Jump to content

MP 18 SC - More forgiving than the blade?


Recommended Posts

Not exactly what you asked but I hit the SC's vs the 919 Forged and found the forged's to be much more forgiving in terms of flight and ball speed. The SC's felt and seemed to play much more like a true blade... just a touch bigger than the regular MP18.

 

Edit: And if I'm read this maltby table right... the "MPF" number would indicate that higher number = easier to hit. If that's the case... the SC's are be harder to hit than the 900 tours (135 vs 355). Heck... even the bladed MP-18 is 284! It's actually the lowest MPF on the whole list.. less than MP18 blades and also less than MP4 and 5 blades, which look to be fairly forgiving for blades.

 

Any design that has a sweet-spot (AVCOG) higher than .840" is penalized in the MPF. A higher sweet-spot is simply "harder to find" on a consistent basis from normal to tighter lies (not an 'up' lie), for most players

Makes sense. Probably why I felt like I was hitting all the shots with the SC a little skinny. Only hit one that felt really good... rest were meh. I found myself wanting to hit the forged all night long though. Very easy to hit and only just a hint more offset and blade size than SC.

SIM Max 9* | Ventus Black 6x

SIM Ti 19* | Fujikura Pro 2.0 TS 8x

Cobra Speedzone 18.5* | Accra FX 2.0 380M5 or Cobra Speedzone 4i | Modus 105x

i210 4-PW | X100 Tour Issue 1xSS

Ping Glide 3.0 50/12, 54/12, 58/10 | S400 Tour Issue

Cleveland SOFT Premier #4

ProV1x

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been playing the SC since last fall. I would agree, they are not a forgiving club, very similar to blades. But, I think that's the point. Its a small half-cavity design, not really built for forgiveness. I see it as an option for guys that like blades, but want something with a slightly thicker top-line and sole. If you're looking for a more forgiving players club, then Mizuno has the MMC or the 919 Forged. I play the MMC in the 4 iron, and that's a very forgiving club for the size.

 

In terms of feel, I have played a bevy of forged irons from a variety of OEMs (including other Mizunos) and for me, the MP 18 SC is the best feeling iron I've played. And, it is the reason the irons have lasted over a year in the bag.

Titleist TS3 10.5*
Titleist TS2 16.5*
Titleist TS3 19*
Mizuno MP 18 MMC Fli-Hi 22*
Mizuno MP 18 SC (5-PW)
Mizuno T20 50*, 54*, 58*
Kingston KP1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly what you asked but I hit the SC's vs the 919 Forged and found the forged's to be much more forgiving in terms of flight and ball speed. The SC's felt and seemed to play much more like a true blade... just a touch bigger than the regular MP18.

 

Edit: And if I'm read this maltby table right... the "MPF" number would indicate that higher number = easier to hit. If that's the case... the SC's are be harder to hit than the 900 tours (135 vs 355). Heck... even the bladed MP-18 is 284! It's actually the lowest MPF on the whole list.. less than MP18 blades and also less than MP4 and 5 blades, which look to be fairly forgiving for blades.

 

Any design that has a sweet-spot (AVCOG) higher than .840" is penalized in the MPF. A higher sweet-spot is simply "harder to find" on a consistent basis from normal to tighter lies (not an 'up' lie), for most players

 

CIZOVW2UEAAPEBw.jpg

 

"How do you measure your sweet-spot against other golfers?"

 

"By height"

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I read more on the MPF... They suggest not even playing a club under 250MPF!! Crazy. The SCs are 135 and one of their tables says that 325 should be your starting point unless you're an extremely good ball striker.

 

lol @ the P730s - MPF of 15.

SIM Max 9* | Ventus Black 6x

SIM Ti 19* | Fujikura Pro 2.0 TS 8x

Cobra Speedzone 18.5* | Accra FX 2.0 380M5 or Cobra Speedzone 4i | Modus 105x

i210 4-PW | X100 Tour Issue 1xSS

Ping Glide 3.0 50/12, 54/12, 58/10 | S400 Tour Issue

Cleveland SOFT Premier #4

ProV1x

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense for better players. A high "rated" clubs doesn't mean better... It just means it's easier to hit due to more MOI, better CG and "sweet spot" positioning, etc. It's simply a calc that compares club heads relative to one another. Doesn't factor your swing, shaft used and so forth.

 

Basically higher points I would equate to friendly for the average golfer. A low toe strike on a P730 is going to go nowhere compared to a low toe from an M4 iron. But... for many of us, the M4 would not be game-able because of spin issues, lack of feel, size, looks, and so on. As we become better strikers of the ball, this number becomes more and more meaningless.

