i500 and i210 MPF - not good

[dlygrisse]

 

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

 

I’m talking about their latest irons. You know, the ones in the title of this thread. Quit obfuscating.

[dlygrisse]

 

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

 

Nope.

[Oliver Klozoff]

I have the i500s having come from JPX 900 Tours. Neither get a high MPF (both under 300). But the 900Ts have the "better" rating.

 

Yet I can tell you from experience that the i500s are significantly easier to hit. Not a little easier. A LOT. Even easier than the AP3s and TM 790s I tried extensively that have 'game improvement rated' MPFs.

 

I think the system is flawed in that hollow clubs (whether irons or say a wood like iron) have properties that make their comparison to blade like irons impossible. And MPF really is looking at blade like features. It is apples to oranges. The new hollow irons would need a different analysis than MPF.

[bladehunter]

holy crap storm batman!!

 

 

where was this thread when i searched after getting the i500? I posted at length about the turf interaction frustrations coming from my worm out 681 protos.... which have a very low COG... i had no idea that the issue was actually the cog of the i500... imean i knew.But i didnt know the actual measurement. Ive adjusted fully at this point and am happy with the i500..But that was 6 weeks ago ...Its been a long adjustment period , many lie angle tweaks, weight additions, and shaft swap to get them into the windows i wanted to see..

 

The reason i was willing to work so hard to make them fit , is the fact that they are one of the few irons in this category with this little offset , and i happen to love the feel .. they provide feedback that alot of GI irons do not have.

 

 

 

 

I teach-

 

 

I agree with what youre saying , But there was an adjustment that was beyond normal from either of my MB sets to the i500... I initially described them as harder to hit...as in vertically not horizontally... I hit the relative center of the face most swings, but yet was hitting alot of shots id call "thin"...low flighted and no distance.. This was mostly from my home range which is akin to hitting balls off a cart path ( red clay ) if its dry.... something i previously liked ( firm conditions) with my other irons...This was same shafts, same weight , same grips , same length etc as the MB set ..and was practicing side by side with the old set and hitting them great.... Being the hard head range rat i am , i figured it out ..it took everyday for 2 weeks, but I made sure to have enough lean at impact and really cover the ball. I got a nice high but flat flight that just is lovely.. and feel like it improved me overall with other clubs.. or at least im really hitting everything good now at any rate...

 

said all that to say this... I can understand the rating.. Theres no way id call them forgiving on a vertical miss. any iron that causes me this much head scratching , isnt same same ..

 

but it is nice to know im not crazy.. I knew something was different , but never thought to check the actual specs

[Deadpool_25]

With those numbers, MPF is proving to be bogus. I have i500’s and have hit them side by side with iblades, and I can tell you the i500 is much more forgiving.

 

Certainly not my experience. I have a full set of both and the iBlades seem just as forgiving to me. Add to that, the iBlades feel and sound MUCH better, the i500s are going up for sale and the iBlades are back in the bag.

 

Although it’s gonna be tough to knock the i500 3i with Recoil 110 out of the bag. That’s a damn cannon, even if it does sound and feel too clicky.

[wmblake2000]

This is a really interesting discussion. I'm gonna try to summarize what was said about the individual parameters of MPF --- those who know this stuff better than me, please correct...

 

The actual vertical center of gravity of an iron and where it strikes the ball's COG impacts easy to hit (vs forgiving... off center hits, which is reflected by MOI). A solid strike occurs when the AVOC is lower than the ball's COG. The ball's COG is at .840". For clubs with higher AVCOG, this requires more shaft lean and that the club is descending more. Harder to do off of thin lies. Where the ball mark is on the face is not the same as where the ball's COG is, and this is more pronounced the more loft on the club.

 

Clubs with higher AVCOG will create more spin, causing the ball to have higher apex and fly farther (from iteach, if I understood and recall correctly).

 

Some of this doesn't hold as true with the new technologies of gel and flex face. These impart less spin.

 

I know there is also some measure of how far out on the toe one can go and resist twisting (different from MOI) but that wasn't part of this discussion.

