i500 and i210 MPF - not good

[dog flog]

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

[sdandrea]

Demo the clubs. If they fit you well, do you really care how Ralph Maltby rates their forgiveness?

[iteachgolf]

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

 

I’m well aware of where the VCOG is located and how it works. A higher COG doesn’t make it harder to hit. It makes it launch lower and spin more. For virtually all shots with all clubs the ball is hit well below the VCOG, when hit “solid”. What your saying simply isn’t accurate in the real world and the Adams OS hybrids are so ridiculously easier to hit than the Cleveland blade it’s not even funny.

 

 

I can tell you I’ve never once hit a ball on or above the VCOG or the irons I currently play, which according to MPF is ABOVE the 5th groove . The VCOG of these irons is significantly higher than the MP14s in my garage yet they go 30% higher and 10 yards longer with the same lofts and the same exact shaft and grip. Not to mention they are significantly more forgiving.

[dlygrisse]

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

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the engineers at Ping have no idea what they are doing. So tell me, how does the MPF factor in all the new tech that launches the ball higher with less spin?

 

 

 

Hint: the answer is that it doesn't. Nor does it take into consideration any dynamic attributes of a golf clubs. All static measurements. worthless.

[Cwebb]

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.co...ility-Index.pdf

 

He is incorrect in that statement. Lots of player testing has and is still being done. It's explained clearly in his book.

[dlygrisse]

The i500s are such high launching, and have such low spin that they had to raise the COG in order to keep the flight and the spin at the optimum performance they were trying to achieve.

 

All reviews I have seen with launch monitor data prove this to be true.

[dog flog]

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.co...ility-Index.pdf

 

He is incorrect in that statement. Lots of player testing has and is still being done. It's explained clearly in his book.

On his own site, Maltby explains how he generates the MPF number. It's a formula and nowhere in the formula are numerical results from player testing used. The only data used in the formula are measurements of the club head. http://ralphmaltby.com/method-of-determining-mpf/

[matchavez]

MPF is essentially useless

 

You misspelled 'completely'.

[Wooderson]

MPF is not a completely reliable metric. However, the individual measurements like VCog and MOI are extremely useful. CWebb is correct that VCog is important, but only when also considering other factors. Rearward cog will also effect launch. The trampoline face of the i500 will reduce spin.

[matchavez]

MPF is not a completely reliable metric. However, the individual measurements like VCog and MOI are extremely useful. CWebb is correct that VCog is important, but only when also considering other factors. Rearward cog will also effect launch. The trampoline face of the i500 will reduce spin.

 

The measurements are useful. The 'factor' is useless.

[nova6868]

The measurements are useful. The 'factor' is useless.

 

I mostly agree, and yet I would also agree with CWebb that the MPF has been able to identify several of the popular and "classic" iron designs.

 

Hogan Apex Forged 2005 (560)

Ping S55 (594)

Ping i5 (707)

Ping Eye 2 (724)

Titleist 690MB (412)

Mizuno MP4 (397)

Mizuno MP69 (403)

Mizuno MP32 (412)

Mizuno MP33 (419)

Nike VR Pro (397)

Nike TW Forged (516)

Bridgestone J40 Forged (455)

Bridgestone J40 DP (682)

Srixon Z745 (417)

 

So I think there is possibly some predictive value in the MPF, as many of the "classic" iron designs are rated very highly in their category. Can someone find some beloved "classic" iron designs that have a very low MPF rating?

[dog flog]

The measurements are useful. The 'factor' is useless.

 

I mostly agree, and yet I would also agree with CWebb that the MPF has been able to identify several of the popular and "classic" iron designs.

 

Hogan Apex Forged 2005 (560)

Ping S55 (594)

Ping i5 (707)

Ping Eye 2 (724)

Titleist 690MB (412)

Mizuno MP4 (397)

Mizuno MP69 (403)

Mizuno MP32 (412)

Mizuno MP33 (419)

Nike VR Pro (397)

Nike TW Forged (516)

Bridgestone J40 Forged (455)

Bridgestone J40 DP (682)

Srixon Z745 (417)

 

So I think there is possibly some predictive value in the MPF, as many of the "classic" iron designs are rated very highly in their category. Can someone find some beloved "classic" iron designs that have a very low MPF rating?

Certainly not a classic (yet, anyway) but the Mizuno MP-18 SC scores a paltry 135 points, by far the lowest of any Mizuno iron on the chart.

[matchavez]

The measurements are useful. The 'factor' is useless.

 

I mostly agree, and yet I would also agree with CWebb that the MPF has been able to identify several of the popular and "classic" iron designs.

