My mystery of King Cobra II OS vs. the Maltby Playability Factor rating

[radiopreacher]

Forgive me -- this type of club is more modern than most which I, too, come to this Classic sub-forum to talk about, but I thought it more appropriate than posting it among the new stuff, since it's about a 20 year old club now.

-- So... I am on a super tight budget and did not want to sink a lot into clubs I would beat up while learning to play (hence a set of heads I look forward to playing later are pickled for a while, awaiting a shaft decision after my swing stops changing so rapidly).

So as I looked at sets that I could get for like 60 bucks I'd look at people's experiences and testimonies.

To this day I can scour the internet reading 20 years of statements made about people's King Cobra II OS irons and scarcely find a negative word other than one "older clubs suck" statement. Rather, the internet is saturated with love for these clubs.

Impossible most of them are paid shills, not just people who just bought them new for $700+ and convincing themselves because they'll want to blow their brains out if they're not awesome, just a random mixture of people from when the websites first existed through now. Almost all of these reviews are particularly positive, comparing them to multiple sets of other major makes and models, with many, many of them returning to these clubs repeatedly for years.

So I got 'em and thought they were pretty awesome for $60 (after shipping) but what do I know...

Then, loving some stuff I've learned from Ralph Maltby's books and a couple videos, I looked at his Maltby Playability Factor (MPF).

That's when I discovered the King Cobra II OS has one of the lowest MPF's of all time. I couldn't understand, with them scoring a 4.5 out of 5 over 70 descriptive, detailed reviews scattered over almost two decades.

When I got a very kind and thoughtful response by asking over at the clubmaking forum attached to Maltby's namesake site, at first I started nodding when the main tech answering questions there, Britt, began to explain that they've played clubs they like that have low MPF's... but then I stopped in my tracks when he finished saying that the K.C. II OS's are an example in poor design, that they use it in examples in school, that it died quickly and readily wound up in discount bins because people couldn't play them well, and that positive reviews should mainly just be paid shills and a few people who had just bought them, early on.

I am really, really confused here.

They didn't just say "the MPF rules"... but two authorized Question Answer mods said it's not foolproof, but went on to say that, nonetheless, the K.C. II OS irons suck because their COG is too high and far back toward the toe, that there's no way they'd be consistent, and that, "... they are in no way designed to be are not designed to deliver stability, forgiveness or a solid feel unless you hit the ball on the heel side of center."

Does anyone have any thoughts on the mysterious chasm here between the ubiquitous, favorable reviews of these (for their time and even long after) saturating the internet, versus the in-depth technical analysis of how awful these irons supposedly "must be", as well as the purported sales history of initial retail sales nosediving early (specifically being because buyers thought they played poorly, and not because of some other releases or market reasons)?

They are even a popular resale item today, and not at bottom dollar, no doubt from the positive reviews that Britt kinda sorta denied logically exist, saying, "Might have been talked up by players being paid to talk them up, or even by some that were not, when they first came out."... clearly not having googled the model's reviews, but I do really appreciate his time and thoughtful explanation of the MPF breakdown and COG, MOI, etc.

Any input on your experience with these or thoughts about the limitations of MPF?

Could there by physics not making their way into the scenario?

I also directly know people whose first clubs were these, making statements like, "Almost everyone went through a set of these... they were a fine set"...

Baffled in Odessa, -- Jeff

 

[dcopp7]

You probably would have been better off with an older set of Pings. I grabbed a set of 6-SW Ping Karsten IV's off eBay for $26 shipped with like new grips. They are among the highest rated MPF clubs out there.

[Stuart_G]

> @radiopreacher said:

> Any input on your experience with these or thoughts about the limitations of MPF?

> Could there by physics not making their way into the scenario?

 

There are a lot of threads on the "issues" with the MPF. Yes there are some physics not making it's way into the score but the bigger concern is the relative importance (value as included in the MPF) of various club characteristics and how they really influence how forgiving the head will be. The formula of the MPF is just one person's **opinion** of how the characteristics influence "forgiveness". The MPF equation itself doesn't have any actual direct basis in physics by itself.

