Maltby Playability Factor

What does this mean? Is Playability Forgiveness or Workability? How accurate do we think these ratings are?

http://www.ralphmaltby.com/362

Maltby uses "playability" to not only describe how forgiving an iron is, but also to put a number value on what type of ballflight it will promote and what area of the face will produce more solid strikes.

If you understand the meaning of the individual measurements which are used in this system, it's very helpful info. If you don't....and you just look at the final score or ratings, then they're not as useful.

The MPF measurements have been very helpful to me.

Forgiveness only. It's the only scientifically based static measure of forgiveness. That's also it's shortcoming, as it cannot account for actual energy transfer on off center hits (effective sweet spot). His rating gives a lot of weighting to how low and how far away from the hosel the Cg of the head is, but a good player may not like a low Cg as it will result in a higher launch angle. Even Maltby acknowledges this in his comments on the design of his F2 blades

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1305867824' post='3248886']
Forgiveness only. It's the only scientifically based static measure of forgiveness. That's also it's shortcoming, as it [b]cannot account for actual energy transfer on off center hits[/b] (effective sweet spot). His rating gives a lot of weighting to how low and how far away from the hosel the Cg of the head is, but a good player may not like a low Cg as it will result in a higher launch angle. Even Maltby acknowledges this in his comments on the design of his F2 blades
[/quote]

I have to disagree here, the "C" dimention measurement is the distance of the COG from the center of the hosel out toward the toe - which along with the RCOG measurement (COG distance from the face surface to the back of the cavity or muscle), has a direct effect on energy transfer on off center hits. The larger the number reading on the "C" dimention, the more forgiving the head will be on an off-center toe end contact (though it is relative to the overall hosel to toe length).

That said, I completely agree with your comment on low COG heads. A higher MPF does not necessarily mean a "better" club.

Once you figure out where your impact pattern tends to be on the face....and you know your ballflight and trajectory characteristics, you can disregard the MPF final "score" and look at the individual measurements to find different heads that will tend to benefit your game. This is how I use the MPF and it's worked very well.

For example, lets say you're a "blade" player and your favorite blade from the 90's was measured for MPF. You can take those numbers and find a current head that is the closest match for it's "mass and dimensional properties". Very valuable. Much different than just making a decision based on how pretty something looks, since many times a head that looks to have the same mass locations, actually will not.

[quote name='heavybladed' timestamp='1305904894' post='3249620']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1305867824' post='3248886']
Forgiveness only. It's the only scientifically based static measure of forgiveness. That's also it's shortcoming, as it [b]cannot account for actual energy transfer on off center hits[/b] (effective sweet spot). His rating gives a lot of weighting to how low and how far away from the hosel the Cg of the head is, but a good player may not like a low Cg as it will result in a higher launch angle. Even Maltby acknowledges this in his comments on the design of his F2 blades
[/quote]

I have to disagree here, the "C" dimention measurement is the distance of the COG from the center of the hosel out toward the toe - which along with the RCOG measurement (COG distance from the face surface to the back of the cavity or muscle), has a direct effect on energy transfer on off center hits. The larger the number reading on the "C" dimention, the more forgiving the head will be on an off-center toe end contact (though it is relative to the overall hosel to toe length).

That said, I completely agree with your comment on low COG heads. A higher MPF does not necessarily mean a "better" club.
[/quote]

I don't disagree with you at all, but I said [b][i]ACTUAL[/i][/b] energy transfer. Of course a static measurement of Cg location and MOI cannot do that because it cannot account for any springlike effect of the face or fully account for [i]how[/i] the mass of the head is distributed. For example, I play Callaway X-tours and while they have a very similar MPF rating and Cg location to other irons I've used (such as MP-32's) I find them to be considerably more forgiving on low and high off the face shots than the Mizzy's. I use MPF in the same manner as yourself. I know what Cg height and C dimension I prefer and I try to achieve those with the highest MOI. MPF has helped me to better understand why I hate Pings and most Callaways so much and why I like "conventional" clubs! In fact, I just yesterday bought a set of pristine used X-tour heads on Ebay. Maybe I'll try them with some KBS shafts. One idiosyncracy of the C dimension is that it would decrease when a club is flattened and increased when it is bent upright, so clubs that are designed a little flatter (like Mizzy's) will be burdened with a lower MPF rating as a result of just the lie angle. As would old Hogan's with the "undersling" hosel design. lol

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1305916588' post='3250078']
[quote name='heavybladed' timestamp='1305904894' post='3249620']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1305867824' post='3248886']
Forgiveness only. It's the only scientifically based static measure of forgiveness. That's also it's shortcoming, as it [b]cannot account for actual energy transfer on off center hits[/b] (effective sweet spot). His rating gives a lot of weighting to how low and how far away from the hosel the Cg of the head is, but a good player may not like a low Cg as it will result in a higher launch angle. Even Maltby acknowledges this in his comments on the design of his F2 blades
[/quote]

I have to disagree here, the "C" dimention measurement is the distance of the COG from the center of the hosel out toward the toe - which along with the RCOG measurement (COG distance from the face surface to the back of the cavity or muscle), has a direct effect on energy transfer on off center hits. The larger the number reading on the "C" dimention, the more forgiving the head will be on an off-center toe end contact (though it is relative to the overall hosel to toe length).