 

Hogan Apex Forged 2005 (560)

Ping S55 (594)

Ping i5 (707)

Ping Eye 2 (724)

Titleist 690MB (412)

Mizuno MP4 (397)

Mizuno MP69 (403)

Mizuno MP32 (412)

Mizuno MP33 (419)

Nike VR Pro (397)

Nike TW Forged (516)

Bridgestone J40 Forged (455)

Bridgestone J40 DP (682)

Srixon Z745 (417)

 

So I think there is possibly some predictive value in the MPF, as many of the "classic" iron designs are rated very highly in their category. Can someone find some beloved "classic" iron designs that have a very low MPF rating?

 

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

[Cwebb]

 

Certainly not a classic (yet, anyway) but the Mizuno MP-18 SC scores a paltry 135 points, by far the lowest of any Mizuno iron on the chart.

 

It has a very high sweet-spot height of .906", making it relatively more difficult to hit for most players. Compare that to the most populur "classic" Mizunos...

 

Mp-33: .718"

Mp-14: .687"

Mp-32: .750"

 

and more recent...

 

Mp-4: .762"

Mp-5: .789

[iteachgolf]

 

Certainly not a classic (yet, anyway) but the Mizuno MP-18 SC scores a paltry 135 points, by far the lowest of any Mizuno iron on the chart.

 

It has a very high sweet-spot height of .906", making it relatively more difficult to hit for most players. Compare that to the most populur "classic" Mizunos...

 

Mp-33: .718"

Mp-14: .687"

Mp-32: .750"

 

and more recent...

 

Mp-4: .762"

Mp-5: .789

 

Again the sweet spot (where you should make contact) is between the second and third groove. Every solid shot is hit below the vertical COG. Nobody any good is hitting anywhere near .75” up the face. A higher VCOG doesn’t make it harder to hit, it simply makes it launch lower and spin more. And most amateurs launch it too high with not enough spin.

[nova6868]

Hey, I love statistical analysis as much as the next guy. But comparing a number meant to predict golf club performance with how popular golf clubs have been is not exactly what I would call a spurious correlation.

 

Sure maybe I don't have enough data points - I'm not being paid to do this analysis. And I asked the question to see if anyone else wanted to find a classic iron design with a low MPF score.

 

Bringing up the MP-18 SC is interesting, because we don't know if it's going to be a classic head yet. However the recent Mizuno iron that has a following around here and on tour is the JPX 900 Tour. It scored 355 which is a decent score for a blade.

 

All I'm saying is that the MPF score isn't perfect, but it may have some predictive value when looking at golf club designs to perform well for large groups of golfers. This doesn't mean it has any predictive value for individual golfers.

[msd71]

P730 has an MPF of 15 (no, I'm not forgetting a zero). Put them in the bag last week and had my best iron striking round in months. Go figure.

[iteachgolf]

P730 has an MPF of 15 (no, I'm not forgetting a zero). Put them in the bag last week and had my best iron striking round in months. Go figure.

 

And they go higher than the VR Pros that Maltby loves. The P730 launches higher and spins more than every blade I tested last year with multiple players (pros) and had the highest peak height. 20+% higher than Srixons which MPF also loves.

[nova6868]

P730 has an MPF of 15 (no, I'm not forgetting a zero). Put them in the bag last week and had my best iron striking round in months. Go figure.

 

That's what I mean. The score doesn't necessarily have great predictive value for how well an iron performs for an individual golfer. You are a great example, you hit the p730 really well.

 

However, the p730's score is brought down by a sweet spot that's less than an inch from the hosel and also quite high on the blade. For many golfers that would be really difficult to hit. If they finally started finding the sweet spot they would be at risk of hitting the occasional shank. Now... you could say they have no business playing blades, and that would be a fair point.

 

[jj9000]

I'm going to start making irons.

 

My main metric will be JJPF. I'll make my irons 2 inches wide and 2 inches tall. Of course, all of my irons (which are for sale on my site) will have ridiculously high JJPF factors.

 

Major OEMs will be penalized for having larger clubs, because larger clubs are more difficult to cut through the wind.

 

Real world hands on experience makes no difference to me.

 

I have product to sell.

[dog flog]

Certainly not a classic (yet, anyway) but the Mizuno MP-18 SC scores a paltry 135 points, by far the lowest of any Mizuno iron on the chart.

 

It has a very high sweet-spot height of .906", making it relatively more difficult to hit for most players. Compare that to the most populur "classic" Mizunos...

 

Mp-33: .718"

Mp-14: .687"

Mp-32: .750"

 

and more recent...