 

Anyway, that's what I understood, as I try to figure out how all this can help in evaluating iron heads.

[Cwebb]

This is a really interesting discussion. I'm gonna try to summarize what was said about the individual parameters of MPF --- those who know this stuff better than me, please correct...

 

The actual vertical center of gravity of an iron and where it strikes the ball's COG impacts easy to hit (vs forgiving... off center hits, which is reflected by MOI). A solid strike occurs when the AVOC is lower than the ball's COG. The ball's COG is at .840". For clubs with higher AVCOG, this requires more shaft lean and that the club is descending more. Harder to do off of thin lies. Where the ball mark is on the face is not the same as where the ball's COG is, and this is more pronounced the more loft on the club.

 

Clubs with higher AVCOG will create more spin, causing the ball to have higher apex and fly farther (from iteach, if I understood and recall correctly).

 

Some of this doesn't hold as true with the new technologies of gel and flex face. These impart less spin.

 

I know there is also some measure of how far out on the toe one can go and resist twisting (different from MOI) but that wasn't part of this discussion.

 

Anyway, that's what I understood, as I try to figure out how all this can help in evaluating iron heads.

 

This part is incorrect. All else equal in the specs of the total club,....a lower AVCOG will 'promote' more spin.

 

Will someone do me a favor and post the image of the graphic of the highlighted wear spot in relation to the COG's of the head and ball.....from this link....https://www.golfworks.com/playability-factor-2007-analyzing-ball-impact-wear-spot-of-a-tour-player/a/404/

[wmblake2000]

Here's the best i could figure out how to do to post this pic...is this what you wanted?

 

 

[Cwebb]

Here's the best i could figure out how to do to post this pic...is this what you wanted?

 

 

Yes, thank you much. The last image gives a clear visual of one of the more confusing aspects of this topic, in regards to a "wear spot" or impact mark in relation to the COG of the head design and ball.

 

So if someone asks about why all great ball strikers have wear spots lower on the face than where the "sweet-spot" (AVCOG) is actually located, this is why....The wear spot is not where the COG "allignments" are happening at impact, as seen in the image posted with the yellow highlighted area near the bottom of the face, which is lower than the sweet-spot,....but the sweet-spot is still lower than the center of the ball, so solid contact is achieved in this example.

 

When a round ball comes in contact with a flat surface (club-face) that is angled away (loft) from the edge of the ball,....the impact mark or "wear spot" is almost always lower on the face than where the COG's of the head and ball are located.

The COG of the ball is in the dead center,... not at the lower edge of the ball, which comes into contact with the face.

 

Confusing, but if you take the time to understand it, it will really help to understand what is going in the MPF in regards to vertical sweet-spot height (AVCOG) and why it is important.

 

So with the example of the Ping i500 and i210, in the image posted we would raise the COG (sweetspot) higher than the COG (center) of the ball. The highlighted wear spot remains virtually the same, for most. Remember that completely solid (pure contact) can only be achieved, if the COG of the head arrives at or better yet below the center of the ball

[braincramp52]

All of this has very little to do with how well a club will actually perform for us amateur golfers imo.

[Cwebb]

All of this has very little to do with how well a club will actually perform for us amateur golfers imo.

 

Actually it has more do with a how a head design will perform for an amateur, than it necessarily does for the most gifted professionals. Although it is useful for everyone, if you take the time to understand it

[morgan1819]

VCOG would be more of an issue if you were hitting strictly off of concrete.

 

So as long as you don't play most of your golf from the cart path, you can make all of your favorite blades, cb's, and others work just fine, regardless of the mpf rating.

 

...

[bladehunter]

VCOG would be more of an issue if you were hitting strictly off of concrete.

 

So as long as you don't play most of your golf from the cart path, you can make all of your favorite blades, cb's, and others work just fine, regardless of the mpf rating.

 

...

 

It’s real though for some. As said earlier. Texas and southern states with red clay ( Georgia , upstate Sc) wheni ts dry it’s close to Hitting off Cart path. I could show you a huge difference in launch and flight with different Vcog heads.