That said, I completely agree with your comment on low COG heads. A higher MPF does not necessarily mean a "better" club.
[/quote]

I don't disagree with you at all, but I said [b][i]ACTUAL[/i][/b] energy transfer. Of course a static measurement of Cg location and MOI cannot do that because it cannot account for any [u][b]springlike effect[/b][/u] of the face or fully account for[b] [u][i]how[/i] the mass of the head is distributed[/u][/b]. For example, I play Callaway X-tours and while they have a very similar MPF rating and Cg location to other irons I've used (such as MP-32's) I find them to be considerably more forgiving on low and high off the face shots than the Mizzy's. I use MPF in the same manner as yourself. I know what Cg height and C dimension I prefer and I try to achieve those with the highest MOI. MPF has helped me to better understand why I hate Pings and most Callaways so much and why I like "conventional" clubs! In fact, I just yesterday bought a set of pristine used X-tour heads on Ebay. Maybe I'll try them with some KBS shafts. One idiosyncracy of the C dimension is that it would decrease when a club is flattened and increased when it is bent upright, so clubs that are designed a little flatter (like Mizzy's) will be burdened with a lower MPF rating as a result of just the lie angle. As would old Hogan's with the "undersling" hosel design. lol
[/quote]

Ahh, I see now. You know, that's something I consider when looking for irons too, but I guess I breezed over it a bit in your post.


I always wondered why Ralph didn't bend everything to, say, 30* and 62*and then take his measurements. In some cases he's not judging apples to apples at all. Still, it's a shame there's really not many people even trying to help others gather this kind of info. Imagine all the posts that could be answered with a chart of driver head face heights, weights, COG and C dimentions on it! Between the Hireko shaft analysis and MPF raw data, most people who care to could do a pretty decent job fitting themselves.

"One idiosyncracy of the C dimension is that it would decrease when a club is flattened and increased when it is bent upright, so clubs that are designed a little flatter (like Mizzy's) will be burdened with a lower MPF rating as a result of just the lie angle. As would old Hogan's with the "undersling" hosel design."

I think this statement is incorrect. My understanding is that lie angle doesn't have anything to do with this measurement because the "C" dimension is measured along the sole line between the intersection of the sole line and the hosel bore centerline. This point should not change when you change lie angle because the intersection point is also the pivot point or axis of rotation when changing the lie angle.

As shown in the bad drawing below, the two vertical lines represent the "C" dimension - it is exactly the same in both drawings which would represent a wedge and 3-iron for example. The horizontal line is the sole line, the angled line is the hosel bore line and the arrows point to the intersection of those two lines which is also the axis around which the hosel bore line rotates when changing lie angles.

[attachment=871557:C_Dimension.png]

[quote name='OffCourse' timestamp='1317615115' post='3617563']
"One idiosyncracy of the C dimension is that it would decrease when a club is flattened and increased when it is bent upright, so clubs that are designed a little flatter (like Mizzy's) will be burdened with a lower MPF rating as a result of just the lie angle. As would old Hogan's with the "undersling" hosel design."

I think this statement is incorrect. My understanding is that lie angle doesn't have anything to do with this measurement because the "C" dimension is measured along the sole line between the intersection of the sole line and the hosel bore centerline. [b]This point should not change when you change lie angle because the intersection point is also the pivot point or axis of rotation when changing the lie angle[/b].

As shown in the bad drawing below, the two vertical lines represent the "C" dimension - it is exactly the same in both drawings which would represent a wedge and 3-iron for example. The horizontal line is the sole line, the angled line is the hosel bore line and the arrows point to the intersection of those two lines which is also the axis around which the hosel bore line rotates when changing lie angles.

[attachment=871557:C_Dimension.png]
[/quote]

The part I bolded is incorrect.

Have you ever bent an iron or seen a Hogan with "undersling?" The hosel doesn't even begin to bend until at least a 1/2" above the sole line, usually higer (above the face) when flattened. Old Hogan's had a curve where the centerline of the hosel intersected the face well away from the heel.

Since I can't attach a bitmap, here's an article discussing undersling with pictures:

http://3jack.blogspot.com/2011/01/hogan-and-mizuno.html

Malbys work here is good help for many club makers to compare different heads. (and yes i would like some numbers on driver heads to:-)
Reading total score does not give any meaning unless you know whats behind that number, but i never use it.

I've taken the liberty to "rip" it all (not the latest, its not done yet), and put it in a excel sheet with "filters" so i can do a fast an easy compare of heads.
Its mostly RCOG and VCOG and loft i care about.

RCOG is much more important than MOI value or C-dim if we talk directional forgiveness on miss hits out against the toe.
The further back from the club face COG is located, straiter will your shots be, but it makes it harder to fade or draw on command.
The "Trend" on driver heads for elite players is lower ccm, lower MOI value for better and smother handling (wrist action for closing the face is done with less effort with lower MOI), and a higher RCOG value for straiter shots.
You hardly see the word "High MOI" in commercials any more, because they found out its no good in many cases.

Look at line X.
It shows the difference in directional forgiveness between a club with COG close to the face, compared to a club with COG against the butt end of the head.
[url="http://peecee.dk/upload/view/304511"]http://peecee.dk/upload/view/304511[/url]

VCOG is also important for launch and spin
[url="http://peecee.dk/upload/view/297539"]http://peecee.dk/upload/view/297539[/url]
Higher COG makes it easier to tilt the spin axis to make fade's or draw's on command,

A club head with a high VCOG number, and a low RCOG number is very playable for the skilled player, but completely hopeless for the average player.


EDIT:

If someone else is interested in my sheets with Malbyes numbers, and is willing to do the job by adding the latest numbers and return it to me, i will gladly share it.
( i dont think its violating Ralph Malbye copy rights, i really think he wants us to share this)

I converted the numbers, so the sheets is both imperial and metric
Just PM me in here for contact. I cant upload anything in this forum, since I've used up all my data volume for photos.
PS! The sheets got some VBA macros 'ive made to run it like a software.

Here is a screen shot of it:
http://peecee.dk/upload/view/329633/full