 

Here are just a few of the past threads (I'm sure there are tons more).

 

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/121015/is-the-mpf-any-help

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1570346/ive-discovered-maltbys-flaw-the-truth-behind-mpf-ratings-and-why-they-are-rating-your-clubs-so-lo

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1206590/can-someone-explain-mpf-and-what-all-the-ratings-mean-do/p1

 

 

[mchamden1]

Wow, thanks for the memories...that was my very first set of irons ever! Got them for Christmas sophomore year of high school.

 

I agree with Stuart, don't get too caught up in numbers. I found them to be plenty forgiving, The most important questions is - how are YOU hitting them? If you are just starting out, it isn't likely that MPF or any other measurement will make much of a difference past basic shaft flex, length, etc. Forget about the numbers and go play.

[Dpavs]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @radiopreacher said:

> > Any input on your experience with these or thoughts about the limitations of MPF?

> > Could there by physics not making their way into the scenario?

>

> There are a lot of threads on the "issues" with the MPF. Yes there are some physics not making it's way into the score but the bigger concern is the relative importance (value as included in the MPF) of various club characteristics and how they really influence how forgiving the head will be. The formula of the MPF is just one person's **opinion** of how the characteristics influence "forgiveness". The MPF equation itself doesn't have any actual direct basis in physics by itself.

>

> Here are just a few of the past threads (I'm sure there are tons more).

>

> https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/121015/is-the-mpf-any-help

> https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1570346/ive-discovered-maltbys-flaw-the-truth-behind-mpf-ratings-and-why-they-are-rating-your-clubs-so-lo

> https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1206590/can-someone-explain-mpf-and-what-all-the-ratings-mean-do/p1

>

>

 

Exactly this ^ to me... MPF ratings have always seemed more supposition than science.

[Shallowface]

I am a big believer in MPF.

MPF is based on the idea that a low center of gravity, as near to the center of the clubface (where we are all trying to hit the ball) makes for the best club possible.

How that is more supposition than science is beyond me.

The King Cobra II irons have a center of gravity that is slightly above the center of the golf ball and located somewhat toward the heel. If you were to take one of those clubheads, balance it on one of these...

https://www.golfworks.com/golf-mechanix-club-head-cg-locator/p/gm1024/

...and then ask yourself, "is that where I want to try to hit the ball?" the answer likely would be "NO!" Because the point you just found is the true sweet spot of that particular golf club, and it's not in the center of the clubface.

That is all MPF is. It's not a marketing tool. If anything, it's an anti-marketing tool because it calls BS on companies that claim this year's model has a lower COG or a higher ~~MRI~~ than last year's model. These qualities are able to be accurately measured and quanitfied and often times the claims of the OEMs are just flat out lies.

MPF gets a lot of hate, and in my opinion it's due to the fact that it eliminates the major factor those who buy a lot of golf equipment live upon.

That is, hope. Hope that this year's gimmick...errr...technology will make up for the shortcomings I have.

Finally, there are those who find clubs with relatively low MPF to still be quite playable. How can that be?

Because they have the skill to determine, through practice, what the most solid part of a particular iron is and the ability to consistently impact it on that spot. We've all seen older forged irons that were owned by good players and they have that nice little worn spot, which is invariably located on the heel side of the clubface. They found where that club was most solid and just wore it out.

But most people hit toward the toe, if anything. That club with the heel located COG is going to feel just awful and not perform well at all.

Therefore, most people will do better with an iron with a COG in the center of the clubface and below the center of the golf ball (.840)

That is the gist of MPF. Nothing more. Nothing less.

MOI not MRI. Got medical stuff on the brain this morning.

 

[Dpavs]

You cannot extract one element of MPF and say well this is probably true so MPF is not mere supposition or theory if you prefer. MPF as a whole will remain mere theory until there is a correlation established between MPF ratings and actual club performance through controlled data and testing. To my knowledge no one has done this. If someone can show me some actual controlled testing data which supports the MPF theory I'd actually appreciate being able to see it.