 

Now get down toward the coast with a sand based course and I’m sure it wouldnt matter as much. You can get the club down to the right spot if it’s soft.

 

Along those lines. How does this play with the idea that the ball is long gone before the club touches turf ?

 

I’ve always seen a divot a good bit past where the ball sat with my blade sets. But with the i500 the divot has gotten much closer to the ball. I think this is a product of having to smother the ball to get contact above the bottom 2 grooves.

 

I can post some ball marks on my worn 681 set to illustrate ,but don’t want to turn it into a measuring contest.

My wear marks are very much higher than what i can achieve with the i500 consistently. Which is a confounding thin since the vcog is much higher on the i500.

[ThinkingPlus]

VCOG would be more of an issue if you were hitting strictly off of concrete.

 

So as long as you don't play most of your golf from the cart path, you can make all of your favorite blades, cb's, and others work just fine, regardless of the mpf rating.

 

...

 

It's real though for some. As said earlier. Texas and southern states with red clay ( Georgia , upstate Sc) wheni ts dry it's close to Hitting off Cart path. I could show you a huge difference in launch and flight with different Vcog heads.

 

Now get down toward the coast with a sand based course and I'm sure it wouldnt matter as much. You can get the club down to the right spot if it's soft.

 

Along those lines. How does this play with the idea that the ball is long gone before the club touches turf ?

 

I've always seen a divot a good bit past where the ball sat with my blade sets. But with the i500 the divot has gotten much closer to the ball. I think this is a product of having to smother the ball to get contact above the bottom 2 grooves.

 

I can post some ball marks on my worn 681 set to illustrate ,but don't want to turn it into a measuring contest.

My wear marks are very much higher than what i can achieve with the i500 consistently. Which is a confounding thin since the vcog is much higher on the i500.

The other bit of uncertainty as for as divots are concerned is the definition of where one starts. If exposed dirt is the criteria then divots will start closer and closer to the ball as the turf gets thinner. At some point for the thinnest lies the divot will start under the ball unless you have extreme shaft lean. Extreme shaft lean only benefits a high CHS player.

[bladehunter]

VCOG would be more of an issue if you were hitting strictly off of concrete.

 

So as long as you don't play most of your golf from the cart path, you can make all of your favorite blades, cb's, and others work just fine, regardless of the mpf rating.

 

...

 

It's real though for some. As said earlier. Texas and southern states with red clay ( Georgia , upstate Sc) wheni ts dry it's close to Hitting off Cart path. I could show you a huge difference in launch and flight with different Vcog heads.

 

Now get down toward the coast with a sand based course and I'm sure it wouldnt matter as much. You can get the club down to the right spot if it's soft.

 

Along those lines. How does this play with the idea that the ball is long gone before the club touches turf ?

 

I've always seen a divot a good bit past where the ball sat with my blade sets. But with the i500 the divot has gotten much closer to the ball. I think this is a product of having to smother the ball to get contact above the bottom 2 grooves.

 

I can post some ball marks on my worn 681 set to illustrate ,but don't want to turn it into a measuring contest.

My wear marks are very much higher than what i can achieve with the i500 consistently. Which is a confounding thin since the vcog is much higher on the i500.

The other bit of uncertainty as for as divots are concerned is the definition of where one starts. If exposed dirt is the criteria then divots will start closer and closer to the ball as the turf gets thinner. At some point for the thinnest lies the divot will start under the ball unless you have extreme shaft lean. Extreme shaft lean only benefits a high CHS player.

 

1000% correct. Which makes one question the idea that the ball is long gone before the club touches. Doesn’t it ? at Least off the semi hardpan I’m talking about.

 

Before someone corrects me. I’m not saying the ball isn’t gone a fraction before. But “ long gone “ is another thing. I’ve had this argument regarding turf interaction and been told I’m nuts a couple times. I’m not. And I know it. Not about what I can see with my own eyes.

[jj9000]

In Texas hard-pan you must use the bounce to hit roughly 2" behind the ball and "bounce" the club into the ball at impact.

 

Low groove strike every time.

