i500 and i210 MPF - not good

[Cwebb]

Another interesting point might be i210 adoption by the PING tour staff. They seem to have no major issues with it.

 

Blades:

10 iblade

7 s55

 

Players:

6 i210

1 i200

1 i25

 

We have to be careful with that, since tour players are not anywhere close to representing most players

[dog flog]

Another interesting point might be i210 adoption by the PING tour staff. They seem to have no major issues with it.

 

Blades:

10 iblade

7 s55

 

Players:

6 i210

1 i200

1 i25

 

We have to be careful with that, since tour players are not anywhere close to representing most players

That, and a tour player will always fit based on launch monitor results and on course testing. MPF is probably something that is never considered. Most pros probably don't even know what it is.

[RogerinNewZealand]

All this talk... i think it is going to be a superb year for Ping Sales, never had so much choice available

[mahonie]

 

Certainly not a classic (yet, anyway) but the Mizuno MP-18 SC scores a paltry 135 points, by far the lowest of any Mizuno iron on the chart.

 

It has a very high sweet-spot height of .906", making it relatively more difficult to hit for most players. Compare that to the most populur "classic" Mizunos...

 

Mp-33: .718"

Mp-14: .687"

Mp-32: .750"

 

and more recent...

 

Mp-4: .762"

Mp-5: .789

 

Interestingly, a mate of mine bought a combo set of MP18 SCs and MBs and has really struggled with the SCs. He said that he wished he’d bought the full set of MBs.

[nova6868]

Interestingly, a mate of mine bought a combo set of MP18 SCs and MBs and has really struggled with the SCs. He said that he wished he'd bought the full set of MBs.

 

Those two are really very similar. They have basically the same distance from hosel to COG, similar MOIs, with the SC having a slightly higher COG. I wouldn't be surprised if lots of people find them quite similar or even prefer the MB.

[Cwebb]

Certainly not a classic (yet, anyway) but the Mizuno MP-18 SC scores a paltry 135 points, by far the lowest of any Mizuno iron on the chart.

 

It has a very high sweet-spot height of .906", making it relatively more difficult to hit for most players. Compare that to the most populur "classic" Mizunos...

 

Mp-33: .718"

Mp-14: .687"

Mp-32: .750"

 

and more recent...

 

Mp-4: .762"

Mp-5: .789

 

Interestingly, a mate of mine bought a combo set of MP18 SCs and MBs and has really struggled with the SCs. He said that he wished he'd bought the full set of MBs.

 

Most will assume that a larger head design and/or a something with a cavity-back will be easier to hit, making them an obvious choice for the longer irons in a combo set. The issue is that if the sweet-spot location doesn't fit their impact characteristics or is in a "harder to find" spot, then the opposite can be true....harder to hit than the smaller blades

[tigerfan23]

who cares

[ThinkingPlus]

I have been poking at the VCoG measurement here lately. I play CF16s that I generally like. Off a tee I hit them solid and high enough to get adequate carry (~150 yard with a 7-iron). However, since moving to south TX I have struggled a bit with low apex (and loss of carry distance) when playing from very tight and firm fairways. I have done a simple, but somewhat ad hoc experiment with a 5-iron. I got a Maltby TE DBM cavity back head (0.675" VCoG) and dropped a reg flex XP-95 shaft into it. In head to head comparison with the CF16 5-iron the Maltby gives me a considerably higher apex with roughly the same carry distance. The different shaft and flex muddies the water a bit, but the difference in apex, especially off the turf, is dramatic.

 

I am a sweeper almost by necessity so VCoG would seem to be important for me. Also I doubt I get a ton of shaft lean. I simply don't generate enough clubhead speed to generate enough spin to get sufficient apex height with a lot of shaft lean. The lower VCoG helps me launch higher off very firm lies. In fact the DBM launches a little too high (wind is an important consideration here). Eventually I will end up going with a different head with VCoG lower than mid-point of the ball, but not crazy low like the DBM.

[Cwebb]

I have been poking at the VCoG measurement here lately. I play CF16s that I generally like. Off a tee I hit them solid and high enough to get adequate carry (~150 yard with a 7-iron). However, since moving to south TX I have struggled a bit with low apex (and loss of carry distance) when playing from very tight and firm fairways. I have done a simple, but somewhat ad hoc experiment with a 5-iron. I got a Maltby TE DBM cavity back head (0.675" VCoG) and dropped a reg flex XP-95 shaft into it. In head to head comparison with the CF16 5-iron the Maltby gives me a considerably higher apex with roughly the same carry distance. The different shaft and flex muddies the water a bit, but the difference in apex, especially off the turf, is dramatic.

