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

[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!!

 

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

 

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

 

Thanks for the link.

Usually on forums, and people in pro shops try to steer you away from the S series.

Even the magazine's claim they are a 'Players clubs. Being called a blade is the most intimidating.

Maltby lists them as game improvement!!

That's great!!

The 660 playability may seem low compared to the 800+ of the others.

[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!!

 

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

Most of the time the PGA players use irons that regular handicap golfer couldn't dream of hitting.

Several places advise to get one of the i3 variations of iron.

When actually, M altby rates the S series easier to hit than the i3s.

[Cwebb]

Most of the time the PGA players use irons that regular handicap golfer couldn't dream of hitting.

Several places advise to get one of the i3 variations of iron.

When actually, M altby rates the S series easier to hit than the i3s.

 

That's kind of a myth. There's lots of designs played on tour, that are relatively easy to hit for any half way decent player.

 

Remember that there was long period of time in golf history, where every player of any handicap used iron designs that today would not be considered "forgiving"......and the average scores were barely any higher at all. They were also using small head drivers with steel shafts

[Shallowface]

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.

 

I agree with you that sole design is a critical factor in iron design that MPF makes no effort to quantify. I enjoy playing with a number of older clubs, but there are those I won't even consider because I know they would catch or stick with my swing. Improved sole design is to me the single biggest improvement in modern irons versus older models. It's difficult today to find an iron that has a poorly designed sole.

 

Maltby would agree with you. The sole designs on some of his older products were far better than other more popular products of the same era. If you like blades, you ought to check out his original flat back blades with the dime sized weight point in the back. Yes, they were cast not forged (although cast carbon steel models were available), but they had a very nice rounded sole design that IMO was far superior to most everything else available during that time (mid 1980s).

[Shallowface]

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

 

Those who run the golf equipment industry are probably quite happy that so few have read that book.

[ExTrumpet]

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.

 

I agree with you that sole design is a critical factor in iron design that MPF makes no effort to quantify. I enjoy playing with a number of older clubs, but there are those I won't even consider because I know they would catch or stick with my swing. Improved sole design is to me the single biggest improvement in modern irons versus older models. It's difficult today to find an iron that has a poorly designed sole.

 

Maltby would agree with you. The sole designs on some of his older products were far better than other more popular products of the same era. If you like blades, you ought to check out his original flat back blades with the dime sized weight point in the back. Yes, they were cast not forged (although cast carbon steel models were available), but they had a very nice rounded sole design that IMO was far superior to most everything else available during that time (mid 1980s).

 

^ This...I think the old Titleist 962's sole design is what makes it such a great club--and forgiving for a lot of different types of swings.

[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.

 

MPF is about data not anecdotes. :swoon:

 

And my comment is about what data is important to me and why. Although I have since learned from Britt Lindsey, VCOG doesn’t play much of a role in launch angle, it is more important for solid contact.

[freowho]

- 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

I'm interested in this for wedges but can't seem to find much. Cleveland had a comparison chart for wedge c dimension but I feel they were selective in their choice of clubs that got published.

I have used a traditional shaped wedge for many years and always hit it low with lots of spin out of the hosel, occasionally hitting a shank, regardless of lie angle or bounce. Recently I have been practicing with a chunky old game improvement wedge and the ball floats off the middle of the club every time. I'm sure it is the centre of gravity and would like to buy a new club but can't find anything on c dimension for wedges. Does anyone know of any data?

[kody17]

You're not understanding how this works. In the MPF data, the measurement called the "Actual Vertical COG" is the height of the sweet spot from the "ground line". The Actual Vertical COG is the sweet spot. Regardless of how tall the face is, the measurement is always done the same way, because what matters is where the sweet spot is located.

 

A solid strike in the vertical aspect of contact, is one in which the AVCOG of the head design arrives 'in line with' or slightly below the center of the ball. The COG (center) of a golf ball is .840".

 

In the MPF formula for the final "score" and rating, any head design that has an AVCOG higher than .840" is penalized. This is because a sweet spot of that height is more difficult to hit solid "in the vertical aspect of contact" for most players,..especially when playing from normal fairway lies

 

Well, you may be correct in that I din't know how the entire system works. I did not see mention that points were awarded and clubs were graded when measuring center of gravity in relation to a golf ball. Than, of course, the "ground line" means everything.

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond! The only thing better than having a theory that disproves a work that you find flawed is having your theory blown apart..I mean that. Thanks for the effort.

 

If you're really into this, then Ralph Maltby's book "The Maltby Playability Factor, understanding golf club dynamics" is a must have. It explains everything in great detail. Here's an example from their website...

http://ralphmaltby.c...etermining-mpf/

How can something explain dynamics by taking static measurements? Also isn't turf interaction part of "playability" Bounce, grind, sole width. MPF seems totally worthless IMO.

 

I agree with this. I've owned the Maltby DBM irons which have a very high MPF compared to my Srixon z545 irons, but for the life of me couldn't get along with them due to them having such a low bounce. I believe it was like 2* of bounce throughout the set. Way different than my Srixons, which have the beautiful v-sole to help reduce digging. To me, the Srixons were miles ahead in the playability and forgiveness aspects.