[animalgolfs]

It seems alot of over-thinking is going into this

 

High MPF=weight down low & way back{it does not take sole width into consideration} just how high it launches & perimeter forgiveness

 

Low or negative MPF= weight high & close on the face

[pullfade]

New to this topic....but is there a way to move vcg lower....i.e. Weight added low and back on the club head with lead tape or maybe adding hot melt low and back inside the head?

[nova6868]

New to this topic....but is there a way to move vcg lower....i.e. Weight added low and back on the club head with lead tape or maybe adding hot melt low and back inside the head?

 

I don't think you're going to be able to add enough in the right spot to make a significant difference. Maybe if you put lots of lead tape on the sole of the iron. But then... that's sort of counter-productive (since you're raising it off the ground with the tape) and it would fall off anyway. Adjusting COG in drivers with lead tape and melt is much easier to do since there's no turf interaction to worry about.

[Cwebb]

I've always seen a divot a good bit past where the ball sat with my blade sets. But with the i500 the divot has gotten much closer to the ball. I think this is a product of having to smother the ball to get contact above the bottom 2 grooves.

 

 

Absolutely. The only way to get "pure" solid contact with a head design that has a sweet-spot which is 'well' higher than the center of the ball, from normal to tighter lies, is to have a very downward AOA with a "touch point" to the ground that is rather close to the back of the ball.

 

If we take the same AOA, but move the initial "touch point" to the turf further forward, the contact has a great chance of becoming "thin".

 

This is why I describe head designs with lower sweet-spots (AVCOG) as "having more room to work with" in the vertical aspect of contact. Our touch point to the ground near the back of the ball doesn't have be as precise, in order to get the sweet-spot under the center of the ball. Also, our AOA doesn't have to be as downward.....

 

In essence, we don't have to "pinch" down and through with as precise of a touch point to the turf or ground. In other words, easier to hit from normal to tighter lies for most players.

 

So with this in mind, everything else aside,...if we wanted to make it easier to start our turf interaction further forward....and or not as deep, we could simply try a head design with a lower sweet-spot.....or at least one that is not really high.

[dmeeksDC]

I've always seen a divot a good bit past where the ball sat with my blade sets. But with the i500 the divot has gotten much closer to the ball. I think this is a product of having to smother the ball to get contact above the bottom 2 grooves.

 

 

Absolutely. The only way to get "pure" solid contact with a head design that has a sweet-spot which is 'well' higher than the center of the ball, from normal to tighter lies, is to have a very downward AOA with a "touch point" to the ground that is rather close to the back of the ball.

 

If we take the same AOA, but move the initial "touch point" to the turf further forward, the contact has a great chance of becoming "thin".

 

This is why I describe head designs with lower sweet-spots (AVCOG) as "having more room to work with" in the vertical aspect of contact. Our touch point to the ground near the back of the ball doesn't have be as precise, in order to get the sweet-spot under the center of the ball. Also, our AOA doesn't have to be as downward.....

 

In essence, we don't have to "pinch" down and through with as precise of a touch point to the turf or ground. In other words, easier to hit from normal to tighter lies for most players.

 

So with this in mind, everything else aside,...if we wanted to make it easier to start our turf interaction further forward....and or not as deep, we could simply try a head design with a lower sweet-spot.....or at least one that is not really high.

 

Kudos. A great jjob explaining what to a lot of golfers might be the most meaningful measurement regarding the relative ease or difficulty in achieving solid contact with a specific club. I don’t miss the center nearly as much as my contact is up and down, and this explains why those higher hits on the face are worse with some clubs than others.

 

Interesting stuff that I did not know.

 

I’ve always noticed the overall MPF rating seems to favor long heel to toe heads, presumably this usually also means perimeter weighting and higher MOI, but on the shorter heel to toe heads maybe if you are generally a decent player you pay less attention to the overall rating and focus on COG measurements. A compact blade with a low VCOG might perform as well for some players as a high MOI club might for a more inconsistent side to side striker.

 

 

[Cwebb]

Kudos. A great jjob explaining what to a lot of golfers might be the most meaningful measurement regarding the relative ease or difficulty in achieving solid contact with a specific club. I don't miss the center nearly as much as my contact is up and down, and this explains why those higher hits on the face are worse with some clubs than others.

