I've discovered Maltby's flaw! The truth behind MPF ratings and why they are rating your clubs so lo

[Vintage1976]

:taunt: It wasn't a dig. I fight a hook as well. It ain't the clubs fault I stall and sling it closed.

 

I would hope tdk knows that too, I just thought it was well stated.

 

For the record, I can deliver an open face with a left-of-target swing with any club in my bag. Even when I don't realize it's about to happen.

[BIG STU]

Ive always been confused about the word "playability"

 

I hook, big hooookk, any game improvement iron with slight offset. It feels good, but the accuracy is not there.

 

I play a blade iron, which lacks in feel (not really, but technically it does) but is super accurate in distance and flight.

 

I will always play a less "playable" club in this scenario.

 

Hitting a great feeling, pure...hook into a bunker or the water is not ideal

 

I would be looking at the lie of these 'big hook' clubs. Everything leads me to believe that the lie angle is simply too upright for you and the face is not pointing down the line.

 

Playability has nothing to do with even a proper length / lie fitting. When the fit is right - these high playablity clubs will get the ball more airborne with a increased pure backspin and straighter directional control than what a lower rated club will do.

 

I expect your blades are flatter than the game improvement clubs you have tried (or their lengths may be shorter).

Also a softer tipped shaft in a lot of cases will get the ball airborne quicker and higher again depending on the head design and where the weight is in reference. Ralph Maltby is a pretty smart dude and I go with a lot of his methods. I would love to hear Tom Wishon chime in on this. A lot of this is like any science it can be opinion backed up with proof. Just like wedge bounce is measured in different ways and you have static bounce and effective bounce and some folks Maltby included measure it differently. I do read a lot of what Ralph Maltby and Tom Wishon have to say and then experiment with it and sometimes form my own and seperate opinion which I will say may be right or wrong. IMHO and experience I have always said there is no exact science on stuff like this

[jasonp87]

As for hook machine i am a person that more offset makes me hook. Dont know why but lots of offset=hooks. Lie angle makes no difference.

[Noodler]

Ive always been confused about the word "playability"

 

I hook, big hooookk, any game improvement iron with slight offset. It feels good, but the accuracy is not there.

 

I play a blade iron, which lacks in feel (not really, but technically it does) but is super accurate in distance and flight.

 

I will always play a less "playable" club in this scenario.

 

Hitting a great feeling, pure...hook into a bunker or the water is not ideal

 

I would be looking at the lie of these 'big hook' clubs. Everything leads me to believe that the lie angle is simply too upright for you and the face is not pointing down the line.

 

Playability has nothing to do with even a proper length / lie fitting. When the fit is right - these high playablity clubs will get the ball more airborne with a increased pure backspin and straighter directional control than what a lower rated club will do.

 

I expect your blades are flatter than the game improvement clubs you have tried (or their lengths may be shorter).

Also a softer tipped shaft in a lot of cases will get the ball airborne quicker and higher again depending on the head design and where the weight is in reference. Ralph Maltby is a pretty smart dude and I go with a lot of his methods. I would love to hear Tom Wishon chime in on this. A lot of this is like any science it can be opinion backed up with proof. Just like wedge bounce is measured in different ways and you have static bounce and effective bounce and some folks Maltby included measure it differently. I do read a lot of what Ralph Maltby and Tom Wishon have to say and then experiment with it and sometimes form my own and seperate opinion which I will say may be right or wrong. IMHO and experience I have always said there is no exact science on stuff like this

 

If you search on this topic, you'll find that Tom W. is not a fan. IIRC, he believes that the MPF isn't taking into account enough factors (or the correct factors) to accurately determine playability forgiveness. I think part of it was about the fact that these head measurements do not take into account what happens when the shaft is attached to the head. Also, that Maltby doesn't do any kind of validation testing of fully assembled clubs that would show alignment with the assigned MPF ratings.

 

I will also note, that I have found that there must be some inaccuracies in the measurements themselves. Some of the data just doesn't look right to me; for example, there are clubs that clearly show a much deeper CG than others, and yet the MPF shows the values being exactly opposite of what you would expect. I just don't see how a head that is double the thickness (deep), having a smaller RCOG value than a muscleback (compare the Mizuno MP-H4 to the MP-32). There's just no way, no how, that this is true.

 

Nonetheless, I applaud the effort since I'm a numbers guy. I believe that attempting to provide a scientific basis for the resulting on-course performance is of great value.