[NRJyzr]

> @Shallowface said:

> I am a big believer in MPF.

> MPF is based on the idea that a low center of gravity, as near to the center of the clubface (where we are all trying to hit the ball) makes for the best club possible.

> How that is more supposition than science is beyond me.

> **The King Cobra II irons have a center of gravity that is slightly above the center of the golf ball and located somewhat toward the heel. ** If you were to take one of those clubheads, balance it on one of these...

> https://www.golfworks.com/golf-mechanix-club-head-cg-locator/p/gm1024/

> ...and then ask yourself, "is that where I want to try to hit the ball?" the answer likely would be "NO!" Because the point you just found is the true sweet spot of that particular golf club, and it's not in the center of the clubface.

> That is all MPF is. It's not a marketing tool. If anything, it's an anti-marketing tool because it calls BS on companies that claim this year's model has a lower COG or a higher MRI than last year's model. These qualities are able to be accurately measured and quanitfied and often times the claims of the OEMs are just flat out lies.

> MPF gets a lot of hate, and in my opinion it's due to the fact that it eliminates the major factor those who buy a lot of golf equipment live upon.

> That is, hope. Hope that this year's gimmick...errr...technology will make up for the shortcomings I have.

> Finally, there are those who find clubs with relatively low MPF to still be quite playable. How can that be?

> Because they have the skill to determine, through practice, what the most solid part of a particular iron is and the ability to consistently impact it on that spot. We've all seen older forged irons that were owned by good players and they have that nice little worn spot, which is invariably located on the heel side of the clubface. They found where that club was most solid and just wore it out.

> But most people hit toward the toe, if anything. That club with the heel located COG is going to feel just awful and not perform well at all.

> Therefore, most people will do better with an iron with a COG in the center of the clubface and below the center of the golf ball (.840)

> That is the gist of MPF. Nothing more. Nothing less.

>

>

 

Shallow has drilled it in his post.

 

The CG is high, and not as far from the hosel as Mr Maltby prefers in his designs, therefore it scores lower. That's it.

 

If you're worried about forgiveness, look at the MOI measurements. IMHO, of course. ;)

[Stuart_G]

> @Shallowface said:

> I am a big believer in MPF.

> MPF is based on the idea that a low center of gravity, as near to the center of the clubface (where we are all trying to hit the ball) makes for the best club possible.

> How that is more supposition than science is beyond me.

 

It is because there is no actual published data validating any correlation between the final MPF value assigned to each head and it's actual performance. While many might accept that a lower c.g. potentially makes for a more forgiving head, whether the lower c.g. is MORE important than some other characteristics - such as Heel-toe length, MOI, etc.. is the main point of contention. And those specific priorities and relative valuations of the different head characteristics built into the MPF equation is what really is just supposition or an unproven theory.

 

> @Shallowface said:

> MPF gets a lot of hate, and in my opinion it's due to the fact that it eliminates the major factor those who buy a lot of golf equipment live upon.

> That is, hope. Hope that this year's gimmick...errr...technology will make up for the shortcomings I have.

 

Nope. While the measurement data is certainly a nice consequence of the MPF, it's not the core reason for the MPF (or any of the "hate" for that matter). The core reason is the final MPF value assigned to each head. No one has a problem with the individual measurements made or being made public - not even the other OEM's. The "hate" (really disagreement) is all about the formulation and usefulness of that final value.

 

The reality is that different individuals have different swing characteristics and different miss tendencies. So what characteristics will be important to playability is NOT a constant so can never be generalized by a single equation. It will be different for each individual. e.g. A low VCOG can help elevate the ball. That means it may be very important for someone with slower swing speed and/or who deliver less dynamic loft. On the other hand, it may make little difference (or even be bad) for those with higher swing speeds and who deliver higher dynamic loft (those that don't need any help elevating the ball).

 

Bottom line is that the numbers are not universally helpful and each person has to make their own evaluation how "forgiving" a particular head is relative to other options. The MPF value is not always going to be an accurate reflection of real results.

