Can someone explain MPF, and what all the ratings mean/do?

[Golfrnut]

I was told a story by a golf business guru that when MPF was discussed among some OEM club designers, one major designer said they had problems with MPF as their testing on two of their own iron models showed the opposite of what MPF showed. To them, the model they considered less forgiving had a higher MPF rating (more forgiving) then the other model.

 

They never seem to explain what the parameters and measurements would be, for what they consider "more forgiving" or easier to hit in an iron design

 

I agree. FYI it was some 10-12 years back and it was a Callaway club designer that said so but I forget the models.

 

That's odd, because nearly every design that Callaway released in that era, rated very high in the MPF

 

There is someone in the business that posts on here who may remember all the details. Let us see if he replies.

 

FWIW, Tom has posted on here before that he was asked by I believe Gold Digest to do some QC on Maltby’s math and said in the end, it lacked some pretty important factors in determining the true results. I’ll see if I can search out the article.

 

Found it...

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/930266-maltby-playability-index/page__fromsearch__1

 

He also made the remarks about the OEM, so maybe this thread was what you remember?

 

Edit again...

Found the one I was thinking about

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1574312-moment-of-inertia/page__fromsearch__1

 

[JCAG]

Golfnut

 

Tom was the person that I was referring to when I said someone on here might respond as he told me the story. I believe one other person on that review group was the Callaway design engineer.

[Weolsen82]

The review group found the empirical formula for mpf faulty, but what of the parameters that feed into that equation? Are the avcog, c-dim and moi values valid and usable? Did the review group have an opinion on those individual parameters?

[Cwebb]

The review group found the empirical formula for mpf faulty, but what of the parameters that feed into that equation? Are the avcog, c-dim and moi values valid and usable? Did the review group have an opinion on those individual parameters?

 

My thoughts as well. If they have another opinion of "mass and dimensional properties" and their effect on how easy to hit and "forgiving" an iron will be,....then it would be reasonable to present that opinion and measurement data for the same peer review that they did for the MPF.

 

Do they not agree that a sweet-spot (COG) that is higher than the center of the ball (.840"), will be more difficult to play for most players? One major aspect that gives so many designs a low rating in the MPF, are those with an AVCOG higher than .840"