[tdk8180]

There are too many factors from a build standpoint to the individual swinging said clubs to have a legit guide on how playable the clubs are.

[Cwebb]

There are too many factors from a build standpoint to the individual swinging said clubs to have a legit guide on how playable the clubs are.

 

It's not a guide on how well a final total club build, will fit. It's a good "estimation" for how easy to hit solid a head design will be, for most players

[markjay1]

What I know is I picked up a set of Apex irons in the spring and then checked the MPF. Based on the MPF rating (in relation to my game) I'm not supposed to be hitting them well at all except I'm hitting them great. Go figure.

[Cwebb]

 

- He places high value on C-dim, or distance of sweet spot from hosel. This probably isnt a crucial number for better players.

 

 

Actually it is significant for most players, because a longer "C-dimension" or how far the sweetspot is from the hosel,....creates a wider effective hitting area for relatively solid contact. More face area to work with.

 

The reason for this, is that impacts that occur outside the COG (sweetspot) twist an iron more vs impact inside the sweetspot.

 

So if a head design has a very short "C-dimension", it makes the effective hitting area very small, because there is little room between the edge of the hosel (shank area) and the sweetspot.

 

A design with one of the longer C-dimensions vs one of the shorter ones, can result in an extra 1/4-1/2" of face area to work with for relatively solid contact

[nova6868]

I never meant to say it wasn't significant for most players, just that as you get better and when you're flushing 95% of your iron shots it matters less than it would to a 25-handicapper.

 

For high-handicappers I actually think the overall MPF rating is pretty useful.

[andrieddle]

And what numbers on the MPF should high handicappers play?

[Kelco]

I'm quite sure that if you do a search on this site and elsewhere on the web, you'll find that Tom has "chimed in" quite extensively on MPF. He's not a fan for some interesting reasons (none of which I can recall at this moment because I'm old and I read it more than an hour ago). I do find it interesting that two great designers like Tom and Ralph have such different views on some basic design elements. Wishon's clubs, for instance, do not fare all that well on the MPF listings, and yet Wishon's clubs are widely regarded as extremely well-designed, "playable" clubs. Instances like this always bring Dire Straits' line to mind: "Two men say they're Jesus; one of them must be wrong" (Industrial Disease).

[dlygrisse]

Another flaw. He measures one club in the set.

 

The MPF gives a point of reference but his methodology is hopelessly outdated. It’s nothing more than a marketing tool to say “my clubs are better”.

[DFinch]

A cut and paste of a post I made on another forum on this issue (I was not playing Maltby irons at the time):

 

The benefit of what Maltby does is it provides measurements you don't normally get from manufacturers. The final "MPF" number he gives is his own formula, which may or may not matter for an individual. You can argue that the formula benefits his designs, or that he designs to the formula (chicken/egg). In the end what matters is identifying the properties that matter the most to you and your game, and comparisons with past favorite designs helps with that. At that point you can ignore the final number and look at the specific measurements.

 

The formula gives a very high weight to "C-dimension", which is how far away from the centerline of the hosel the horizontal sweetspot is. It also gives very high weight to how low the COG is. These factors benefit people who don't have the traditional "slightly heel side" and "shaft lean, compressed" impact that the best players tend to have. Those players will feel like they have trouble flighting the ball down or won't like the feel of a club with too low, too toe-ward sweetspot.

 

If you hit more toward the toe, more toward the bottom, or have less shaft lean at impact, like many many average players, those measurements will benefit you. The club will launch better and feel better because the sweetspot matches your impact pattern better than a "low MPF" club.

 

I know from experience that if the club has a C-dimension of 1.2-1.3 and a VCOG of around .7-.75, I will like the club. This has been true going all the way back to the Macgregor 1025M blade, and I can look at the measurements on irons I didn't like or didn't last long in my bag vs. those I consider my favorite sets and it is consistent.

[ExTrumpet]

Just found this thread...

 

So, if I understand correctly, the MPF measures how easy (or difficult) it will be for most players to hit the ball in the sweet spot.

 

I always interpreted the MPF to be how forgiving an iron is on mishits, which apparently is not the focus of MPF at all.

 

Am I understanding this correctly?