SIM Max 9* | Ventus Black 6x

SIM Ti 19* | Fujikura Pro 2.0 TS 8x

Cobra Speedzone 18.5* | Accra FX 2.0 380M5 or Cobra Speedzone 4i | Modus 105x

i210 4-PW | X100 Tour Issue 1xSS

Ping Glide 3.0 50/12, 54/12, 58/10 | S400 Tour Issue

Cleveland SOFT Premier #4

ProV1x

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I read more on the MPF... They suggest not even playing a club under 250MPF!! Crazy. The SCs are 135 and one of their tables says that 325 should be your starting point unless you're an extremely good ball striker.

 

lol @ the P730s - MPF of 15.

 

Set their final "scores" and ratings aside and simply look at the raw data with an understanding of what each category means.

 

At the top of the list is understanding Actual Vertical COG and it's relationship to how easy to hit a head design is, in the vertical aspect of impact

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are pointless at times and I takeaway no value from Maltbys opinion.

 

For somebody like me, it’s about the right sized blade, thin sole, little offset and a traditional sweet spot toward the heel.

 

Somebody mentioned about shaft, and I agree it plays a pivotal role with the correct iron head.

 

Makes sense for better players. A high "rated" clubs doesn't mean better... It just means it's easier to hit due to more MOI, better CG and "sweet spot" positioning, etc. It's simply a calc that compares club heads relative to one another. Doesn't factor your swing, shaft used and so forth.

 

Basically higher points I would equate to friendly for the average golfer. A low toe strike on a P730 is going to go nowhere compared to a low toe from an M4 iron. But... for many of us, the M4 would not be game-able because of spin issues, lack of feel, size, looks, and so on. As we become better strikers of the ball, this number becomes more and more meaningless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I read more on the MPF... They suggest not even playing a club under 250MPF!! Crazy. The SCs are 135 and one of their tables says that 325 should be your starting point unless you're an extremely good ball striker.

 

lol @ the P730s - MPF of 15.

 

Set their final "scores" and ratings aside and simply look at the raw data with an understanding of what each category means.

 

At the top of the list is understanding Actual Vertical COG and it's relationship to how easy to hit a head design is, in the vertical aspect of impact

 

+1 This is correct. People attach too many conspiracy theories to these ratings. Forget the “MPF score,” pretend it is not there. The specific measurements used to derive the ratings are real and very definitely have an impact. The ones that will matter “most to most golfers” are a vertical center of gravity that is below the COG of the golf ball (.840) and a C dimension that gets the horizontal COG more to the middle of the face (and to a lesser extent but still meaningful, a RCOG that is a bit deeper, away from the face.)

 

Some more skilled players definitely like the classic heel-sided sweet spot but for most players the lower and more centered COG will offer more margin for error. If your swing is entirely repeatable and consistent, and you have great shaft lean at impact every time, may not be a big deal for those players and a high COG will not matter, but that is not most people. Some pros even want that higher COG for a certain ball flight. But in every case those players are getting the COG of the club at or below the COG of the golf ball at impact. That is where solid contact occurs and it is not opinion.

 

The overall MPF rating definitely favors longer heel to toe length blades, which I don’t like, so a more compact head will get penalized in the final MPF number. So I pretty much ignore that. I also don’t worry about MOI. Whatever it is, it is. For whatever reason, high MOI does not seem to be a big difference maker for me. I like compact heads and am generally around the center on impact, so I don’t worry about twisting. My misses are more up and down on the face.

 

I have hit numerous Mizuno heads well despite low MPF scores and I know why. For others who love compact heads, you should skip the rating and look deeper. That is why I don’t ignore the vertical COG. I want it low to get more solid contact, more often. If I want to bring flight down, easy enough with shaft choice or loft adjustments. Maltby’s individual COG measurements on these clubs are not his opinion. It’s physics and useful. I’ve looked up every club I have loved and hated. The trend was easy to spot. The ones with a low vertical COG were my favorites. And my all-time favorite iron I have played, the TaylorMade RAC LT 2, also had the lowest vertical COG of any club I’ve played (under .700), along with a C Dimension around 1.2. Perfect design IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The overall MPF rating definitely favors longer heel to toe length blades, which I don't like, so a more compact head will get penalized in the final MPF number. So I pretty much ignore that. I also don't worry about MOI. Whatever it is, it is. For whatever reason, high MOI does not seem to be a big difference maker for me. I like compact heads and am generally around the center on impact, so I don't worry about twisting. My misses are more up and down on the face.

