Iron Ratings Per MPF ranking.

[Dyno]

I also love the fact that some of you are saying in so many words that Mr. Maltby is not an expert, but are ready to latch onto Mr. Wishon as an expert. I would like to know what exactly makes someone the foremost expert in club design, because I don't think there is a person out there right now who understands more about golf club design than Mr. Maltby.

 

Every 'expert' has been wrong one time or another. I own all the manuals but I think you'd understand why I don't refer much, if at all, to Maltby's Golf Club Design, Fitting, Alteration and Repair as the last edition was released over 12 years ago.

 

They make some great playing heads but the MPF quantifications are flawed. I played Maltby irons for 3 years and now a TWGT design for over a year - my opinions are generated by experience and history...not heresay. I spends thousands at Maltby per year as well so it's not a case of favoritism.

 

I have a science degree too....seen lots of data either misused, erroneously measured or downright wrong. This is no different.

 

Conclusions can be based on either data or real world experience or a logical combination of both. If the correlation does not hold true then you can choose to generate your own opinion or data generated by someone else. If you need to rely solely on the latter, it's usually because of a lack of the former.

 

The data must support reality. End of story.

[saliduff]

Again, what is flawed. Tell me what is wrong with what is being measured, and what you think needs to be measured. You argue that Maltby relies too much on data and not enough on real world experience. Then you say that "Conclusions can be based on either data or real world experience".. "If you need to rely solely on the latter, it's usually because of a lack of the former" which I am reading as if I have a lack of real world experience I will rely on data to make my decision. I can only assume that you rely on real world experience because you have a lack of data. So again tell me what is missing from the MPF equation and why it should be included in determining the effectiveness of a clubhead. And before you say it again, real world experience and factors that relate to personal preference cannot be included in the equation because it would be different for everybody in the world. Unless maybe you all play the exact same game, which I guess is a possibility.

[Solutions Etcetera]

There are drug trials so that when a drug is produced it can be determined to be safe. There are test pilots so that when when a plane is built it can determined to be safe. Heres the difference. It doesn't matter who you are in these scenarios. If a drug is not safe anyone taking it could die. If a plane is not safe anyone flying on it could die. And the reason is the results from the design of those products do not vary from person to person.

 

Again we disagree. Initial drug trials are designed to determine the drug's effectiveness on various individuals. Test pilots test the flyability of an aircraft before anything else, and design changes are made to improve this behavior based on human interaction. Pilots are no different then drivers or golfers... they all do things a little differently (which is why they use more than one).

 

Of course there is variability in human interface testing. That is why there is market research, drug trials, and other useability tests that span every market and industry. And while not everyone responds the same way, statiscally there is always some form of correlation. This information is key to determining useability regardless of what the engineers tell us. They are engineers for goodness sake. Their technical knowledge automatically biases them against the way things actually work because of their understanding of the way things SHOULD work.

 

You say you have a science background but you clearly are not acting like a scientist with this argument. You are acting like an engineer "the theories are sound therefore the conclusions must be valid." After hearing from several sources that a club with a MPF of 400 was as playable or more so than a club with an MPF of 1000, a scientist would by nature question the basis of the theories involved. The engineer would just simply tell you that you are using the club incorrectly. (c;

 

I have learned to move my hand quickly over a surface I expect may be hot so as to observe its temperature without getting burned. In moving my hand quickly over the surface of the MPF numbers I can only find that they are either misnamed or misplaced.

 

Mr. Maltby chose the term "playbility" for his index, not me. I am guessing because it is much more marketable to the masses than MOI/CG index. His numbers are wrong because I found huge discrepancies in the actual "playability" of irons with respect to his ratings.

 

If his conclusions are indeed about "playability" I could not validate them, nor could many others, hence the theories are flawed.

 

I think maybe it is time to give this poor old horse a break... but I have enjoyed the discussion.