 

I am a sweeper almost by necessity so VCoG would seem to be important for me. Also I doubt I get a ton of shaft lean. I simply don't generate enough clubhead speed to generate enough spin to get sufficient apex height with a lot of shaft lean. The lower VCoG helps me launch higher off very firm lies. In fact the DBM launches a little too high (wind is an important consideration here). Eventually I will end up going with a different head with VCoG lower than mid-point of the ball, but not crazy low like the DBM.

 

A great example of how to use the individual measurements in the MPF, in this case Actual Vertical COG (sweet-spot height), to gain an advantage. This can be done without ever looking at the final score rating.

 

Once there is an understanding of what each measurement actually means, you could even some up with your own ratings and scores in regards to what needs to be emphaized for your characteristics

[Trey]

All regularly sized hollow irons do poorly in the MPF, going back to the R9 days (97 MPF!). Maltby posted about this topic back then and mentioned the obvious limitations of static measurements on non-traditional iron designs.

 

As cup faces and hollow bodies become more prevalent, Maltby should have different thresholds for positive and negative design parameters depending on the construction. He has collected the data is already, he just needs to analyze it, knowing what irons are forgiving from experience. It won’t be hard to do.

[JBent9610]

Looking at the MPF number only and ignoring the data points is like buying a shaft based on the flex listed and ignoring the bend profile. You will eventually find another shaft you like through trial and error, but you'll save a lot of time by matching the characteristics to what works for your swing.

 

Also, MPF is not a "forgiveness" rating. If you miss the sweetspot by an inch, the Callaway Fusion Wide Sole with a 1208 MPF is not going to give you 100 more yards than an R9 TP with a 218 MPF.

[bazinky]

Apologies if this was already mentioned, but it simply seems to me that the actual MPF number is biased against irons that are designed to be de-lofted at impact. So forgiving irons that are designed with the good players (who typically de-loft) in mind is highly likely to get a low MPF.

[BirdieBob]

All regularly sized hollow irons do poorly in the MPF, going back to the R9 days (97 MPF!). Maltby posted about this topic back then and mentioned the obvious limitations of static measurements on non-traditional iron designs.

 

As cup faces and hollow bodies become more prevalent, Maltby should have different thresholds for positive and negative design parameters depending on the construction. He has collected the data is already, he just needs to analyze it, knowing what irons are forgiving from experience. It won't be hard to do.

 

 

The PXG irons have excellent MPF ratings!

[MattUtah]

While I think the system has some limitations, I’m actually more than a little surprised how well it matches some of my feels regarding different sets.

 

I have a set of Apex cf16, and as a 12 handicap, and contrary to popular opinion, I don’t find them particularly forgiving. I was always disappointed in the forgiveness of these irons because online opinion seems to differ.

 

In comparison, my Steelhead XR irons just feel ridiculously easy to hit. They also score ridiculously high on this chart.

 

Other irons I’ve spent significant time with, such as Callaway XR, big bertha OS, Ping G2-5 - all seem rate and fall in the decent middle ground and I’d agree with that. All were decent, good irons but not nearly as easy as the Steelhead XR.

 

So while it seems like the system has some major limitations, it also seems to pretty freakishly match what I’ve felt with some sets I’ve owned. Because of that, it’s hard for me to totally dismiss it or say it’s complete bunk.

[dlygrisse]

We can debate the validity of MPF all day, but the title of this thread is what is so off putting to people. Saying these clubs are "not good" is misleading and deceitful.

 

I think what really rubs people the wrong way about MPF is that you give a final score based on a lot of data that may or may not be helpful. If you study it is there some info to be gained/learned...sure....but most consumers see a score and say this or that is better.

 

Obviously Maltby did this to market his equipment as superior, a marketing ploy. Good on him, for trying to better his business.

 

If I were a company like Ping I would sue him into oblivion for falsely claiming my clubs were inferior and threads of this nature getting started. To me the MPF is slanderous and dishonest.

[Cwebb]

 

Obviously Maltby did this to market his equipment as superior, a marketing ploy. Good on him, for trying to better his business.

 

If I were a company like Ping I would sue him into oblivion for falsely claiming my clubs were inferior and threads of this nature getting started. To me the MPF is slanderous and dishonest.