 

 

The reason the MPF rewards a long "C-dimension"...aka horizontal COG, is because it gives more horizontal "room to work with" for relatively solid contact....

 

Since impact "inside" (heel-side) of the COG will twist the head less vs impact outside (toe-side) of it,.....a longer C-dimension gives more room between the edge of the hosel and the sweet-spot....

 

Some of the blades with really short COG's, require almost flirting with a shank in order to get pure contact. On the other hand, designs with the longest COG's, allow contact inside the sweet-spot while still being a good half inch away from the edge of the hosel.

 

Combine this with a lower COG and we end up with more room to work with in both directions for decent contact,.....which benefits most players (not all players) and makes them easier to hit or "more playable"

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I read more on the MPF... They suggest not even playing a club under 250MPF!! Crazy. The SCs are 135 and one of their tables says that 325 should be your starting point unless you're an extremely good ball striker.

 

lol @ the P730s - MPF of 15.

 

Set their final "scores" and ratings aside and simply look at the raw data with an understanding of what each category means.

 

At the top of the list is understanding Actual Vertical COG and it's relationship to how easy to hit a head design is, in the vertical aspect of impact

 

+1 This is correct. People attach too many conspiracy theories to these ratings. Forget the "MPF score," pretend it is not there. The specific measurements used to derive the ratings are real and very definitely have an impact. The ones that will matter "most to most golfers" are a vertical center of gravity that is below the COG of the golf ball (.840) and a C dimension that gets the horizontal COG more to the middle of the face (and to a lesser extent but still meaningful, a RCOG that is a bit deeper, away from the face.)

 

Some more skilled players definitely like the classic heel-sided sweet spot but for most players the lower and more centered COG will offer more margin for error. If your swing is entirely repeatable and consistent, and you have great shaft lean at impact every time, may not be a big deal for those players and a high COG will not matter, but that is not most people. Some pros even want that higher COG for a certain ball flight. But in every case those players are getting the COG of the club at or below the COG of the golf ball at impact. That is where solid contact occurs and it is not opinion.

 

The overall MPF rating definitely favors longer heel to toe length blades, which I don't like, so a more compact head will get penalized in the final MPF number. So I pretty much ignore that. I also don't worry about MOI. Whatever it is, it is. For whatever reason, high MOI does not seem to be a big difference maker for me. I like compact heads and am generally around the center on impact, so I don't worry about twisting. My misses are more up and down on the face.

 

I have hit numerous Mizuno heads well despite low MPF scores and I know why. For others who love compact heads, you should skip the rating and look deeper. That is why I don't ignore the vertical COG. I want it low to get more solid contact, more often. If I want to bring flight down, easy enough with shaft choice or loft adjustments. Maltby's individual COG measurements on these clubs are not his opinion. It's physics and useful. I've looked up every club I have loved and hated. The trend was easy to spot. The ones with a low vertical COG were my favorites. And my all-time favorite iron I have played, the TaylorMade RAC LT 2, also had the lowest vertical COG of any club I've played (under .700), along with a C Dimension around 1.2. Perfect design IMO.

This makes perfect sense. I was looking at some other irons, and two that have the reputation of being as forgiving as they come, the i25 and G30, have two of the highest VCOG out there. I know there are other factors, but just wanted to throw that out there. I had the i25 4 iron in the bag for a while, and sure enough, about one in four (off the deck) was a towering 200-210-yard monster, the rest were low bullets. Of course that's probably the case for most four irons for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This makes perfect sense. I was looking at some other irons, and two that have the reputation of being as forgiving as they come, the i25 and G30, have two of the highest VCOG out there. I know there are other factors, but just wanted to throw that out there. I had the i25 4 iron in the bag for a while, and sure enough, about one in four (off the deck) was a towering 200-210-yard monster, the rest were low bullets. Of course that's probably the case for most four irons for me.

 

Keep in mind that there can be a difference between "forgiving" vs easy to hit pure in the vertical aspect of contact. Those Pings you mentioned are "forgiving" because you can hit them off center and they "resist twisting". They also have a long face horizontally and a COG far out from the hosel....

 

However, the sweet-spot is where it is.....and if it's high and above the center of the ball height, it's harder to find for most players. If we want a head that is easy to hit and forgiving, why not locate something that has both characteristics? They are available, when you know what details to highlight.

