Newest Maltby ratings.

bwhitishbwhitish Members Posts: 400 ✭✭

I was on the Golfworks website and I went to the Maltby ratings and the new 2019 club ratings are up. I know many don't care but for those who do I thought I would post them.
Callaway: Big Bertha CF 19 924, Apex Forged 476, Apex Forged Pro 460
Cleveland: Launcher HB 789, CBX 706
Cobra: F9 887, King Forged Tec 495, King Forged MB 262
Mizuno: JPX 919 Hot Metal 754, JPX 919 Hot Metal Pro 660, JPX 919 Forged 619, JPX Forged Tour 433
Ping G410 738
Srixon: Z585 504, Z785 402, Z Forged 350
Taylor Made: M5 687, M6 806, P760 432
Tommy Armour Atomic 794
Wilson D7 517

Ping 9.5 K15 with Serrano R
Ping K15 3 Wood Stock R
Ping G15 20 Stock R
Ping G15 4-UW AWT R
Ping Tour S 56 KBS Tour S
Ping Anser 2 Karsten 1959
«1

Comments

  • NoFancyUsername.NoFancyUsername. Members Posts: 474 ✭✭

    I find some of his ratings strange. eg: the FG100 blade is at 419, yet the C300 forged CB is at 269.
    Having hit the C300's, there is no way it is a harder club to hit than the blade.

  • billybaroobillybaroo Cold and snowy MassachusettsMembers Posts: 1,217 ✭✭

    I 'm not sure these numbers work equally well across all club brands/designs, perhaps they are not made to be universally applied. If I get to make the rules to evaluate clubs, I will choose the metrics that make me look the best, and the rest of in the industry can do their own research. :smiley:

    For example, I play the Apex '16 combo set, the "easier to hit" CF 16 rates a 349(!) while the "harder to hit" Pro rates 405. I find the Apex clubs no more difficult to hit than what I replaced, Ping G10 with an MPF of 805.

  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,091 ✭✭

    No reason to go into it here, but if you want to do a search, there are lots of threads on the "accuracy" of the MPF ratings.

  • sui generissui generis Members Posts: 3,802 ✭✭

    @Stuart G. said:
    No reason to go into it here, but if you want to do a search, there are lots of threads on the "accuracy" of the MPF ratings.

    And, isn't it Cwebb who always has to set 'em straight?

    Knowledge of the Rules is part of the applied skill set which a player must use to play a round of competitive golf.
  • Auditor_KevinAuditor_Kevin Lifelong addict to the game of golf..... Members Posts: 890 ✭✭

    I love the ratings and use them to look for the sticks that will be closest in forgiveness to my current X-22 tour irons.

    TaylorMade SLDR 460 12*+1* stock stiff
    Tour Exotics XCG 15*; Mizzuno 19* MP-650
    Callaway X-20 Tour 4 - PW; PX 6.0 shafts
    Titleist Vokey SM 52*, 56*, 60*
    Odyssey Teron, 35" Super Stroke 3.0
    https://www.gamegolf.com/player/KevinR22
  • gvogelgvogel Members Posts: 7,327 ✭✭

    PIng iE 6-iron - 556; Ping i200 - 474; Ping i210 - 338. Definite trend going on there.
    Also, PIng i500 - 188. Almost unplayable by most?

    Boyhood, like measles, is one of those complaints which a man should catch young and have done with it, for when it comes in middle life it is apt to be serious. - P. G. Wodehouse
  • ThreeBoxersThreeBoxers Members Posts: 94 ✭✭

    It'd be nice to see the equation used. It lists all the different variables but it seems to place a lot of weight on CG placement, both vertically and horizontally. I wouldn't pay too much mind to the final number, but the individual parameters such as MOI and CG location. MOI is seems to have surprisingly less impact on his ratings as that's what would quantify the club head's ability to resist twisting on off-center hits aka "forgiveness"

  • gvogelgvogel Members Posts: 7,327 ✭✭

    Also Titleist AP2 714 - 517; AP2 716 - 417; AP2 718 - 508.
    I'll stick with my 714's.