[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

I'm interested in this for wedges but can't seem to find much. Cleveland had a comparison chart for wedge c dimension but I feel they were selective in their choice of clubs that got published.

I have used a traditional shaped wedge for many years and always hit it low with lots of spin out of the hosel, occasionally hitting a shank, regardless of lie angle or bounce. Recently I have been practicing with a chunky old game improvement wedge and the ball floats off the middle of the club every time. I'm sure it is the centre of gravity and would like to buy a new club but can't find anything on c dimension for wedges. Does anyone know of any data?

 

There hasn't been any measuring done for wedge sets. So the best we can do, is go by the characteristics that generally lead to a longer C-dimension....

 

The first thing to look for is a shorter hosel. Most traditional wedge designs have a long hosel. A couple in recent years have incorporated a shorter or at least not as long of a hosel.

 

Then look for a longer "blade" or face length.

 

Third, a cavity-back could also help.

[freowho]

- 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

I'm interested in this for wedges but can't seem to find much. Cleveland had a comparison chart for wedge c dimension but I feel they were selective in their choice of clubs that got published.

I have used a traditional shaped wedge for many years and always hit it low with lots of spin out of the hosel, occasionally hitting a shank, regardless of lie angle or bounce. Recently I have been practicing with a chunky old game improvement wedge and the ball floats off the middle of the club every time. I'm sure it is the centre of gravity and would like to buy a new club but can't find anything on c dimension for wedges. Does anyone know of any data?

 

There hasn't been any measuring done for wedge sets. So the best we can do, is go by the characteristics that generally lead to a longer C-dimension....

 

The first thing to look for is a shorter hosel. Most traditional wedge designs have a long hosel. A couple in recent years have incorporated a shorter or at least not as long of a hosel.

 

Then look for a longer "blade" or face length.

 

Third, a cavity-back could also help.

Thanks very much. I'm having a clubfit soon so I will take a little ruler. Might look a bit weird.

On a side note I also like jumbo grips and am convinced it changes my swing and specs but clubfitters always do the grip as an after thought. Is there something to make a standard grip feel like a jumbo?

I'm considering cutting up a cheap standard grip so it can just wrap around the grip on the club! Will this be too big?

Regards

[MountainGoat]

Many moons ago, I took the Maltby club-building course during which the students were introduced to MPF. We also toured Maltby's shop. I learned that the irons I was playing (badly) were near the bottom of the MPF rating scale. So just for kicks, I built a set that was composed of heads at the absolute top if the scale. I started playing much better. Overnight.

[dunn]

Seen some numbers posted thru years but not once have I ever researched a club I was gonna play thru his algorithm.....I have never even seen a MPF for anything other than what other people have posted........

 

I just go hit the club, look at it....and from experience know reasonably well they are very similar between manuf in same categories....

[markheardjr]

All I know is my Game Improvement 588MB Blades were pretty easy to hit compared to my conventional cavity backs.

[Cwebb]

All I know is my Game Improvement 588MB Blades were pretty easy to hit compared to my conventional cavity backs.

 

What model cavity backs? Many players who are not intimidated simply by the look of a blade, would find the Cleveland 588mb more playable vs lots of cavity backs

[oiler45]

Sorry for resurrecting an old and somewhat contentious thread. But - I'm in the new irons purchase mode and I want to use all resources possible. If we are to believe the MPF methodology, is there anyone who has quantified what the difference in MPF numbers would equate to in the real world ? For example - if we compared two irons - one with a 800 MPF to a 600 MPF - how much dispersion are we talking about if the same golfer was hitting each iron. I mean - if the difference was too small to be significant is it even meaningful. Is 200 points meaningful, 400 ? I know exact measurements across the spectrum would be infinite but my point is the science is all well and good but if it is only theoretical and the truth is we are only talking feet and inches of difference it all becomes somewhat academic. I do appreciate the work Maltby has put into this and I don't discount it at all - I just wonder how much difference it really makes in absolutes.

 

[ChipNRun]

> @dlygrisse said:

> The golfball is the same height for both clubs.

That is the flaw in GpT's analysis.

 

Maltby MPF ratings have been a pretty good clearing house for me in deciding what irons to try out.

I tend to get recommended for GI clubs with circa 100-gram shafts. That said, I've found a few outliers where I did well with "less-friendly" clubs.

* Ping i200 irons flew quite well with the AWT 2.0 R-flex shafts.

* I had better contact with the Callaway Apex 16 Pros than the standard Apex, compared with Recoil R-flex shafts.

 

Remember what Maltby himself warns: this analysis includes only the heads, and does not take into account shaft factors.

 

Also, retrospective analysis by the GolfWorks crew show that post-1980 iron models with the high MPF ratings - such as the **Ping Eye2** and the **Tommy Armour 845** - were also best-selling clubs among average golfers: possibly people sought out easy to use clubs?

 

 

[Red4282]

I would advise to not pay much attention to the end score or “mpf”. Ive played numerous iron sets throughout the years and i disagree with the scoring system. However the pure data given is really what you should focus on.