 

One of the main reasons many players don't consider larger irons to be really "playable"....is because with their large/tall face heights, the sweet-spots tend to also be higher. Making them more difficult to be precise with in the vertical aspect of contact...especially from normal to tighter lies

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This makes perfect sense. I was looking at some other irons, and two that have the reputation of being as forgiving as they come, the i25 and G30, have two of the highest VCOG out there. I know there are other factors, but just wanted to throw that out there. I had the i25 4 iron in the bag for a while, and sure enough, about one in four (off the deck) was a towering 200-210-yard monster, the rest were low bullets. Of course that's probably the case for most four irons for me.

 

Keep in mind that there can be a difference between "forgiving" vs easy to hit pure in the vertical aspect of contact. Those Pings you mentioned are "forgiving" because you can hit them off center and they "resist twisting". They also have a long face horizontally and a COG far out from the hosel....

 

However, the sweet-spot is where it is.....and if it's high and above the center of the ball height, it's harder to find for most players. If we want a head that is easy to hit and forgiving, why not locate something that has both characteristics? They are available, when you know what details to highlight.

 

One of the main reasons many players don't consider larger irons to be really "playable"....is because with their large/tall face heights, the sweet-spots tend to also be higher. Making them more difficult to be precise with in the vertical aspect of contact...especially from normal to tighter lies

 

I actually own Ping i200’s and hit them well. They are excellent irons. On good swings they are as good as any club. And even on mediocre off-center hits. But if I flip at all with them and come in high, I will hit it thin easier than I will with an MP59. A thin shot on the i200 still goes a pretty good distance, but I can tell it wasn’t solid. And I remember the first time I hit an MP59 that I noticed it was not difficult to hit it solid. There are not huge differences but I did notice it.

 

None of this means a particular club is not any good or won’t work for you. A great golf swing works with any club. It is just information that helps you test things out, see which of these data points could be meaningful in your game. The rating is about probabilities, but you may not fit neatly into the categories that comprise it. You still may find something that helps you and for many golfers, the vertical COG is a good place to start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

None of this means a particular club is not any good or won't work for you. A great golf swing works with any club. It is just information that helps you test things out, see which of these data points could be meaningful in your game. The rating is about probabilities, but you may not fit neatly into the categories that comprise it. You still may find something that helps you and for many golfers, the vertical COG is a good place to start.

 

Very true. It's another set of detailed data that is available for us to take advantage of. Similar to figuring out what type of shaft bend profile works for us....and then looking at the measurement data to pin point options that fit

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a mid handicapper, previous played JPX 900 Forged but wanted something with tighter dispersion and not as strong lofts.

When I got fitted, I was planning to stay with game improvement irons but they fitter wanted me to try the MP18 SCs. I tried them out with the KBS Tour soft step I used to play and every shot was in close proximity each other. I was sold. Since receiving them and playing on the course, I have been impressed with the forgiveness. There have been a few shots i've hit off the toe and I have found them still on the green or very close. With my JPX 900 Forged, the toe strikes usually ended up way off the green.

Mizuno ST 190 9.5 VA Slay 65 S
Titleist TS2 18 Accra FX200F M4
Titleist 816H1 VA Slay 85 S
Mizuno MP20 H-MB 4i - PW KBS $-Taper S
Mizuno T7 52, 56, 60 - Nippon Modus 3 Wedge 115
Areso E30S Putter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news! I'm pretty sure you'll enjoy them for what it's worth.

 

Before opting for the 900s I tested the MP18s and SC18s over 6 weeks at the beginning of the year. The SCs felt just as good as the MP18s, very similar distances and both look incredible down by the ball. On course the results were similar, both very playable in all conditions.

 

Where did you split into the MBs?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hit hundreds of balls over the last 3 weeks with the sc and mb (and 919t). I ended up ordering the mp 18's in 7-pw, the sc in 5-6 and an mmc 4 iron (which gaps better to my 2 iron). i hit the mb's the most accurate and consistent actually but the sc's went a tad higher for me (like 3-5 feet) and I could definitely feel a difference vs the blade on slight mishits (maybe they lost 2 yards instead of 3 on the blade but again...i'm not sure). the sc feels thicker to me (feel at contact) and the sole is noticeably wider. the sc's are forgiving in my book but then again i'm used to blades and minimal players cavity type irons. i'm not sure why anyone who is halfway decent at striking the ball would need a more forgiving club than the sc's. at some point that stuff is just marketing garbage imo. perhaps the 919t are a little more forgiving on toe misses than the sc due to the weight distribution but I didn't notice much difference there as I found both clubs very forgiving.