 

Interesting stuff that I did not know.

 

I've always noticed the overall MPF rating seems to favor long heel to toe heads, presumably this usually also means perimeter weighting and higher MOI, but on the shorter heel to toe heads maybe if you are generally a decent player you pay less attention to the overall rating and focus on COG measurements. A compact blade with a low VCOG might perform as well for some players as a high MOI club might for a more inconsistent side to side striker.

 

Yes. Think of some of the blades over the years that many have described as "easy to hit for a blade". When we look into their sweet-spot heights, you'll find that most of them are not high...and some rather low. Remember that the center of a golf ball is .840". Some examples...

 

Mizuno Mp-33: .718" Mp-14: .687" Mp-32: .750"

 

Titleist 680: .754" 870: .749" 690: .735"

[braincramp52]

Kudos. A great jjob explaining what to a lot of golfers might be the most meaningful measurement regarding the relative ease or difficulty in achieving solid contact with a specific club. I don't miss the center nearly as much as my contact is up and down, and this explains why those higher hits on the face are worse with some clubs than others.

 

Interesting stuff that I did not know.

 

I've always noticed the overall MPF rating seems to favor long heel to toe heads, presumably this usually also means perimeter weighting and higher MOI, but on the shorter heel to toe heads maybe if you are generally a decent player you pay less attention to the overall rating and focus on COG measurements. A compact blade with a low VCOG might perform as well for some players as a high MOI club might for a more inconsistent side to side striker.

 

Yes. Think of some of the blades over the years that many have described as "easy to hit for a blade". When we look into their sweet-spot heights, you'll find that most of them are not high...and some rather low. Remember that the center of a golf ball is .840". Some examples...

 

Mizuno Mp-33: .718" Mp-14: .687" Mp-32: .750"

 

Titleist 680: .754" 870: .749" 690: .735"

 

It's too bad 99% of us don't hit the sweet spot very often. All the engineering numbers in the world mean nothing when you throw in the human factor. It's like the engineers at a manufacturing facility telling us how great something should work. The machine goes on the line, screws up a bunch of product, maintenance comes and revamps it. The engineer scratches his head and says... Well, it looked good on paper. :)

[dlygrisse]

Kudos. A great jjob explaining what to a lot of golfers might be the most meaningful measurement regarding the relative ease or difficulty in achieving solid contact with a specific club. I don't miss the center nearly as much as my contact is up and down, and this explains why those higher hits on the face are worse with some clubs than others.

 

Interesting stuff that I did not know.

 

I've always noticed the overall MPF rating seems to favor long heel to toe heads, presumably this usually also means perimeter weighting and higher MOI, but on the shorter heel to toe heads maybe if you are generally a decent player you pay less attention to the overall rating and focus on COG measurements. A compact blade with a low VCOG might perform as well for some players as a high MOI club might for a more inconsistent side to side striker.

 

Yes. Think of some of the blades over the years that many have described as "easy to hit for a blade". When we look into their sweet-spot heights, you'll find that most of them are not high...and some rather low. Remember that the center of a golf ball is .840". Some examples...

 

Mizuno Mp-33: .718" Mp-14: .687" Mp-32: .750"

 

Titleist 680: .754" 870: .749" 690: .735"

 

It's too bad 99% of us don't hit the sweet spot very often. All the engineering numbers in the world mean nothing when you throw in the human factor. It's like the engineers at a manufacturing facility telling us how great something should work. The machine goes on the line, screws up a bunch of product, maintenance comes and revamps it. The engineer scratches his head and says... Well, it looked good on paper. :)

Nawww....it's just that a few people with an agenda who are ignoring the facts of how the modern hollow body flex face iron work. All the old criteria is thrown out the window, if it ever really mattered in the first place. And of course the MPF ignored many aspects of club design to begin with. e.g. sole width, bounce, camber, dynamic properites when the club was actually being swung etc. Don't let one persons non stop commentary lead you to believe this is a widely held belief.

