you may remember from another page of Maltby's files.
    Driver: Ping Anser 12°
    7 wood: Srixon Z 355 22°
    4 hybrid: Cleveland Classic 23°
    5 hybrid: Srixon Z355 26°
    6 hybrid: Cobra Fly-Z XL 28°
    Irons: Callaway X2Hot 7-A
    Wedges: Cleveland RTX cavity 52° 58°
    Putter: Ping Ketsch Cadence Heavy
  • JMH1220JMH1220 Members Posts: 652 ✭✭
    I know a lot of people scoff at MPF which is fine. But when I have demoed numerous clubs over the years I find MPF to be quite accurate for me. Subjective?
  • tobiasjdtobiasjd Members Posts: 429 ✭✭
    nova6868 wrote:


    The issue here is that Maltby places a high value on VCOG when determining the MPF. He will give low MPF every time for high VCOG regardless of other variables.



    The i210 and i500 have very high MOI ratings. The i500 has an MOI as high as the PING G irons!



    However, I would be curious to hear what PING says about the creeping VCOG. Are they doing it for a reason? It should lower launch and increase spin, right?



    Their VCOG is about 1/10th of an inch above the center of the golf ball. Doesn't sound like much, but I would imagine some golfers would struggle with hitting the sweet spot consistently. But again, maybe PING did this on purpose to increase spin or something.








    From what I've read the i210s spin slightly less. Very similar overall.
    Cobra King LTD Black
    Titleist 910FD 15° 3w
    Titleist 917F2 18° 5w
    Callaway Apex 4h
    PING iBlade 5 - PW
    PING Glide 50° SS
    PING Glide 2.0 Stealth 56°, 60° SS
    Bettinardi BB1
  • iteachgolfiteachgolf Members Posts: 16,721 ✭✭
    JMH1220 wrote:


    I know a lot of people scoff at MPF which is fine. But when I have demoed numerous clubs over the years I find MPF to be quite accurate for me. Subjective?




    So Cleveland 588 blade is easier to hit than Adams OS Hybrid? There’s plenty other ridiculous comparisons I could make
  • kiwihackerkiwihacker Members Posts: 708 ✭✭
    DaveMac wrote:


    High VCoG is causing the extremely low Playiability Factor.




    Can someone explain what VCoG is and why it affects the playability?



    Thanks
    Cobra King F6 Driver 10.5°
    17° Callaway X Hot 4 wood
    20.5°& 23° Cleveland DST Launcher hybrids
    Taylormade R7 TP 5-PW irons
    Cleveland RTX 2 5O°, 54°, Callaway MD Forged 58°
    Ping Anser Sigma 2 putter
  • CwebbCwebb Members Posts: 5,877 ✭✭
    iteachgolf wrote:

    JMH1220 wrote:


    I know a lot of people scoff at MPF which is fine. But when I have demoed numerous clubs over the years I find MPF to be quite accurate for me. Subjective?




    So Cleveland 588 blade is easier to hit than Adams OS Hybrid? There's plenty other ridiculous comparisons I could make




    Just because a head design is larger in overall size or with a bigger cavity back, does not necessarily mean that it will be easier to hit.



    Sweet-spot (COG) location in relation to the "ground line" is a big factor in how easy to hit an iron will be, from normal turf conditions. (not teed up)



    Many large iron designs are also taller in face height, which is a very influential aspect for the height of the sweet-spot....more so than the width of the sole. Lots of these larger irons end up with sweet-spots that are higher than the center of a golf ball, which makes them harder to hit solid consistently for most players.



    Many assume that most classic blades through history have a higher COG. This isn't always true when we look at some of the most popular blade designs. For example...



    Mizuno Mp-33: .718"

    Mizuno Mp-14: .687"

    Mizuno MP-32: .750"



    Titliest 870: .749"

    Titleist 680: .754"

    Titleist 690: .735"



    Clevaland 588mb: .749"



    Going way back....Hogan Apex: .676" Hogan Director: .713"



    Contrast these sweetspot heights (AVCOG) with some much larger designs...



    The Tommy Armour Ti-100 is one of the largest cavity backs ever and it has a sweet-spot height of .986". Designs like this are very difficult to hit solid from normal and tighter lie conditions, despite the fact that they have a huge MOI.



    How much "room there is to work with" vertically between the sweet-spot and the center of the ball, is very influential in how easy an iron is to hit for most players. With the center of a golf ball being .840", a design with a sweet-spot that is higher than that and over .900" is harder to hit....regardless of the overall size of the head
  • CwebbCwebb Members Posts: 5,877 ✭✭
    kiwihacker wrote:

    DaveMac wrote:


    High VCoG is causing the extremely low Playiability Factor.




    Can someone explain what VCoG is and why it affects the playability?



    Thanks




    The height of the sweet-spot in the MPF is labeled as Actual Vertical COG (AVCOG).



    Solid contact in the vertical aspect of impact, is where the sweet-spot goes a little underneath the center of ball or directly in line with it.



    The center of a golf ball is .840". So for most players, any head design that has a sweet-spot (AVCOG) that is higher than .840" will be more difficult to hit solid from normal and tighter lie conditions....not teed up.



    Head designs with sweet-spots "well" lower than .840" allow "more room to work with", in the sense that you don't have to go down and through nearly as precise in order to get the sweet-spot under the center of the ball. Therefore, easier to hit in the vertical aspect of contact.
  • dog flogdog flog Members Posts: 1,364 ✭✭
    The actual measurements are not what's in question, it's the number that gets spit out after he puts them through his algorithm that's in question. In Tom Wishon's critique of MPF, he makes it clear that he thinks the algorithm is deeply flawed: "Perhaps the most important point which completely questions the validity of the entire MPF system is the fact that the theory was ever (I think this is a typo that should read, 'never')quantified or verified by any form of hit testing, whether by robot or a group of human test subjects." Here's a link to the paper in it's entirety: http://wishongolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Technical-Analysis-of-Maltby-Playability-Index.pdf
    Driver: Ping Anser 12°
    7 wood: Srixon Z 355 22°
    4 hybrid: Cleveland Classic 23°
    5 hybrid: Srixon Z355 26°
    6 hybrid: Cobra Fly-Z XL 28°
    Irons: Callaway X2Hot 7-A
    Wedges: Cleveland RTX cavity 52° 58°
    Putter: Ping Ketsch Cadence Heavy
Sign In or Register to comment.