    Boyhood, like measles, is one of those complaints which a man should catch young and have done with it, for when it comes in middle life it is apt to be serious. - P. G. Wodehouse
  • NRJyzrNRJyzr Allez Allez Allez Minnesota, USAMembers Posts: 6,281 ✭✭

    @gvogel said:
    PIng iE 6-iron - 556; Ping i200 - 474; Ping i210 - 338. Definite trend going on there.
    Also, PIng i500 - 188. Almost unplayable by most?

    Look at the vertical CG. In each case, it's getting higher and higher, above the golf ball centerline, that's why the scores are lower and lower.

    If you can get that relatively high CG on the ball, they won't be a problem to play. The MOI of each is high enough for those who want or need it.

    The Ever Changing Bag!

    Driver: Cobra King LTD, ProtoPype 80x or RIP 80x, 43.5" -or- SuperDeep 9.5*, ProtoPype 80x or NV85x, 43.5"
    3w: Cobra King LTD, Motore F1 85 X, 42.5"
    1 iron: Maxfli Revolution, DGS400
    2-PW, Golden Ram Tour Grind, Dynamic S
    SW: Ram Tour Grind Feel Matched 58*, DGS
    Putter: Snake Eyes Viper Tour Sv1, 34.5", PP58 midsize grip
    (Cleveland Huntington Beach #1 35" -or- Mizuno TPM-2, 35" as backups)
    Balls: in no particular order... Wilson Staff FG Tour, Duo Urethane, or 50 Elite, Srixon ZStar/ZStar XV, Snell MTB Black... will trot out Maxfli HT-100 or Elite 90 from time to time
    Shoes by True Linkswear
  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,091 ✭✭
  • arbeckarbeck SeattleMembers Posts: 391 ✭✭

    It makes sense to me that as ball speed off the iron increases you have two things you can do to keep the ball flight from getting too high. You can decrease loft or you can move the CG higher. There's only so low you can go with lofts (and I'd argue we've already reached that point). That makes raising the vertical CG the easiest way to control the ball flight.

    Ping Traverse
    King Cobra F7 10.5* w/ Mitsubishi Tensi CK Blue 60 set at 9.5*
    TEE E8 4W, 7W
    Mizuno JPX-900 Hot Metal 5-SW w/ Veylix Alpina 873
    TEE CB PROs 60*
    Scotty Cameron Squareback
  • NokeNoke Members Posts: 2,113 ✭✭

    Can Maltby's MOI measurements be trusted? There is a standard way of measuring this, right?

  • BrianMcGBrianMcG Members Posts: 2,268 ✭✭

    @nohny noke said:
    Can Maltby's MOI measurements be trusted? There is a standard way of measuring this, right?

    Yes.

    Walter: Tell me Bobby, why do you play this game?
    Bobby: I play because I love it.
    Walter: Well I play for the money. I have to win. That is why every time we face each other I will always beat you.
  • nfmotonfmoto Members Posts: 170 ✭✭

    Maltby's measurements MOI, CoG, are accurate. His ratings are absolutely worthless nonsense.

  • NokeNoke Members Posts: 2,113 ✭✭
    edited Apr 5, 2019 2:11am #17

    @BrianMcG said:

    @nohny noke said:
    Can Maltby's MOI measurements be trusted? There is a standard way of measuring this, right?

    Yes.

    Thanks for the video. As an avid hybrid player, I wish he'd update his measurements for clubs that commonly replace long irons. I know that MOI is just one part of the forgiveness equation, but I'd love to know if the 'easier to hit' clubs are actually higher in resistance to twisting on off-center hits than their iron counterparts.

    And I guess, whilst I'm in the weeds, my question is - what factor of increased MOI would it take for an average golfer to notice a change in ball flight? For example - I'm currently playing Wishon 870ti's with an MOI of 16.29 g/cm2. Would I, as a slightly above average golfer notice a difference in flight 'correction' due to the increased MOI of say, JPX EZ's with 18.85830 g/cm2?