[bladehunter]

its real.. You can go back and sift through my posts 2 weeks before i found this thread where i gripe out loud about the issue with the i500 and i couldnt figure out what it was .

 

I dont care what he numbers are , You cant put the same swing on both my iron sets and get a good flight

[pullfade]

Once again small sampling here and only began reading this because of my experience. I am a sweeper/picker with a slight early release. Brought my new i500 to the range and tried to hit a half dozen balls....felt terrible with no launch at all. I thought what a piece of s***.

 

Began pressing the shaft forward and trying to trap it more....night and day difference. High bombs. The more forward shaft lean I had the better the strike.

 

Funny side note...a buddy of mine has a set of mp33 that Cwebb mentioned above and was at the range that day. Seemed easier for me to hit than the i500 without manipulating my swing.

 

 

[bladehunter]

Once again small sampling here and only began reading this because of my experience. I am a sweeper/picker with a slight early release. Brought my new i500 to the range and tried to hit a half dozen balls....felt terrible with no launch at all. I thought what a piece of s***.

 

Began pressing the shaft forward and trying to trap it more....night and day difference. High bombs. The more forward shaft lean I had the better the strike.

 

Funny side note...a buddy of mine has a set of mp33 that Cwebb mentioned above and was at the range that day. Seemed easier for me to hit than the i500 without manipulating my swing.

 

exactly... and its a curious conundrum .... The i500 plays quite nicely ... But in a different way . Wonderful off a tee peg... Great from Bermuda rough unless it sinks all the way down ....But nothing is good from down there , so a wash..Where i have most issues is a clean fairway lie. Just as you said.. requires a forward press strike .... This also explains why i have issues hitting a draw with them... Not that i cant... Its just that the Fade is easier because youre trying to hold off and pinch the ball... Harder to pinch a draw in my opinion .... at least a high one from a tight lie. Note im not saying impossible to either of these..Just harder than my MB set .... It plays with the mind ... But overall the i 500 requires a more precise vertical strike than the Mb they replace... Now horizontally they can be hit anywhere on the grooves and move the ball.. But thats immaterial to me really ... Id prefer to be able to get a clean strike...Im on the fence as to whether this is a good thing or a neutral thing to just get used to . It hasnt effected my swing with other clubs , and overall seems to be a wash.. Ive hit some super close shots with 4 iron from rediculous distances ...Hit a 7 iron to 2 feet just as i pictured it on wednesday ... But ive also hit some curious low duds that felt like good swings until i saw the flight ..

[pullfade]

Well I am going to consider them great clubs to fix my swing flaw. Should make me a great ball striker in no time!!!

[dmeeksDC]

Kudos. A great jjob explaining what to a lot of golfers might be the most meaningful measurement regarding the relative ease or difficulty in achieving solid contact with a specific club. I don't miss the center nearly as much as my contact is up and down, and this explains why those higher hits on the face are worse with some clubs than others.

 

Interesting stuff that I did not know.

 

I've always noticed the overall MPF rating seems to favor long heel to toe heads, presumably this usually also means perimeter weighting and higher MOI, but on the shorter heel to toe heads maybe if you are generally a decent player you pay less attention to the overall rating and focus on COG measurements. A compact blade with a low VCOG might perform as well for some players as a high MOI club might for a more inconsistent side to side striker.

 

Yes. Think of some of the blades over the years that many have described as "easy to hit for a blade". When we look into their sweet-spot heights, you'll find that most of them are not high...and some rather low. Remember that the center of a golf ball is .840". Some examples...

 

Mizuno Mp-33: .718" Mp-14: .687" Mp-32: .750"

 

Titleist 680: .754" 870: .749" 690: .735"

 

It's too bad 99% of us don't hit the sweet spot very often. All the engineering numbers in the world mean nothing when you throw in the human factor. It's like the engineers at a manufacturing facility telling us how great something should work. The machine goes on the line, screws up a bunch of product, maintenance comes and revamps it. The engineer scratches his head and says... Well, it looked good on paper. :)

Nawww....it's just that a few people with an agenda who are ignoring the facts of how the modern hollow body flex face iron work. All the old criteria is thrown out the window, if it ever really mattered in the first place. And of course the MPF ignored many aspects of club design to begin with. e.g. sole width, bounce, camber, dynamic properites when the club was actually being swung etc. Don't let one persons non stop commentary lead you to believe this is a widely held belief.