Srixon z785 9.5* hzrudus black 75g 6.5
Callaway Rogue Sub Zero 15* hzrdus yellow 76g 6.5
P790 UDI 18* (all irons KBS tour 130x)
Mizuno MP18 (7-Pw), SC (5-6), MMC (4)
Vokey sm7 50*, sm6 55*, TVD-M 60*
1994 Scotty Cameron by Titleist Newport 35"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hit hundreds of balls over the last 3 weeks with the sc and mb (and 919t). I ended up ordering the mp 18's in 7-pw, the sc in 5-6 and an mmc 4 iron (which gaps better to my 2 iron). i hit the mb's the most accurate and consistent actually but the sc's went a tad higher for me (like 3-5 feet) and I could definitely feel a difference vs the blade on slight mishits (maybe they lost 2 yards instead of 3 on the blade but again...i'm not sure). the sc feels thicker to me (feel at contact) and the sole is noticeably wider. the sc's are forgiving in my book but then again i'm used to blades and minimal players cavity type irons. i'm not sure why anyone who is halfway decent at striking the ball would need a more forgiving club than the sc's. at some point that stuff is just marketing garbage imo. perhaps the 919t are a little more forgiving on toe misses than the sc due to the weight distribution but I didn't notice much difference there as I found both clubs very forgiving.

 

I tried all 3, albeit the 900s and not the 919s (February/March I did my testing) and found they were fairly evenly matched across the board.

 

I'm not hitting the middle 100% of the time by any stretch but the rounds I played on course showed that I was dropping a few shots with the MP18s. I mentioned in another thread that while they felt fantastic and gave consistent numbers, I felt as though I was maxing out all the time to get the same results. Maybe placebo effect given I've not played true blades for any length of time but just my feels.

 

Use the Fli-Hi 2 and 3 irons depending on the course and conditions as well, but happy with the performance of the 900s over the course of this season.

 

Always interested to know where and why people go with the combo set, same with the TM 770/750/630 range and Titleist CB/MBs.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

So I finally got my set and played a couple of rounds with them. First I will say that I am 100% satisfied. This set has vaulted to #1 all time favorite for me. I ended up going with:

 

3-6 SC

7-P mb

 

I switched from DG to KBS shafts, and I don't know if it's the shafts or the heads, but I'm getting close a full club more distance. (most likely the shafts) I've decided that in order for me to hit the SC's high, I really have to get after them. I'm not discerning any more forgiveness than the blades, so I wouldn't recommend them to anyone not comfortable playing blades. The blades are typical Mizuno, all feel and control, not friendly on a toe-side hit and forget about a toe shot going more than ten yards it seems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got fitted for Mizunos in the summer, and i didnt see a huge difference between the sc18 and the mp18. I ended up getting the mmc fli hi in the 4 and 5 iron(bent 1 degree weak) as the 4 and 5 in both sc and mp werent that forgiving.

 

I have 6 to pw in mp18s. I hit them great.

 

I dont know if that means the sc18s arent forgiving, or the the mp18s are more forgiving than other blades, if that makes sense?? I certainly didnt notice a huge difference, and in fact in 2 fittings i hit the MP18s better, hence wjy i went with them.

 

I came from CF16s.

 

How was that change? Currently using CF16's. I practice exclusively with an older set of blades. Figure if I can flush a blade in practice than playing with something bigger should be child's play.

 

Now if only driver's worked that way.

Driver: Ping G410 Plus w/Tensei Orange
3 Wood: Titleist TS2 w/HZRDUS Smoke
Hybrid: Titleist 718 H2 w/Atmos Blue TS 
Irons: Ping iBlade Nippon AWT 2.0 Stiff
Wedges: Callaway MD3 50, 54, and 58
Putter: Original Odyssey White Hot XG No. 7
Ball: Bridgestone XS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have MP-18 SCs and like them so far (only hit indoors at this point). I tried the 18 blades and they felt fantastic. But the SCs are very close in terms of feel while also providing a less intimidating profile -- cavity, slightly thicker sole, slightly thicker topline -- but still with the look at address of a player's club. I also seemed to get a little more pop out of the SCs compared to the blades, but of course neither is designed as a distance machine.

 

Re: those who are saying SCs are LESS forgiving than the blades ... put me down as skeptical.

TS3 1W Ventus Blue

TS2 3W 7W Ventus Blue

MP20 4-PW Modus3 120
SM8 50 54 58 Modus3 120
Scotty Flowback 5.5 | ProV1x
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...