 

Not really. Ping and Callaway had many of the highest rated iron designs for the majority of their existence. The Ping Eye2 which is the most popular "easy to hit" iron of all time, rates very high. Then Ping Zing and Zing2 ended up with sweet-spots higher than the center of the ball, so they didn't rate as high.

 

They simply measure every iron and the data is the data. No indication of playing games or being dishonest, when taking the necessary close look at what goes into their system.

 

Would it make sense for a company to research and find what they believe to make irons easier to hit for most players.....and then not apply those characteristics to their own irons?

 

That would be like Taylormade coming out and explaining in detail, what they've found to make a better driver.....and then someone calling them dishonest, because Titleist and Callaway don't always have some of the those details in their drivers

[Cwebb]

Apologies if this was already mentioned, but it simply seems to me that the actual MPF number is biased against irons that are designed to be de-lofted at impact. So forgiving irons that are designed with the good players (who typically de-loft) in mind is highly likely to get a low MPF.

 

That isn't it. There have been many desgins in all categories through history and currently, that have sweet-spots lower than the center of the ball. Some of them well lower that have been very popular, like the Mizuno Mp-14 and Mp-33 which were designed for better ball strikers and used a lot on tour.

[maamold]

MPF rated the i500 with a score of 188 and i210 at 338. These are both WAY below even the iblade at 430. I was hoping they'd both be more forgiving than my i200's (474), but not according to these numbers. Not then end all but thought it was interesting.

 

Read what Wishon has to say about MPF (Technical)

 

http://wishongolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Technical-Analysis-of-Maltby-Playability-Index.pdf

[magnus7319]

 

Obviously Maltby did this to market his equipment as superior, a marketing ploy. Good on him, for trying to better his business.

 

If I were a company like Ping I would sue him into oblivion for falsely claiming my clubs were inferior and threads of this nature getting started. To me the MPF is slanderous and dishonest.

 

Not really. Ping and Callaway had many of the highest rated iron designs for the majority of their existence. The Ping Eye2 which is the most popular "easy to hit" iron of all time, rates very high. Then Ping Zing and Zing2 ended up with sweet-spots higher than the center of the ball, so they didn't rate as high.

 

They simply measure every iron and the data is the data. No indication of playing games or being dishonest, when taking the necessary close look at what goes into their system.

 

Would it make sense for a company to research and find what they believe to make irons easier to hit for most players.....and then not apply those characteristics to their own irons?

 

That would be like Taylormade coming out and explaining in detail, what they've found to make a better driver.....and then someone calling them dishonest, because Titleist and Callaway don't always have some of the those details in their drivers

 

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic

[ThinkingPlus]

I know a lot of people scoff at MPF which is fine. But when I have demoed numerous clubs over the years I find MPF to be quite accurate for me. Subjective?

 

So Cleveland 588 blade is easier to hit than Adams OS Hybrid? There's plenty other ridiculous comparisons I could make

 

Just because a head design is larger in overall size or with a bigger cavity back, does not necessarily mean that it will be easier to hit.

 

Sweet-spot (COG) location in relation to the "ground line" is a big factor in how easy to hit an iron will be, from normal turf conditions. (not teed up)

 

Many large iron designs are also taller in face height, which is a very influential aspect for the height of the sweet-spot....more so than the width of the sole. Lots of these larger irons end up with sweet-spots that are higher than the center of a golf ball, which makes them harder to hit solid consistently for most players.

 

Many assume that most classic blades through history have a higher COG. This isn't always true when we look at some of the most popular blade designs. For example...

 

Mizuno Mp-33: .718"

Mizuno Mp-14: .687"

Mizuno MP-32: .750"

 

Titliest 870: .749"

Titleist 680: .754"

Titleist 690: .735"

 

Clevaland 588mb: .749"

 

Going way back....Hogan Apex: .676" Hogan Director: .713"

 

Contrast these sweetspot heights (AVCOG) with some much larger designs...

 

The Tommy Armour Ti-100 is one of the largest cavity backs ever and it has a sweet-spot height of .986". Designs like this are very difficult to hit solid from normal and tighter lie conditions, despite the fact that they have a huge MOI.

 

How much "room there is to work with" vertically between the sweet-spot and the center of the ball, is very influential in how easy an iron is to hit for most players. With the center of a golf ball being .840", a design with a sweet-spot that is higher than that and over .900" is harder to hit....regardless of the overall size of the head

 

I'm well aware of where the VCOG is located and how it works. A higher COG doesn't make it harder to hit. It makes it launch lower and spin more. For virtually all shots with all clubs the ball is hit well below the VCOG, when hit "solid". What your saying simply isn't accurate in the real world and the Adams OS hybrids are so ridiculously easier to hit than the Cleveland blade it's not even funny.