 

Let’s not get carried away. Lots of sincere golfers on this board. Not really seeing a discussion about vertical center of gravity as an agenda. Physics is not an agenda. I am not at all a defender of MPF as a guide to buying clubs. I don’t rely on it because the overall ‘MPF rating’ favors clubs I generally do not like because I don’t care for really long blade length.

 

Maltby’s individual measurements are accurate, but in coming up with his rating ‘formula’ he had to make decisions and give more importance to some measurements over others. That is how formulaic assertions are created. So, for example, he might say ‘C dimension’ counts more than MOI or vice versa. I don’t know his specific mathematical calculation and it doesn’t matter to me. But his formula does not mean we can’t learn something from the specific measurements that led to a probably imperfect rating. I agree with you that the MPF final number as a criteria is not going to work for everyone. I think it can be useful for beginners and high handicappers whose impact wanders all over the clubface.

 

However, the vertical center of gravity is a measurement, not a rating. That is not Maltby’s opinion or creation. It is a physical location determined by the design of the club. I would say that specific measurement is useful to me because I am, like many golfers, someone who flips my hands sometimes at impact, losing shaft lean. For that type of swing, a lower COG is a big help and a high one can feel awful. For all who are flippers, their higher COG clubs will work great off tees, but on the ground, a flip and a high COG is harder to get away with.

 

And I find when I maintain shaft lean, any club works well. I have a set of Nike Vapor Pro Combos. The VCOG is above .900! But when I am swinging well, those clubs are money. Dart throwers and highly accurate. But we do have our faults. Mine is I come over the top, get steep and save that shot with a flip at impact. If I am not timing it just right, that shot is thin, off the bottom part of the clubface. You can hit them fat with that move too, but for me it is a tendency to be thin.

 

Does not mean the clubs won’t work well. What it does mean is the higher the COG, the more you have to go down and get the ball to create optimal impact by getting the club’s COG lower than the ball’s centered COG at impact. Not really an issue for pros. They maintain shaft lean and typically deloft at impact. Amateurs often come up, lose shaft lean and add loft. The hollow head design may indeed make up for it — you always hear players say they help on ‘thin’ strikes — but that doesn’t mean that player wouldn’t do better with a lower COG so that strike is not thin in the first place. Or, it could just be a reminder to all of us to stay down on the shot. Does not mean those are inferior designs. The OEM’s have data on how many amateurs miss the sweet spot and what the trendencies are. Maybe they are building in a compensating feature to give us a better result on a faulty swing.

 

Also, hollow head or not, I assume there are advantages to a higher vertical COG. Does it produce a more penetrating flight? Reduces likelihood of ballooning? Does it help add spin or help reduce it? I don’t know. I know when I pure a Nike VPC 4 iron, that ball takes off on a great flight and stops on a dime. And if I catch it low on the face, I get away with nothing. Lots of clubs have higher COG, above ,800 and even .840 is not unusual, and a lot of people play them and play them well, so there must be benefits to those designs as well.

[ThinkingPlus]

Kudos. A great jjob explaining what to a lot of golfers might be the most meaningful measurement regarding the relative ease or difficulty in achieving solid contact with a specific club. I don't miss the center nearly as much as my contact is up and down, and this explains why those higher hits on the face are worse with some clubs than others.

 

Interesting stuff that I did not know.

 

I've always noticed the overall MPF rating seems to favor long heel to toe heads, presumably this usually also means perimeter weighting and higher MOI, but on the shorter heel to toe heads maybe if you are generally a decent player you pay less attention to the overall rating and focus on COG measurements. A compact blade with a low VCOG might perform as well for some players as a high MOI club might for a more inconsistent side to side striker.