 

-ss

[pwrfade]

well I used to look at this stuff - but he just lost me when his methodology called the TM CGB MAX iron a conventional rating - that is the easist to hit iron I have ever had in my hand - I challange anyone to pick one of those up and compare it to a blade and tell me they belong in the same Conventional category for the mid to high handicap

[saliduff]

I too am enjoying this discussion. But I have one more question. You say "After hearing from several sources that a club with a MPF of 400 was as playable or more so than a club with an MPF of 1000".

My question is who is doing the testing?

 

Lets use you as a test example. Lets say you are a scratch golfer. It is probably fair to assume that your skill and ability allow you to hit clubs that have a 400 MPF rating just as well as if not better because you are able to find the sweetspot, CG, more often than a 30 handicap. Now lets say I am a 30 handicap, it might be fair to assume that a club designed in such a way that the MPF rates it at 1000 because of its better positioned CG and higher MOI. MPF does not set out to determine what one club out of all clubs made will work best for everyone. It is designed to help someone looking for new clubs to find a select few that will offer them the most help based on their ability. I don't know how to put it in simpler terms. If you have trouble understanding what MPF is actually defining then I don't know what more I can say.

[spk74]

You say you have a science background but you clearly are not acting like a scientist with this argument. You are acting like an engineer "the theories are sound therefore the conclusions must be valid." After hearing from several sources that a club with a MPF of 400 was as playable or more so than a club with an MPF of 1000, a scientist would by nature question the basis of the theories involved. The engineer would just simply tell you that you are using the club incorrectly. (c;

 

IMO, true scientists solve problems posed by nature, whereas engineers solve problems posed by society. How would you classify golf equipment?

 

Everyone (engineers and scientists) knows that scientific theories, laws, correlations, and models all have limitations. Every simplification makes assumptions which reduce the scope of validity. Obviously reducing a clubhead design to a single number is a drastic simplification...and likewise it must make drastic assumptions. But, to me, that doesn't make it meaningless or useless.

 

You can choose to focus on the obvious flaws in the system (cases you know to be wrong), or you can choose to focus on the obvious trends that the system identifies (some older "forgiving" clubs aren't that forgiving, and every Callaway design is forgiving as hell).

 

Ultimately, the MPF is not meant to be an end-all reference for golf equipment junkies on golfwrx.com. It's meant as a guide for people who don't know they don't know (the other 99% of the golfing public).

[Dyno]

It's flawed in the same way that I can tell you Yugo's suck without knowing exactly how they work. You just back that mofo up 10' and you know you are heading to the Honda dealership. ;)

[saliduff]

"It's flawed in the same way that I can tell you Yugo's suck without knowing exactly how they work. You just back that mofo up 10' and you know you are heading to the Honda dealership."

 

That would be a good comparison if you were describing why individual clubs suck, but makes no sense when comparing it to MPF.

[ColinMB]

This is kind of getting off course... but to put the conversation back on track, I'd point to the quote that Dyno first posted. Wishon brings solid points up about golf club factors that are not even factored in the MPF. I would like to hear why exactly Maltby doesn't even consider them in his 'playability' factor.

[kittart]

"Playability" is a subjective term and by calling this the "Maltby Playability Factor" Mr Maltby is suggesting that playability is what he has tested for. It could be argued that this is not the case.

 

What he has done is take a lot of measurements and make calculations to come to a number that gives an indication of some types of forgiveness (or playability).

 

As has been mentioned he has ignored several factors that intuitively we all think make a significant difference to the playability of a golf club. We may of course all be wrong, but as he didn't test any of them how would he know?

 

All the work he has done may well have been carried out accurately and properly, and clearly the MPF provides some serious food for thought, but an index of the actual playability of golf clubs it is not.

[saliduff]

I answered this question a couple of posts ago but lets see if I can do a better job of it.

 

There are factors that factors that go into determining MPF they are:

 

1. Basic Vertical Center of Gravity

 

2. Horizontal Center of Gravity ( C Dimension)

 

3. MOI

 

The reason that these are used is that they most greatly effect the ball flight of a given club, and for a given club they will remain constant. So no matter who uses these clubs the CG is always going to be in the same spot for that given club and the MOI of the clubhead will not change.