 

Mp-4: .762"

Mp-5: .789

 

Again the sweet spot (where you should make contact) is between the second and third groove. Every solid shot is hit below the vertical COG. Nobody any good is hitting anywhere near .75" up the face. A higher VCOG doesn't make it harder to hit, it simply makes it launch lower and spin more. And most amateurs launch it too high with not enough spin.

I'm a little confused here. If mosts ams launch it too high with too low spin, shouldn't the 18 SC with its lower launch and higher spin be better for most ams and thus score higher?

[iteachgolf]

Certainly not a classic (yet, anyway) but the Mizuno MP-18 SC scores a paltry 135 points, by far the lowest of any Mizuno iron on the chart.

 

It has a very high sweet-spot height of .906", making it relatively more difficult to hit for most players. Compare that to the most populur "classic" Mizunos...

 

Mp-33: .718"

Mp-14: .687"

Mp-32: .750"

 

and more recent...

 

Mp-4: .762"

Mp-5: .789

 

Again the sweet spot (where you should make contact) is between the second and third groove. Every solid shot is hit below the vertical COG. Nobody any good is hitting anywhere near .75" up the face. A higher VCOG doesn't make it harder to hit, it simply makes it launch lower and spin more. And most amateurs launch it too high with not enough spin.

I'm a little confused here. If mosts ams launch it too high with too low spin, shouldn't the 18 SC with its lower launch and higher spin be better for most ams and thus score higher?

 

Hence the whole point why the ratings are useless

[dog flog]

Certainly not a classic (yet, anyway) but the Mizuno MP-18 SC scores a paltry 135 points, by far the lowest of any Mizuno iron on the chart.

 

It has a very high sweet-spot height of .906", making it relatively more difficult to hit for most players. Compare that to the most populur "classic" Mizunos...

 

Mp-33: .718"

Mp-14: .687"

Mp-32: .750"

 

and more recent...

 

Mp-4: .762"

Mp-5: .789

 

Again the sweet spot (where you should make contact) is between the second and third groove. Every solid shot is hit below the vertical COG. Nobody any good is hitting anywhere near .75" up the face. A higher VCOG doesn't make it harder to hit, it simply makes it launch lower and spin more. And most amateurs launch it too high with not enough spin.

I'm a little confused here. If mosts ams launch it too high with too low spin, shouldn't the 18 SC with its lower launch and higher spin be better for most ams and thus score higher?

 

Hence the whole point why the ratings are useless

Right, although, the point made earlier still stands - that the individual metrics such as VCOG might be useful to the golfer who knows his own ball flight tendencies

[Cwebb]

Again the sweet spot (where you should make contact) is between the second and third groove. Every solid shot is hit below the vertical COG. Nobody any good is hitting anywhere near .75" up the face. A higher VCOG doesn't make it harder to hit, it simply makes it launch lower and spin more. And most amateurs launch it too high with not enough spin.

 

This is one of the more confusing aspects of this topic. When a round ball comes in contact with a flat surface (club face) that is angled away (loft) from the edge of the ball,....the impact point or "wear spot" is almost always lower on the face than where the COG's of the head and ball are located.

 

The COG of the ball is in the dead center,... not at the lower edge of the ball which comes into contact with the face.

 

So if we were to measure the impact point on a clean strike from a tight lie, it would be about .460" or so up from the ground line. If the sweet-spot height of the iron is .750" and the center (COG) of the ball sitting on that tight lie is .840", there is still room to get the the COG of the iron below the COG of the ball.

 

Edit to add....impact point or wear mark will go down or up, when the loft of the club changes. A lofted wedge will have the lowest wear mark in a set. This happens because the more the face is tilted away (more loft) from the lower edge of the ball, the lower the mark on the face will be.

 

So for example, an iron with a 43* loft will have about a .265" impact point from a tight lie....and a 20* iron will be at about .545"

[Ritocop]

Apex CF16's have a crappy rating too and they are great irons.

Was looking for this... How the pro version is considered "more forgiving" is odd lol.

[lordemsworth]

Certainly not a classic (yet, anyway) but the Mizuno MP-18 SC scores a paltry 135 points, by far the lowest of any Mizuno iron on the chart.

 

It has a very high sweet-spot height of .906", making it relatively more difficult to hit for most players. Compare that to the most populur "classic" Mizunos...

 

Mp-33: .718"

Mp-14: .687"

Mp-32: .750"

 

and more recent...