    Post edited by Noke on
  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,091 ✭✭

    @nohny noke said:
    Thanks for the video. As an avid hybrid player, I wish he'd update his measurements for clubs that commonly replace long irons. I know that MOI is just one part of the forgiveness equation, but I'd love to know if the 'easier to hit' clubs are actually higher in resistance to twisting on off-center hits than their iron counterparts.

    And I guess, whilst I'm in the weeds, my question is - what factor of increased MOI would it take for an average golfer to notice a change in ball flight? For example - I'm currently playing Wishon 870ti's with an MOI of 16.29 g/cm2. Would I, as a slightly above average golfer notice a difference in flight 'correction' due to the increased MOI of say, JPX EZ's with 18.85830 g/cm2?

    Yes, they are typically going to be higher but unfortunately, figuring out how that translates to ball flight differences isn't as simple as just comparing MOI numbers. In the question of hybrids vs irons for off center hits, you also have to consider the bulge of the face and gear effect for hybrids - neither of which you will have for irons. So the average golfer would likely see and notice different ball flights even if the MOI was the same. And that's just respect to directional differences, distance differences is a completely different topic with many other considerations as well.

    So the only way each player is really going to figure out how much of a difference it makes for them - is to get some foot powder spray and go hit a bunch of balls with each and see how the ball flight actually changes for them for the various hits.

  • greggreg Members Posts: 84 ✭✭

    Yep - no substitute for real life conditions.

  • ClafooneClafoone Hobbyist Members Posts: 118 ✭✭

    @NRJyzr said:

    @gvogel said:
    PIng iE 6-iron - 556; Ping i200 - 474; Ping i210 - 338. Definite trend going on there.
    Also, PIng i500 - 188. Almost unplayable by most?

    Look at the vertical CG. In each case, it's getting higher and higher, above the golf ball centerline, that's why the scores are lower and lower.

    If you can get that relatively high CG on the ball, they won't be a problem to play. The MOI of each is high enough for those who want or need it.

    Agree 100%, a lower CG is key in my opinion, with a high MOI.
    Randy

    Callaway Rogue Draw: 8.5° using a LH adapter/ Diamana S+ 62
    Callaway Rogue 4W: bent to 16°/ UST Competition 65
    Ping G Hybrids: 19° & 22°/ UST Proforce V2 hybrid (MOI Matched)
    Maltby KE4 S: 5 - GW/ Wishon S2S White (MOI Matched)
    Cleveland Rotex 2.0 CB Black Satin: 54° & 58 Wishon S2S White (MOI Matched)
    Ping Karsten TR Anser 5
  • LaymanMLaymanM Cincinnati, OHMembers Posts: 2,123 ✭✭

    @NoFancyUsername. said:
    I find some of his ratings strange. eg: the FG100 blade is at 419, yet the C300 forged CB is at 269.
    Having hit the C300's, there is no way it is a harder club to hit than the blade.

    FG Tour 100 are incredible, very easy to hit

    PING G410 9* PX Evenflow Black 75 6.0
    PING G410 LST 3w PX Evenflow Black 85 6.0
    PING G410 5w PX Evenflow Black 85 6.0
    PING G410 4-PW AWT 2 0 stiff
    PING Stealth Glide 2.0 50ss/54ss/58ss
    PING Sigam G Tyne
  • NoFancyUsername.NoFancyUsername. Members Posts: 474 ✭✭

    @LaymanM said:

    @NoFancyUsername. said:
    I find some of his ratings strange. eg: the FG100 blade is at 419, yet the C300 forged CB is at 269.
    Having hit the C300's, there is no way it is a harder club to hit than the blade.

    FG Tour 100 are incredible, very easy to hit

    Absolutely, my gamers are the 100's. I have the the C300s at my disposal and no way are they harder to hit than the 100s.

  • munichopmunichop Members Posts: 194 ✭✭

    In my experience with his ratings they are a guide that he developed to assist the player looking for more forgiveness. Most golfers hit the ball lower than they would like and slice. If you look at the the progression of Ping irons thru the years they were designed to help those two issues. Most golfers miss towards the toe so moving the cg there also helps. Maltby has tried to quantify this. I have bought many sets based on his tables and for the most part they are true to his numbers. For me if the distance from the heel to the cg is much different than what I own the clubs will not feel as good to me. What I am now struggling with is turf interaction as I am a digger and as I have aged my hands and wrists are more vulnerable to injury from this. His factors do not address this.