 

 

I can tell you I've never once hit a ball on or above the VCOG or the irons I currently play, which according to MPF is ABOVE the 5th groove . The VCOG of these irons is significantly higher than the MP14s in my garage yet they go 30% higher and 10 yards longer with the same lofts and the same exact shaft and grip. Not to mention they are significantly more forgiving.

 

ITG,

 

In your experience, how significant is the spin difference (as a percentage) between a high VCoG and low VCoG clubhead design assuming same impact conditions? Just looking for an idea of significance. Are we talking 2%, 5%, 10%, etc... ? Thanks in advance.

[BForrester]

For what it's worth, my JPX-850 Forged (399 MPF) are just as difficult to play as the MP-4 (397 MPF), according to MPF.

[iteachgolf]

I know a lot of people scoff at MPF which is fine. But when I have demoed numerous clubs over the years I find MPF to be quite accurate for me. Subjective?

 

So Cleveland 588 blade is easier to hit than Adams OS Hybrid? There's plenty other ridiculous comparisons I could make

 

Just because a head design is larger in overall size or with a bigger cavity back, does not necessarily mean that it will be easier to hit.

 

Sweet-spot (COG) location in relation to the "ground line" is a big factor in how easy to hit an iron will be, from normal turf conditions. (not teed up)

 

Many large iron designs are also taller in face height, which is a very influential aspect for the height of the sweet-spot....more so than the width of the sole. Lots of these larger irons end up with sweet-spots that are higher than the center of a golf ball, which makes them harder to hit solid consistently for most players.

 

Many assume that most classic blades through history have a higher COG. This isn't always true when we look at some of the most popular blade designs. For example...

 

Mizuno Mp-33: .718"

Mizuno Mp-14: .687"

Mizuno MP-32: .750"

 

Titliest 870: .749"

Titleist 680: .754"

Titleist 690: .735"

 

Clevaland 588mb: .749"

 

Going way back....Hogan Apex: .676" Hogan Director: .713"

 

Contrast these sweetspot heights (AVCOG) with some much larger designs...

 

The Tommy Armour Ti-100 is one of the largest cavity backs ever and it has a sweet-spot height of .986". Designs like this are very difficult to hit solid from normal and tighter lie conditions, despite the fact that they have a huge MOI.

 

How much "room there is to work with" vertically between the sweet-spot and the center of the ball, is very influential in how easy an iron is to hit for most players. With the center of a golf ball being .840", a design with a sweet-spot that is higher than that and over .900" is harder to hit....regardless of the overall size of the head

 

I'm well aware of where the VCOG is located and how it works. A higher COG doesn't make it harder to hit. It makes it launch lower and spin more. For virtually all shots with all clubs the ball is hit well below the VCOG, when hit "solid". What your saying simply isn't accurate in the real world and the Adams OS hybrids are so ridiculously easier to hit than the Cleveland blade it's not even funny.

 

 

I can tell you I've never once hit a ball on or above the VCOG or the irons I currently play, which according to MPF is ABOVE the 5th groove . The VCOG of these irons is significantly higher than the MP14s in my garage yet they go 30% higher and 10 yards longer with the same lofts and the same exact shaft and grip. Not to mention they are significantly more forgiving.

 

ITG,

 

In your experience, how significant is the spin difference (as a percentage) between a high VCoG and low VCoG clubhead design assuming same impact conditions? Just looking for an idea of significance. Are we talking 2%, 5%, 10%, etc... ? Thanks in advance.

 

A lot depends on the irons construction (hollow, tungsten, etc) and grooves. Contact point on face matters too. My irons, 718cb, spin 1,400rpms more than mp14s with same shaft. Long irons go 10-17 yards longer as a result

[rocket500]

If you hit down on the ball with irons as you should I think you have more room to play with in terms of vertical COG. My understanding is that these are static measurements.

 

 

[Cwebb]

If you hit down on the ball with irons as you should I think you have more room to play with in terms of vertical COG. My understanding is that these are static measurements.

 

Yeah, think of the "force path of the clubhead", which is a line going from the heads sweet-spot (COG) towards the ball. A more downward angle of attack will tilt this "force path" a little lower in relation to the ball. So on the other hand, a player who is more of a shallow sweeper or even less down than most, should stay away from any sweet-spot that is at or above the center of the ball, if wanting something that is easier to hit.