 

 

 

 

[Shallowface]

> @Stuart_G said:

> > @Shallowface said:

> > I am a big believer in MPF.

> > MPF is based on the idea that a low center of gravity, as near to the center of the clubface (where we are all trying to hit the ball) makes for the best club possible.

> > How that is more supposition than science is beyond me.

>

> It is because there is no actual published data validating any correlation between the final MPF value assigned to each head and it's actual performance. While many might accept that a lower c.g. potentially makes for a more forgiving head, whether the lower c.g. is MORE important than some other characteristics - such as Heel-toe length, MOI, etc.. is the main point of contention. And those specific priorities and relative valuations of the different head characteristics built into the MPF equation is what really is just supposition or an unproven theory.

>

> > @Shallowface said:

> > MPF gets a lot of hate, and in my opinion it's due to the fact that it eliminates the major factor those who buy a lot of golf equipment live upon.

> > That is, hope. Hope that this year's gimmick...errr...technology will make up for the shortcomings I have.

>

> Nope. While the measurement data is certainly a nice consequence of the MPF, it's not the core reason for the MPF (or any of the "hate" for that matter). The core reason is the final MPF value assigned to each head. No one has a problem with the individual measurements made or being made public - not even the other OEM's. The "hate" (really disagreement) is all about the formulation and usefulness of that final value.

>

> The reality is that different individuals have different swing characteristics and different miss tendencies. So what characteristics will be important to playability is NOT a constant so can never be generalized by a single equation. It will be different for each individual. e.g. A low VCOG can help elevate the ball. That means it may be very important for someone with slower swing speed and/or who deliver less dynamic loft. On the other hand, it may make little difference (or even be bad) for those with higher swing speeds and who deliver higher dynamic loft (those that don't need any help elevating the ball).

>

> Bottom line is that the numbers are not universally helpful and each person has to make their own evaluation how "forgiving" a particular head is relative to other options. The MPF value is not always going to be an accurate reflection of real results.

>

>

>

>

 

That's your opinion. We disagree.

[bl8d]

there is no problem with MPF's data other than the people who don't know how to interpret it.

if you are a player you want the COG closer to the face and just slightly above(.840) the centerline of the ball for a lower penetrating ball flight

you also want the C dim. slightly inside the visual centerline of the face. of the club . It will allow the face to rotate quicker around the ball and make it easier to shape the shot you want.

 

what is paramount with all irons is that the lie angle of every iron is correctly set for your swing plane. It's the only way you will get the most mass into your contact.

[dpark]

I look at MPF as a "guideline" for playability, but not an absolute truth. I have hit clubs with a high MPF and hated them and currently play clubs with a low MPF and love them.

[Shallowface]

> @bl8d said:

> there is no problem with MPF's data other than the people who don't know how to interpret it.

> if you are a player you want the COG closer to the face and just slightly above(.840) the centerline of the ball for a lower penetrating ball flight

> you also want the C dim. slightly inside the visual centerline of the face. of the club . It will allow the face to rotate quicker around the ball and make it easier to shape the shot you want.

>

> what is paramount with all irons is that the lie angle of every iron is correctly set for your swing plane. It's the only way you will get the most mass into your contact.

 

I guess that includes the man who invented it.

I stand by my previous comment.

The biggest problem most people have with MPF is that it removes the magic involved in buying new equipment. I am grateful for the thousands of dollars that knowledge has saved me over the past fifteen years or so that the MPF data has been available.

I would never consider myself a "player." My lowest handicap was 0.9, which is light years from the Plus 5s and 6s you find on Tour. I just know I've hit pretty much every club on the top of that MPF list and found no negatives. Of course, I was more fortunate than most in that I never had a problem hitting any type of shot I wanted to hit regardless of the style of club or the type of ball I was using. I grew up playing the 70s era Top Flite and the rock hard cast clubs of that day. If you could hit all the shots with those, you can hit them with anything.