[deepred]

I recently checked out the Maltby website and saw my Wilson Staff M3’s scored very poorly which was very surprising since I find them to be very forgiving, especially on shots hit thin. Being a high ball hitter, I generally look for clubs which have a higher COG and since my usual miss is a wipe as J. Miller would say I also look for a higher MOI measurement. The M3’s score high in both those numbers for me.

But, in reality I bought them because they were cheaper on eBay than a set of black Maltby forged heads and I’m a long fan of Wilson Staff.

[cristphoto]

I don’t know how the Maltby system works. I have a set of Ping i200 irons that are “flighted design”. The 4 iron is designed to fly a bit higher and the wedge flies a bit lower. Other clubs fit in between. So depending on which club Maltby uses to test (unless they test the whole set) my irons could be rated as either easy or difficult to play.

[sui generis]

I recently checked out the Maltby website and saw my Wilson Staff M3’s scored very poorly which was very surprising since I find them to be very forgiving, especially on shots hit thin. Being a high ball hitter, I generally look for clubs which have a higher COG and since my usual miss is a wipe as J. Miller would say I also look for a higher MOI measurement. The M3’s score high in both those numbers for me.

But, in reality I bought them because they were cheaper on eBay than a set of black Maltby forged heads and I’m a long fan of Wilson Staff.

 

MPF is about data not anecdotes. :swoon:

[nova6868]

I always interpreted the MPF to be how forgiving an iron is on mishits, which apparently is not the focus of MPF at all.

 

MPF is more of his own score and described pretty well above by DFinch.

 

If you want to look at forgiveness, look at Maltby's MOI scores.

[Cwebb]

I always interpreted the MPF to be how forgiving an iron is on mishits, which apparently is not the focus of MPF at all.

 

MPF is more of his own score and described pretty well above by DFinch.

 

If you want to look at forgiveness, look at Maltby's MOI scores.

 

It's not really that simple. A high MOI does not make up for a sweetspot (COG) that is hard to "find". There are designs that have some of the highest measured MOI, which are hard to hit solid.

 

This is why some players can find certain blades or smaller cavities...easier to hit consistently vs some of the largest irons that are marketed as being the "most forgiving"

[nova6868]

I agree with what you're saying, of course if the COG is half an inch from the heel it doesn't matter what the MOI is. Or maybe a COG way out on the toe doesn't match your swing. But if you want a number that best represents "how forgiving an iron is on mishits", then you want to look at the MOI.

[Jackal]

Well thought out post. I also poke around the mpf chart when looking at new irons. I will say that I did buy a set of Ping s58 irons that I thought i would not be able to hit only to be proven wrong. The mpf for those was the super game improvement category. Shocking but this supports your post, smaller head but cg is low and deep.

 

Oh and I did read the whole thing......??

Same here.

I was in a pro shop that had a used set of Ping S59s.

These were the models that Bubba Watson wouldn't change from.

These must be super hard to hit.

I had to try so that I could tell everyone how miserably I failed.

Wrong!!!!!

I bought them, and have played some of the best golf ever.

Note: Don't tell Maltby!!

[Shallowface]

Well thought out post. I also poke around the mpf chart when looking at new irons. I will say that I did buy a set of Ping s58 irons that I thought i would not be able to hit only to be proven wrong. The mpf for those was the super game improvement category. Shocking but this supports your post, smaller head but cg is low and deep.

 

Oh and I did read the whole thing......

Same here.

I was in a pro shop that had a used set of Ping S59s.

These were the models that Bubba Watson wouldn't change from.

These must be super hard to hit.

I had to try so that I could tell everyone how miserably I failed.

Wrong!!!!!

I bought them, and have played some of the best golf ever.

Note: Don't tell Maltby!!

 

The S59s rank very highly in the MPF for a club of that type.

 

https://www.golfworks.com/images/art/MPF_PING.pdf

[Cwebb]

I agree with what you're saying, of course if the COG is half an inch from the heel it doesn't matter what the MOI is. Or maybe a COG way out on the toe doesn't match your swing. But if you want a number that best represents "how forgiving an iron is on mishits", then you want to look at the MOI.

 

They measure MOI as how much will it "resist twisting" for strikes that are off the COG (sweetspot). So while technically you could say that a higher MOI will be more "forgiving", it doesn't always play out that way for designs that have "harder to find" sweetspot locations.....because irons are usually hit from the turf and tighter lies.