  • buntabunta Members Posts: 567 ✭✭
    edited Apr 19, 2019 4:18pm #24

    @gvogel said:
    PIng iE 6-iron - 556; Ping i200 - 474; Ping i210 - 338. Definite trend going on there.
    Also, PIng i500 - 188. Almost unplayable by most?

    Im not going to get into the whole mpf rating argument because frankly, im not educated enough in the complex measurements maltby performs on the heads. And two, out of the hundreds of irons mpf ratings, ive hit maybe only 15-20 different irons therefore i cant pass my judgement. So my lack of experience automatically disqualifies me to determine whether or not the ratings are true to its numbers.

    BUT, i can tell you one thing is for sure. Ive played/hit just about every single Ping iron since 2012, and the CG numbers of the Ping irons are so accurately indicative of its ease of play, that i now always look at the mpf ratings when im curious about a club. It is the most important number for me (not the final mpf rating).

    TS3 9.5
    s55 4-PW
    SM6 50/54/58
    TP  Ardmore
  • chigolfer1chigolfer1 Members Posts: 871 ✭✭

    Reinforces the thought that my 2006 TM R7s were/are just really nice, solid clubs with a low COG. Maybe I should just stick with them and save some cash?

  • ex0dusex0dus Members Posts: 500 ✭✭
    edited Apr 20, 2019 12:28am #26

    @nfmoto said:
    Maltby's measurements MOI, CoG, are accurate. His ratings are absolutely worthless nonsense.

    This. The specific measurements are worth checking out. The MPF rating seems like some random mess he just made up without much thought. IMO he greatly overvalues cg location and badly undervalues MOI.

    Also a big factor in iron playability is the sole grind which he doesn't address.

    Cobra King Ltd Pro
    Nike SQ2 13*
    Mizuno MP630 clk hybrid 20*
    Bstone J40 DPC 4 iron
    Cleveland 588 mb 5-pw
    Ping Gorge wedges 56*, 52*
    Cally Mack Daddy PM grind 60*
    Machine adjuster putter
    Bridgestone 330 ball
  • chigolfer1chigolfer1 Members Posts: 871 ✭✭

    @ex0dus said:

    @nfmoto said:
    Maltby's measurements MOI, CoG, are accurate. His ratings are absolutely worthless nonsense.

    This. The specific measurements are worth checking out. The MPF rating seems like some random mess he just made up without much thought. IMO he greatly overvalues cg location and badly undervalues MOI.

    Also a big factor in iron playability is the sole grind which he doesn't address.

    Can you elaborate? For the ignorant like myself, why do you think MOI is a lot more important than the value he ascribes?

  • ThinkingPlusThinkingPlus South TexasClubWRX Posts: 1,539 ClubWRX

    @chigolfer1 said:

    @ex0dus said:

    @nfmoto said:
    Maltby's measurements MOI, CoG, are accurate. His ratings are absolutely worthless nonsense.

    This. The specific measurements are worth checking out. The MPF rating seems like some random mess he just made up without much thought. IMO he greatly overvalues cg location and badly undervalues MOI.

    Also a big factor in iron playability is the sole grind which he doesn't address.

    Can you elaborate? For the ignorant like myself, why do you think MOI is a lot more important than the value he ascribes?

    IMO vertical MOI isn't all that important for irons except that it tends to place the vertical CG in undesirable places for most golfers. Horizontal MOI provides left-right forgiveness which is worth considering if you tend to miss a lot either heel or toe. Vertical CG is important to consider if you play firm turf and hardpan. A high vertical CG frequently seen in high MOI (vertical) irons can be difficult to hit solidly off firmer surfaces. At the very least you will tend to launch low unless you are a high CHS player. Hope this is helpful.