 

Now there are design properties that will affect the how well a golf club will play (Maltby admits this in his MPF book and can be found on page 4), but are not included in determining MPF. Some of these properties are:

 

"Sole Bounce, Proper Lie Angle, Proper Loft Angle, face grooves, Sole Width, Offsets, Face Progression, Head Weight, Swingweight, Club Length, and Golf Shaft. It also does not take into account how DIFFERENT SWINGS can bring the club into impact on different planes, arcs, and anglesand how the ball is affected regarding launch angle, backspin, and feel back to the golfer."

 

The reason that these properties are not accounted for is that they are totally subjective depending on the person swinging the club. Your swing is different than mine. So lets take 3 factors and compare. Let's say my lie angle is 2 flat and you are 2 upright. Let's say I require a higher bounce due to my swing plane and you require less bounce due to yours. Let's also say that I need more offset to combat my fade and give me more loft and you need less offset. Now lets say we both have the same club, with the same MPF number, fit to our specs. We should hit our respective clubs fairly well since they fit our personal needs. Now lets switch. I'll hit yours and you'll hit mine. Odds are that we will now hit the same club with less than ideal results. Why, because the "other properties" are our own personal needs so that a club will play the way we need it to. However when we switched clubs the CG and MOI of the clubheads remained constant. That is why those are the factors that determine MPF. Because they will remain constant for a specific club no matter who measures them.

 

If thats not a good enough answer go to www.ralphmaltby.com, there is a forum on there. Ask him this same question. He'll be glad to answer it for you.

[Solutions Etcetera]

IMO, true scientists solve problems posed by nature, whereas engineers solve problems posed by society. How would you classify golf equipment?

 

Everyone (engineers and scientists) knows that scientific theories, laws, correlations, and models all have limitations. Every simplification makes assumptions which reduce the scope of validity. Obviously reducing a clubhead design to a single number is a drastic simplification...and likewise it must make drastic assumptions. But, to me, that doesn't make it meaningless or useless.

 

Ultimately, the MPF is not meant to be an end-all reference for golf equipment junkies on golfwrx.com. It's meant as a guide for people who don't know they don't know (the other 99% of the golfing public).

In the simplest sense... scientists develop theory based on conclusions made by the observation of results gleaned through experimentation. Engineers apply those scientific theories based on the assumption that they are sound. So I don't see this as a nature versus society thing. One defines, the other applies. In this case, Mr. Maltby is clearly wearing both hats (which is usually a recipe for some oversight), but I don't dismiss his theories as meaningless, just flawed.

 

I think that the less savvy 99% you mention are the ones that are most likely to get stung by the flaws in this system, as the golf junkie will take a look and recognize "hmmm... some of these numbers don't add up". I guess my biggest objection is that these numbers are called "playability" and often presented (by some) in the context that there is no room for error where clearly there is. That's all.

 

Best regards,

 

 

Scott Simon

Solutions Etcetera

[saliduff]

Are you looking at this as "Playability" of the clubhead or "Playability" of the overall club?

 

MPF measures "Playability" of the clubhead only. If you see it or interpret it otherwise then your idea of MPF is "flawed".

[Solutions Etcetera]

Are you looking at this as "Playability" of the clubhead or "Playability" of the overall club?

 

MPF measures "Playability" of the clubhead only. If you see it or interpret it otherwise then your idea of MPF is "flawed".

With all due respect, no one "plays" just a club head, so I don't think it is much of a stretch for folks to make the assumption that this number relates to how a club plays... but I may be wrong here. Certainly wouldn't be the first time.

 

-ss

[saliduff]

MPF helps create a relationship just between clubheads and clubheads only. That is why there is a seperate MPF for shafts. While I'll agree that nobody plays just a clubhead, that is really the only constant in the components that comprise a club. I think you would agree that if I have an MP-25 and pull out an S300 shaft and install a graphite regular that the club would play differently. However, by changing the shaft we do not change how the clubhead itself performs. That is why MPF is valid in measuring the differences between clubheads.

[Fenterman]

How long have you worked for Roger, Saliduff?

[saliduff]

Never worked for Roger Maltbie, and I don't work for Ralph Maltby either.