There is no question that some folks are going to find a club with a low MPF that works for them. There is a simple explanation for it. The characteristics of the shaft are offsetting the shortcomings of the clubhead. In one of his earlier writings (long before MPF), Maltby told the story of a small company whose owner designed a classic looking cast iron, but found after producing them that he had sacrificed a proper COG location for certain cosmetic properties. The only solution was to use softer tipped True Temper Pro Fit shafts instead of the Dynamic shafts that were originally intended. You can find this story in any of the Golfworks Price Guides under "Auld Golf Inc."

MPF makes no attempt to quantify how a clubhead is going to perform with different shafts or for other properties such as sole design or intangibles such as look or feel that are no doubt highly important. All it does is state that, for the vast majority of people, a clubhead with a low COG that is as far from the hosel as possible is going to perform best.

There is quite possibly a microscopic group of people for whom that may not apply.

[resnor]

Couldn't it also be as simple as, better player can hit harder to hit clubs more easily than a high handicap payer? Sure, these "difficult" clubs can be easy to hit for someone...but only if you know that you have to hit closer to the heel, etc. In general, if a club is closer to the good numbers, it's a more accessible club option for more people. You can get one of the worst clubs according to Maltby, and learn to hit it really well. It would just be easier with a better club design.

[Stuart_G]

> @resnor said:~~~~

> Couldn't it also be as simple as, better player can hit harder to hit clubs more easily than a high handicap payer? Sure, these "difficult" clubs can be easy to hit for someone...but only if you know that you have to hit closer to the heel, etc. In general, if a club is closer to the good numbers, it's a more accessible club option for more people. You can get one of the worst clubs according to Maltby, and learn to hit it really well. It would just be easier with a better club design.

 

while it's true that the better player with a more consistent strike doesn't need (or benefit) from the same amount of forgiveness - and therefore can get good performance from a harder to play iron - the issues w/ the accuracy of the MPF assigned values go well beyond anything that simple. Disagreement doesn't just come from uneducated players trying to make sense of the MPF - it also exists within the circle of experienced and respected designers as well.

 

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/comment/8132864#Comment_8132864

 

And that's just considering the objective evaluation of the design. There are also plenty of subjective aspects to picking a iron model. e.g. Many players are sensitive to different visuals the iron head presents - e.g. Some people can't get good performance with an iron with a too much or too little offset. It's really amazing how the aesthetics can mess with the mind (and therefore the swing) for some people when it comes to this game.

 

 

[resnor]

Yeah, I mean, I get what some people are saying. It's just I don't view it the same way, I guess. I look at his rating as a "all things being equal, here are the stats for each clubhead, and this correlates to some clubs being easier to achieve certain ball flight characteristics than others" sort of thing.

 

 

[Kirasdad]

Ralph’s MPF has always been controversial amongst gear oriented golf nerds, a non exclusive club that I’m a member in good standing. I find clubs and how various models function quite fascinating, shafts, head design, the whole smash. I’m by no means a scientist but I have done a lot of reading and have played, and or sampled dozens of iron designs, many of them appearing on Ralph’s MPF ratings. This is anecdotal of course, but in my experience the MPF is amazingly accurate. I’ll mess around with a set of say 73 Apex that I found at a thrift store (this actually happened about ten years ago) and finding them very playable for a decades old iron, I’d look it up on the MPF and what do you know...those irons had one of the highest MPF ratings for a blade. This happened regularly for me and most of the time I would look it up AFTER I gamed or tried something out, not before, to avoid preconceived notions. So I think there is something to it, I’m just not enough of a physicist to know why.

 

The other side of the coin, I suppose is somebody likes even awful clubs ( see Pavin, Corey and his VAS Cleveland irons) That design was universally hated. He won on tour with those things.

 

P.S I made a nice chunk of change from those Apexes on the bay.