    Driver: Callaway GBB Epic 9° w/Project X HZRDUS T800 65 gm 6.0 flex
    3W: Callaway Rogue w/Project X Evenflow 5.5 Graphite R-flex
    Hybrids: Callaway Apex 3h, 4h w/MR Kuro Kage 80HY S-flex
    Irons: Maltby TS-1 5i-GW w/KBS Tour R-flex
    Sand Wedge: Titleist Vokey SM7 54/08 M Grind w/KBS Tour R-Flex
    Lob Wedge: Titleist Vokey SM6 58/04 L Grind w/TT Wedge Flex
    Putter: Scotty Cameron Futura X w/Super Stroke Mid Slim 2.0
    Ball: Titleist AVX in yellow
  • LaymanMLaymanM Cincinnati, OHMembers Posts: 2,123 ✭✭

    @ex0dus said:

    @nfmoto said:
    Maltby's measurements MOI, CoG, are accurate. His ratings are absolutely worthless nonsense.

    This. The specific measurements are worth checking out. The MPF rating seems like some random mess he just made up without much thought. IMO he greatly overvalues cg location and badly undervalues MOI.

    Also a big factor in iron playability is the sole grind which he doesn't address.

    Disagree, his mpf works for his club design. If you have ever hit his mmb-17 you'd get it. It's not the end all be all, because occasionally there are some very playable designs that dont score well. But for most part, its pretty solid

    PING G410 9* PX Evenflow Black 75 6.0
    PING G410 LST 3w PX Evenflow Black 85 6.0
    PING G410 5w PX Evenflow Black 85 6.0
    PING G410 4-PW AWT 2 0 stiff
    PING Stealth Glide 2.0 50ss/54ss/58ss
    PING Sigam G Tyne
  • ex0dusex0dus Members Posts: 500 ✭✭
    edited Apr 20, 2019 1:30pm #30

    @chigolfer1 said:

    @ex0dus said:

    @nfmoto said:
    Maltby's measurements MOI, CoG, are accurate. His ratings are absolutely worthless nonsense.

    This. The specific measurements are worth checking out. The MPF rating seems like some random mess he just made up without much thought. IMO he greatly overvalues cg location and badly undervalues MOI.

    Also a big factor in iron playability is the sole grind which he doesn't address.

    Can you elaborate? For the ignorant like myself, why do you think MOI is a lot more important than the value he ascribes?

    Check out the Ping i500. I've never hit it but a 188 MPF rating?

    https://www.golfworks.com/images/art/MPF_PING.pdf

    Cobra King Ltd Pro
    Nike SQ2 13*
    Mizuno MP630 clk hybrid 20*
    Bstone J40 DPC 4 iron
    Cleveland 588 mb 5-pw
    Ping Gorge wedges 56*, 52*
    Cally Mack Daddy PM grind 60*
    Machine adjuster putter
    Bridgestone 330 ball
  • LaymanMLaymanM Cincinnati, OHMembers Posts: 2,123 ✭✭

    @ex0dus said:

    @chigolfer1 said:

    @ex0dus said:

    @nfmoto said:
    Maltby's measurements MOI, CoG, are accurate. His ratings are absolutely worthless nonsense.

    This. The specific measurements are worth checking out. The MPF rating seems like some random mess he just made up without much thought. IMO he greatly overvalues cg location and badly undervalues MOI.

    Also a big factor in iron playability is the sole grind which he doesn't address.

    Can you elaborate? For the ignorant like myself, why do you think MOI is a lot more important than the value he ascribes?

    Check out the Ping i500. I've never hit it but a 188 MPF rating?

    https://www.golfworks.com/images/art/MPF_PING.pdf

    See my post above i500 is one of those playable sets that doesnt score well. Hollow iron with hot face. I500 is easy to hit just doesnt follow Maltby theory on club design so it doesnt work. I think it doesnt account for how hot the face is and that's why it scores low.

    PING G410 9* PX Evenflow Black 75 6.0
    PING G410 LST 3w PX Evenflow Black 85 6.0
    PING G410 5w PX Evenflow Black 85 6.0
    PING G410 4-PW AWT 2 0 stiff
    PING Stealth Glide 2.0 50ss/54ss/58ss
    PING Sigam G Tyne
Sign In or Register to comment.