 

Yes. Think of some of the blades over the years that many have described as "easy to hit for a blade". When we look into their sweet-spot heights, you'll find that most of them are not high...and some rather low. Remember that the center of a golf ball is .840". Some examples...

 

Mizuno Mp-33: .718" Mp-14: .687" Mp-32: .750"

 

Titleist 680: .754" 870: .749" 690: .735"

 

It's too bad 99% of us don't hit the sweet spot very often. All the engineering numbers in the world mean nothing when you throw in the human factor. It's like the engineers at a manufacturing facility telling us how great something should work. The machine goes on the line, screws up a bunch of product, maintenance comes and revamps it. The engineer scratches his head and says... Well, it looked good on paper. :)

Nawww....it's just that a few people with an agenda who are ignoring the facts of how the modern hollow body flex face iron work. All the old criteria is thrown out the window, if it ever really mattered in the first place. And of course the MPF ignored many aspects of club design to begin with. e.g. sole width, bounce, camber, dynamic properites when the club was actually being swung etc. Don't let one persons non stop commentary lead you to believe this is a widely held belief.

 

Let's not get carried away. Lots of sincere golfers on this board. Not really seeing a discussion about vertical center of gravity as an agenda. Physics is not an agenda. I am not at all a defender of MPF as a guide to buying clubs. I don't rely on it because the overall 'MPF rating' favors clubs I generally do not like because I don't care for really long blade length.

 

Maltby's individual measurements are accurate, but in coming up with his rating 'formula' he had to make decisions and give more importance to some measurements over others. That is how formulaic assertions are created. So, for example, he might say 'C dimension' counts more than MOI or vice versa. I don't know his specific mathematical calculation and it doesn't matter to me. But his formula does not mean we can't learn something from the specific measurements that led to a probably imperfect rating. I agree with you that the MPF final number as a criteria is not going to work for everyone. I think it can be useful for beginners and high handicappers whose impact wanders all over the clubface.

 

However, the vertical center of gravity is a measurement, not a rating. That is not Maltby's opinion or creation. It is a physical location determined by the design of the club. I would say that specific measurement is useful to me because I am, like many golfers, someone who flips my hands sometimes at impact, losing shaft lean. For that type of swing, a lower COG is a big help and a high one can feel awful. For all who are flippers, their higher COG clubs will work great off tees, but on the ground, a flip and a high COG is harder to get away with.

 

And I find when I maintain shaft lean, any club works well. I have a set of Nike Vapor Pro Combos. The VCOG is above .900! But when I am swinging well, those clubs are money. Dart throwers and highly accurate. But we do have our faults. Mine is I come over the top, get steep and save that shot with a flip at impact. If I am not timing it just right, that shot is thin, off the bottom part of the clubface. You can hit them fat with that move too, but for me it is a tendency to be thin.

 

Does not mean the clubs won't work well. What it does mean is the higher the COG, the more you have to go down and get the ball to create optimal impact by getting the club's COG lower than the ball's centered COG at impact. Not really an issue for pros. They maintain shaft lean and typically deloft at impact. Amateurs often come up, lose shaft lean and add loft. The hollow head design may indeed make up for it — you always hear players say they help on 'thin' strikes — but that doesn't mean that player wouldn't do better with a lower COG so that strike is not thin in the first place. Or, it could just be a reminder to all of us to stay down on the shot. Does not mean those are inferior designs. The OEM's have data on how many amateurs miss the sweet spot and what the trendencies are. Maybe they are building in a compensating feature to give us a better result on a faulty swing.

 

Also, hollow head or not, I assume there are advantages to a higher vertical COG. Does it produce a more penetrating flight? Reduces likelihood of ballooning? Does it help add spin or help reduce it? I don't know. I know when I pure a Nike VPC 4 iron, that ball takes off on a great flight and stops on a dime. And if I catch it low on the face, I get away with nothing. Lots of clubs have higher COG, above ,800 and even .840 is not unusual, and a lot of people play them and play them well, so there must be benefits to those designs as well.

I believe that higher VCoG is a consequence of chasing high MOI in the vertical axis. Thick toplines increase vertical MOI, but raises the VCoG.