[Shallowface]

I never felt like the Wishon/Maltby squabble was anything more than two competitors competing for the same market. Wishon started out working for Maltby before moving on to Dynacraft and Golfsmith and then later his own company. Having hit a number of Dynacraft and Golfsmith clubs designed by Wishon (I never got to hit any Wishon branded clubs because he wouldn't sell to anyone who hadn't undergone some certification process, and much like Lee Trevino refusing to take a lesson from a club pro that couldn't beat him, I never felt as though I wanted to buy clubs from someone who didn't know as much about them as I did. I apologize if that sounds a bit immodest but I am just being honest), I always found them to play just fine but not quite as good as Maltby's as far as feel and sole design were concerned. I always liked the fact that Maltby's designs tended to have slightly longer blade lengths and shallower faces than most, and his sole designs were often much better than what was generally available from the OEMs of that day. I will grant you that much of that is a matter of personal taste.

Kirasdad makes some excellent points above. I grew up in an area of the country where MacGregor was king during the 50s and 60s, but had fallen on hard times in the early 70s despite having one of the all time great tour staffs in history. I will never forget a pro telling me back then "if you had told me 5 years ago I wouldn't be able to give MacGregor clubs away today I would have told you that you were crazy," but everyone had moved on, to Hogan and Wilson mostly. The superior MPF ratings of those clubs may provide some clue as to why that was the case, although some of the MacGregor designs of the day (the Split Sole for example) may have contributed.

Consider the case of Johnny Miller's famous reworked MacGregor 915T irons. I have no idea what they would have measured on the MPF scale prior to being modified, but when Miller shortened the hosels and moved that weight to the blade via the use of lead tape, I have no doubt that the MPF went up several hundred points. Combine that with Miller's rounding of the soles and you had one of the finest blades anyone ever designed. It's a real shame MacGregor didn't have the sense to look at those clubs and offer something like them, because considering Miller's success with them it would have been a very easy sale and may well have rejuvenated that company.

[radiopreacher]

I really, really appreciate all the thoughtful replies.

 

I love Ralph Maltby's work and close this with a testimony of it.

 

I'm not denying MPF usually works (in fact it's worked on most clubs this week, for me. I'm in an unusual position to test how it reflects playability for me, a high handicapper with countless sets of clubs at his disposal on acreage to hit them on).

 

=-------> But to physically demonstrate the King Cobra II OS literally plays as an MPF 115, the person swinging the club would have to purposefully fumble the swing like Barney Fife.

 

There's an unseen factor throwing it off the scale by entire categories.

I'm a HUGE Ralph Maltby fan after everything I've learned from his media, and the MPF is proving valuable in most cases (no mere gimmick), but it obviously has chinks in its armor that allow this club to entirely fall through due to some "secret" in a spectacular manner.

It doesn't play like the MPF says it does, like, for _anyone._ Not an MPF of 115. That's not "a little unforgiving for a cavity back GI iron".

I don't have to be Sam Snead to play the club, and look at 20 years of testimonies about the club.

 

MPF is not just a sales gimmick, but some clubs it just doesn't work on, because of absent data, even if it's unusual :

* Bottom Line * for me: the King Cobra II OS has an MPF of 115 which is ludicrous -- it is (and plays like, to nearly everyone who bothers testing it with their hands) a Gaming Improvement Iron (whether it's relatively inferior _inside that class_ or not).

Not just for rare players - but clearly most, by far.

Hundreds of reviews over 20 years aren't paid shills or people who just paid $800 and are reviewing in a pink cloud of investment and self-deceipt, LOL. Many got them for nothing and put their TalyorMade RAC's in a corner etc. etc. etc. endlessly....

I'm just one more -- I can't hit a Nicklaus Golden Bear worth blazes any more than most any other newish golfer, yet those have an MPF three times that of these irons.

Some folks bent on 100% defending the MPF of 115 accurately reflecting their playability and not missing anything honestly needs to pick one up and swing it after putting the pencil down a moment. This club proves there are chinks in MPF's armor for certain designs doing something it doesn't factor in.

**** Here's an idea ****

It might help advance the MPF to admit this and figure out how or why, instead of this club being the posterchild of bad design at their school (surely demonstrated only on paper, or in a classroom, or with a head passed around, and not _swung on the range, by real students_ allowed to turn around and compare them to a 1975 Powerbilt Citation with twice the MPF, which I own and cannot play if my life depended on them).