 

With that in mind, the tighter the lie and the higher the sweet-spot height of the iron design (especially those higher than the center of the ball), will create less room to work with for most players. We need to keep in mind that actual rounds of golf are played from various down and tight lies.....not always the ideal lies that many fittings and demo sessions tend to use.

 

In my opinion, it's more important to have an iron that is a bit easier to hit from "less than ideal" lies, than it is to have a design that gives the perceived ideal launch and spin rate on a monitor from an ideal lie. Obviously a middle ground of both, is a good target for many better players.

 

Keep in mind that very few of the most popular and classic blades, that have often been described as being "easy to hit for a blade", have had sweet-spots above .840". None of the Mizunos and Hogans, for example

[The Sheepdog]

I REALLY like Maltby clubs.

 

I REALLY hate MPF ratings.

 

I game Hogan Ft.Worth irons. 90 rating! Iron play is the weakest part of my game, and I'm a sweeper.

 

My GIR have gone up 15% since I started playing these irons, and I can't believe how easy they are to hit.

 

Go figure.

[BackNineCollapse]

So just take a moment and ask yourself what it is about COG location that effects 'playability'. Hitting below the VCOG can cause a loss of ball speed, lower launch, and an increase in spin. So think about literally every review you've read/seen about the i500 (pro, amatuer, everyone...), is there even one that complained about low ball speed, low launch or that they spin too much? You cannot take a single characteristic of a club in isolation and predict it's performance. I have no idea if there are clubs for which the MPF rating is informative, but if there are, I suspect that is more by accident than design.

[ex0dus]

I don't pay much attention to the actual MPF number but I think the individual measurements can be useful.

 

IMO MPF really overrates the location of he sweet spot and underweights MOI.

 

As has been mentioned the sole grind is a major issue that MPF doesn't address.

[dmeeksDC]

Best bet is to ignore MPF ratings. Just one man’s formula. Meaningless. I find the shovels he rates the highest to be the hardest clubs to play.

[Cwebb]

So just take a moment and ask yourself what it is about COG location that effects 'playability'. Hitting below the VCOG can cause a loss of ball speed, lower launch, and an increase in spin. So think about literally every review you've read/seen about the i500 (pro, amatuer, everyone...), is there even one that complained about low ball speed, low launch or that they spin too much? You cannot take a single characteristic of a club in isolation and predict it's performance. I have no idea if there are clubs for which the MPF rating is informative, but if there are, I suspect that is more by accident than design.

 

A strike below the sweet-spot (COG) of an iron produces less spin, not more. There is no gear effect in irons, like there is in drivers, fairways, and most hybrids, because the COG is not rearward enough to cause the effect.

 

I think the confusion with this started, because many had no idea that the visual strike mark or wear mark on an iron from a normal to tight lie, is always below where the COG is 'lined up' with the center of the ball at impact. The graphic on the right of this page shows this...https://www.golfworks.com/playability-factor-2007-analyzing-ball-impact-wear-spot-of-a-tour-player/a/404/

 

This is why the face is flat on irons,... whereas drivers woods and hybrids have bulge/roll (curved faces) to help with gear effect

[ThinkingPlus]

So just take a moment and ask yourself what it is about COG location that effects 'playability'. Hitting below the VCOG can cause a loss of ball speed, lower launch, and an increase in spin. So think about literally every review you've read/seen about the i500 (pro, amatuer, everyone...), is there even one that complained about low ball speed, low launch or that they spin too much? You cannot take a single characteristic of a club in isolation and predict it's performance. I have no idea if there are clubs for which the MPF rating is informative, but if there are, I suspect that is more by accident than design.

 

A strike below the sweet-spot (COG) of an iron produces less spin, not more. There is no gear effect in irons, like there is in drivers, fairways, and most hybrids, because the COG is not rearward enough to cause the effect.

 

I think the confusion with this started, because many had no idea that the visual strike mark or wear mark on an iron from a normal to tight lie, is always below where the COG is 'lined up' with the center of the ball at impact. The graphic on the right of this page shows this...https://www.golfworks.com/playability-factor-2007-analyzing-ball-impact-wear-spot-of-a-tour-player/a/404/

 

This is why the face is flat on irons,... whereas drivers woods and hybrids have bulge/roll (curved faces) to help with gear effect

 

Thanks for that link. Exactly the information I have been looking for.