How much stock do you put in the Maltby Playability Factor?

[dgarland]

Just like the title asks, is this something you go by or no. I have always looked at these stats when new irons come out and I find it interesting that some new GI irons are not ranked as such on the MPF charts. Interested in opinions.

[Guia]

None

[B-wall]

Absolutely none. It's all geared towards their low center of gravity irons.

[BForrester]

Less than none. Any list that has the MP-4 and JPX-850 Forged rated as essentially the same on a play-ability scale loses merit in my eyes.

[Chuck905]

None.

[TheBIIgCat]

Zero

[dlygrisse]

There are bits and pieces that have some validity. But the actual rating itself is complete BS. In fact it could be harmful. If I ran an OEM I would sue the piss out of them for slander.

[sdandrea]

None. The only factor I trust is reality. I demo before I buy.

[Guia]

You could not sue them, it is an opinion.

[2bGood]

none

[A.Princey]

I feel like the high ratings really reflect good irons for beginners and people struggling to get the ball into the air, but all the mid to lower ratings are worthless.

[cgasucks]

I may be in the minority but I put a lot of stock in it. I have quite a few models in the irons in that list and is pretty much in agreement in my experience with them. I'll give you an example. I have both the Maxfli Revolution Blacks and the Reds. The Reds are the larger version of the two and said to be the more forgiving of them. But in my exprience, I felt that the Blacks are more forgiving and the MPF ratings were in agreement as the Reds had a 605 reading and the Blacks are 641. My 845s are more forgiving than both of these models and the MPF is in agreement as its reading is 677. Obviously, the most forgiving club in my stash is the '97 Callaway Bertha Golds and I can see why since its MPF rating is 1063.

[magnus7319]

Another MPF thread. Can we do blades vs GI too?

[Johnny_Fairway]

None.

[dgarland]

Another MPF thread. Can we do blades vs GI too?

 

I haven't seen one before. I apologize for wasting your time. You could, however, in the future just not click on topics you have on interest in. To those of you that replied, thanks, I guess I have my answer.

[magnus7319]

Another MPF thread. Can we do blades vs GI too?

 

I haven't seen one before. I apologize for wasting your time. You could, however, in the future just not click on topics you have on interest in. To those of you that replied, thanks, I guess I have my answer.

 

It was a joke. Mpf and blade threads come up oh? Weekly? At least.

 

And I’ll click on whatever I want.

 

Thanks.

[Jeri6gt]

ZERO

[jasonp87]

The data is great. The mpf rating is useless imo.

 

Its good to see raw data like the avcog, cdim, and moi.

 

But again MOI is a measure of forgiveness in the sense it shows its resistance to twisting. However none of the data points account for things like slots or VFT etc which are tech items to assist in maintaining ballspeed on offcentre hits.

 

Also cdim is good to know but its kinda a flawed metric as cdim should be ranked based on a % point of how far the sweetspot is from the hosel or centre of the face not a raw measurement.

 

You can have 2 clubs both with a close raw # for c dim say 1.1 however Iron A is a tiny blade vs Iron B being some oversize GI.

 

In that case id argue the sweet spot is more in the centre of the club in Iron A then Iron B.

 

 

[swing thoughts]

Another MPF thread. Can we do blades vs GI too?

 

I haven't seen one before. I apologize for wasting your time. You could, however, in the future just not click on topics you have on interest in. To those of you that replied, thanks, I guess I have my answer.

 

It was a joke. Mpf and blade threads come up oh? Weekly? At least.

 

And I'll click on whatever I want.

 

Thanks.

The only thing as overdone as those threads are the "hey let's do a blade v. GI thread, too" comments

[gbartko]

MPF is especially disliked by the bladeocracy. It doesn’t fit their narrative.

 

How’s that for an attempt to kill 2 birds with 1 stone?

 

:-)

[WidespreadPanic]

Zero. It has the MP4, MP5, MP33 “easier” to hit than the MPH5.

[dmeeksDC]

There are bits and pieces that have some validity. But the actual rating itself is complete BS. In fact it could be harmful. If I ran an OEM I would sue the piss out of them for slander.

 

And you would see that case dismissed. Nor even remotely slanderous.

[BrianMcG]

MPF is causing global warming.

[Want2GetGood]

I started Golf in July this year, went with the callaway x-20 based on them being some of the highest (1054), and most modern rated clubs on the list, without going down the hybrid route.

I have shot a 79 already, several 82's.

 

I upgraded to the wilson staff v6 (250ish) based on rick shiels glowing review and got completely exposed. Granted I did not give them long, but I concluded pretty soon these were MUCH harder to hit. Why make the game harder?

 

All I want is to hit it straight and within an acceptable offline. I have no idea how to hit draw or fade on purpose, and don't really need to to play good golf.

 

I have just bought a new set of JPX 900 forged and I'm pretty sure these are going to be MUCH harder to hit too based on my current play time, so much so I have gone back to my cally's so I can sell the 900.

 

The 900 forged was (438) .

 

BTW, within 2 months of taking up the game I shot an 82.

Within 3 months I shot a 79 and I average 2.6 putts a hole, my putting is a joke. People think I'm a bandit.

 

I have a putting lesson soon as I am keen to see where i can go, I estimate I'll be off single figures with a year of playing if I keep these clubs.

But you put me in a set of players irons and IMO I will shoot 95+.

[ChipNRun]

There are bits and pieces that have some validity. But the actual rating itself is complete BS. In fact it could be harmful. If I ran an OEM I would sue the piss out of them for slander.

 

The law says no. Product reviews fall under "free comment and criticism of a public offering."

 

As for overall MPF, the rating suggests the user-friendliness of a clubhead based upon five clubhead measurements put into an algebraic equation.

 

One uses MPF for an idea on what types of clubheads you might want to try, based upon your ability.

 

A few years back, one controversy involved whether the Callaway X22 Tour (MPF = 592 and GI) was better than the X20 Tour (MPF = 720 and SGI). People like me slightly above average clubhead swore by the X20 Tours for its blend of workability and friendliness, while big hitters praised the X22 Tour as a true players club.

 

Maltby himself cautions that the measurements only address the clubhead, and do not take shaft into account.

 

FYI: MPF ratings on pre-2000 manufactured irons show that those popular with the general public (such as Ping Eye 2, Tommy Armour 845s, Callaway Big Bertha X-12) had high MPF ratings. People figured out that user-friendliness had benefit.