So the COG looks horrible off and the toe weight robbed by the back fin etc. etc.... there's just undeniably something going on once the club is picked up and swung. Period.

They honestly play more like other similar models scoring in the 500's.

Judging by where the ball lands and how they feel, to hackers everywhere, easily reproduced anywhere, anytime.

To deny it would be like the advertisements for egg peelers and such where the actor purposefully fumbles the egg, proving egg peeling is nearly impossible without the device.

It's obviously like a swing weight reading on an assembled club -- the results in your hands can contradict the numbers in some cases because of something totally skewing the status quo method of analysis. One is a theoretical model that can be thrown off by an unseen factor whereas another is a physical measurement. Same point, it can wind up not reflecting what it normally does, by miles and miles.

I've spent the last week noticing (with my hands) that, as a rule, MPF reflects my ease of play pretty well in most cases (my swing needs plenty of help but I'm literally "working" (charity) around dozens of sets of used clubs at an arms reach all day, on acreage to swing on, and **in most cases** the MPF seems to reflect ease of play).

But when they say this particular club is actually used to teach what a horrible design heads can be -- I doubt they hand it to the students on a driving range and compare them to some muscleback or blade with three times its MPF that's immediately, noticeably harder to play, LOL.

Maybe it wasn't Cobra's best... but you know, they don't just engineer these things, they try them. They obviously tried them before they sold them. If there was no truth about the KC II OS but what the MPF shows, Cobra would have tested the irons and never released them. Instead, they noticed they work as well as they do, if only in practice and not on paper.

There's something going on, like that toe-weight-robbing back fin hump thing actually helping in some way not being factored in, I don't know.

You just have to swing one to know what I mean, and you just have to google reviews to know it's not my oddball swing -- it's overwhelmingly the consensus.

But like I say, I love Maltby, and I think he's made an indelible mark that's impossible to beat on the face of golf equipment and theory, and the MPF (while I'm sure used with marketing like anything else) is actually very worthwhile.

Read his books -- he's done whole sections on things that actually taught you how to put off buying a product of his if you just couldn't for a while, making shop equipment out of lumber, boiling heads in a bags... he's no shifty-eyed used car salesman, he's a true benefit to the field and a considerate and thoughtful benefit to mechanically inclined people and more.

[Shallowface]

> @radiopreacher said:

> I really, really appreciate all the thoughtful replies.

>

> I love Ralph Maltby's work and close this with a testimony of it.

>

> I'm not denying MPF usually works (in fact it's worked on most clubs this week, for me. I'm in an unusual position to test how it reflects playability for me, a high handicapper with countless sets of clubs at his disposal on acreage to hit them on).

>

> =-------> But to physically demonstrate the King Cobra II OS literally plays as an MPF 115, the person swinging the club would have to purposefully fumble the swing like Barney Fife.

>

> There's an unseen factor throwing it off the scale by entire categories.

 

It's been awhile since I've seen one, but if memory serves that particular Cobra clubhead has a decent amount of bounce on it, which MPF makes no attempt to quantify but which definitely enhances the playability for most.

 

Perhaps the significant degree of offset this particular model has suits your eye and your game.

 

The other factor is the one I mentioned above in the story about "Auld Golf." The shaft tip on this Cobra iron is oversized, which helps to reduce the twisting on off center hits, much like the oft maligned Wilson Fat Shaft models, which for all of the negativity on boards such as this thousands of people demonstrated that they work and Wilson sold hundreds of thousands of sets of them over a period of very many years. So it is quite possible that the characteristics of the shafts used in this model offset the shortcomings of the clubhead. If you were to shim a Dynamic Gold S300 into that head, you may well feel quite differently about it.

 

Maltby was also quite clear in his writings that most would not notice much difference between two irons that were 200 or so MPF points apart, so it's not the sort of system where if one were to compare irons of 650 and 625 points that the one scoring 650 was demonstrably superior.

 

Bottom line on all golf equipment is, if it works use it.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

And don't be surprised when it stops working.