 

In other words, if someone knew nothing about this topic and wanted a very easy to hit and forgiving iron design, your best bet is to start them with something that has a high MPF overall score. Not just something that has the highest MOI

[Shallowface]

I always interpreted the MPF to be how forgiving an iron is on mishits, which apparently is not the focus of MPF at all.

 

MPF is more of his own score and described pretty well above by DFinch.

 

If you want to look at forgiveness, look at Maltby's MOI scores.

 

It's not really that simple. A high MOI does not make up for a sweetspot (COG) that is hard to "find". There are designs that have some of the highest measured MOI, which are hard to hit solid.

 

This is why some players can find certain blades or smaller cavities...easier to hit consistently vs some of the largest irons that are marketed as being the "most forgiving"

 

Cwebb, I really appreciate all of the time you spend defending the MPF. It is the best effort anyone has ever made at quantifying what makes an iron club work, or not.

 

I've read everything Ralph Maltby has written going back to when he was writing articles for Golf Magazine in the late 1970s. I consider him the single most knowledgeable individual on golf equipment that has ever lived.

 

I respect Tom Wishon, but I wonder how many of his fans know he started out working for Ralph Maltby. While he no doubt developed his own philosophies about some things over the years, I would hope he would give Ralph a great deal of credit for his early education in the business.

 

It is my understanding that Ralph has retired and is really no longer involved with The Golfworks. Our loss.

 

I'm afraid the problem so many on a site like this have with the MPF is that it removes much of the "magic" surrounding golf equipment. When one realizes that it just isn't possible to buy a game, and that much of what the manufacturers present to the buying public is marketing driven hype, it is possible that the loss of the hope that results seriously damages that person's enjoyment of the game.

 

The positive response would be to spend that money that would have been blown on equipment on lessons and green fees and your spouse, and enjoy the clubs you already have.

[dlygrisse]

Sole grind? Bounce? Playability from the rough? Uneven lies? Camber? Dynamic properties. Face flexing, dynamic loft. Launch spin, spin loft, traits that modern clubs have aren’t even measured.

 

MPF is a small part of a big picture.

 

 

Tip. Buy hybrid or fairways to replace any iron you struggle with. Fill out the rest of the set with clubs that are fit and look good to you. Get your wedges gapped with grinds that suit your game.

 

MPF is archaic and irrelevant in this day and age. Novel idea 20 years ago.

[nova6868]

CWebb, I think we agree. We're just describing the same thing differently.

 

The S59s rank very highly in the MPF for a club of that type.

 

Maltby loves all the PING S-series irons actually. And I agree with him - they aren't that hard to hit.

[Cwebb]

Well thought out post. I also poke around the mpf chart when looking at new irons. I will say that I did buy a set of Ping s58 irons that I thought i would not be able to hit only to be proven wrong. The mpf for those was the super game improvement category. Shocking but this supports your post, smaller head but cg is low and deep.

 

Oh and I did read the whole thing......

Same here.

I was in a pro shop that had a used set of Ping S59s.

These were the models that Bubba Watson wouldn't change from.

These must be super hard to hit.

I had to try so that I could tell everyone how miserably I failed.

Wrong!!!!!

I bought them, and have played some of the best golf ever.

Note: Don't tell Maltby!!

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Why would you assume that the Ping design that Bubba Watson really liked, must be super hard to hit?

 

The Ping S59's have one of the highest MPF scores, for a design of that blade length and size

[Cwebb]

 

MPF is archaic and irrelevant in this day and age. Novel idea 20 years ago.

 

Being able to pinpoint which designs have sweetspot locations and overall "mass and dimensional properties" that are easier to play vs those that are harder to play for different player types, will never be irrelevant in any day in age.

[Cwing]

This thread is making g my head hurt! Lol!

[Cwebb]

 

I'm afraid the problem so many on a site like this have with the MPF is that it removes much of the "magic" surrounding golf equipment. When one realizes that it just isn't possible to buy a game, and that much of what the manufacturers present to the buying public is marketing driven hype, it is possible that the loss of the hope that results seriously damages that person's enjoyment of the game.

 

 

Yeah the problem as usual, is that some will disregard the MPF because a club that they like or believe is "forgiving"....doesn't have a high overall score. Without knowing what each measurement actually means or how the scoring formula works....or realizing that we can still utilize the MPF without even looking at the final scores.

 

I know of very few who have actually read his MPF book, which is one of the best technical golf books of all time. It explains everything in great detail