 

Mp-4: .762"

Mp-5: .789

 

Again the sweet spot (where you should make contact) is between the second and third groove. Every solid shot is hit below the vertical COG. Nobody any good is hitting anywhere near .75" up the face. A higher VCOG doesn't make it harder to hit, it simply makes it launch lower and spin more. And most amateurs launch it too high with not enough spin.

I'm a little confused here. If mosts ams launch it too high with too low spin, shouldn't the 18 SC with its lower launch and higher spin be better for most ams and thus score higher?

 

Is that actually true? I would think most amateurs don’t hit the ball high enough. I would have thought that the long and mid irons don’t fly high enough, and the short irons may be hit too high.

[iteachgolf]

Certainly not a classic (yet, anyway) but the Mizuno MP-18 SC scores a paltry 135 points, by far the lowest of any Mizuno iron on the chart.

 

It has a very high sweet-spot height of .906", making it relatively more difficult to hit for most players. Compare that to the most populur "classic" Mizunos...

 

Mp-33: .718"

Mp-14: .687"

Mp-32: .750"

 

and more recent...

 

Mp-4: .762"

Mp-5: .789

 

Again the sweet spot (where you should make contact) is between the second and third groove. Every solid shot is hit below the vertical COG. Nobody any good is hitting anywhere near .75" up the face. A higher VCOG doesn't make it harder to hit, it simply makes it launch lower and spin more. And most amateurs launch it too high with not enough spin.

I'm a little confused here. If mosts ams launch it too high with too low spin, shouldn't the 18 SC with its lower launch and higher spin be better for most ams and thus score higher?

 

Is that actually true? I would think most amateurs don’t hit the ball high enough. I would have thought that the long and mid irons don’t fly high enough, and the short irons may be hit too high.

 

They don’t fly high enough due to lack of spin. Not launch angle. It’s 100% true.

[1Mordrid1]

Certainly not a classic (yet, anyway) but the Mizuno MP-18 SC scores a paltry 135 points, by far the lowest of any Mizuno iron on the chart.

 

It has a very high sweet-spot height of .906", making it relatively more difficult to hit for most players. Compare that to the most populur "classic" Mizunos...

 

Mp-33: .718"

Mp-14: .687"

Mp-32: .750"

 

and more recent...

 

Mp-4: .762"

Mp-5: .789

 

Again the sweet spot (where you should make contact) is between the second and third groove. Every solid shot is hit below the vertical COG. Nobody any good is hitting anywhere near .75" up the face. A higher VCOG doesn't make it harder to hit, it simply makes it launch lower and spin more. And most amateurs launch it too high with not enough spin.

I'm a little confused here. If mosts ams launch it too high with too low spin, shouldn't the 18 SC with its lower launch and higher spin be better for most ams and thus score higher?

 

Not necessarily. Amateurs struggle with the consistent contact needed to spin the ball. Because of this they can get wildly varying spin numbers from shot to shot. Essentially making shooting to "pin high" a total crap shoot because they don't know if the ball will check, or if it does, how much.

 

So using peak trajectory and angle of decent for stopping power will be much more consistent for amateurs that struggle with strike location when compared to using spin for stopping power.

[nova6868]

Another interesting point might be i210 adoption by the PING tour staff. They seem to have no major issues with it.

 

Blades:

10 iblade

7 s55

 

Players:

6 i210

1 i200

1 i25

[iteachgolf]

Certainly not a classic (yet, anyway) but the Mizuno MP-18 SC scores a paltry 135 points, by far the lowest of any Mizuno iron on the chart.

 

It has a very high sweet-spot height of .906", making it relatively more difficult to hit for most players. Compare that to the most populur "classic" Mizunos...

 

Mp-33: .718"

Mp-14: .687"

Mp-32: .750"

 

and more recent...

 

Mp-4: .762"

Mp-5: .789

 

Again the sweet spot (where you should make contact) is between the second and third groove. Every solid shot is hit below the vertical COG. Nobody any good is hitting anywhere near .75" up the face. A higher VCOG doesn't make it harder to hit, it simply makes it launch lower and spin more. And most amateurs launch it too high with not enough spin.

I'm a little confused here. If mosts ams launch it too high with too low spin, shouldn't the 18 SC with its lower launch and higher spin be better for most ams and thus score higher?

 

Not necessarily. Amateurs struggle with the consistent contact needed to spin the ball. Because of this they can get wildly varying spin numbers from shot to shot. Essentially making shooting to "pin high" a total crap shoot because they don't know if the ball will check, or if it does, how much.

 

So using peak trajectory and angle of decent for stopping power will be much more consistent for amateurs that struggle with strike location when compared to using spin for stopping power.

 

How do you think you get higher peak height and steeer angle of decent?