Jump to content

Newest Maltby ratings.


Recommended Posts

I was on the Golfworks website and I went to the Maltby ratings and the new 2019 club ratings are up. I know many don't care but for those who do I thought I would post them.

Callaway: Big Bertha CF 19 924, Apex Forged 476, Apex Forged Pro 460

Cleveland: Launcher HB 789, CBX 706

Cobra: F9 887, King Forged Tec 495, King Forged MB 262

Mizuno: JPX 919 Hot Metal 754, JPX 919 Hot Metal Pro 660, JPX 919 Forged 619, JPX Forged Tour 433

Ping G410 738

Srixon: Z585 504, Z785 402, Z Forged 350

Taylor Made: M5 687, M6 806, P760 432

Tommy Armour Atomic 794

Wilson D7 517

 

Ping 9.5 K15 with Serrano R
Ping K15 3 Wood Stock R
Ping G15 20 Stock R
Ping G15 4-UW AWT R
Ping Tour S 56 KBS Tour S
Ping Anser 2 Karsten 1959

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

MPF final score isn't a measure of forgiveness, it's a measure of how close that club is to the design principles Ralph Maltby prefers. Those being a low CG that's farther from the hosel.   If you

> @gvogel said: > PIng iE 6-iron - 556; Ping i200 - 474; Ping i210 - 338. Definite trend going on there. > Also, PIng i500 - 188. Almost unplayable by most?   Im not going to get into th

I love the ratings and use them to look for the sticks that will be closest in forgiveness to my current X-22 tour irons.  

I 'm not sure these numbers work equally well across all club brands/designs, perhaps they are not made to be universally applied. If I get to make the rules to evaluate clubs, I will choose the metrics that make **me** look the best, and the rest of in the industry can do their own research. :smiley:

 

For example, I play the Apex '16 combo set, the "easier to hit" CF 16 rates a 349(!) while the "harder to hit" Pro rates 405. I find the Apex clubs no more difficult to hit than what I replaced, Ping G10 with an MPF of 805.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> @"Stuart G." said:

> No reason to go into it here, but if you want to do a search, there are lots of threads on the "accuracy" of the MPF ratings.

 

And, isn't it Cwebb who always has to set 'em straight?

Knowledge of the Rules is part of the applied skill set which a player must use to play a round of competitive golf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the ratings and use them to look for the sticks that will be closest in forgiveness to my current X-22 tour irons.

 

  • Like 1

TaylorMade SLDR 460 12*+1* stock stiff
Tour Exotics XCG 15*; Mizzuno 19* MP-650
Callaway X-20 Tour 4 - PW; PX 6.0 shafts
Titleist Vokey SM 52*, 56*, 60*
Odyssey Teron, 35" Super Stroke 3.0
https://www.gamegolf.com/player/KevinR22

Link to post
Share on other sites

MPF final score isn't a measure of forgiveness, it's a measure of how close that club is to the design principles Ralph Maltby prefers. Those being a low CG that's farther from the hosel.

 

If you see a club with a high CG, it will usually have a lower than you'd expect final score. That's the reason for the lower score of the C300 Forged mentioned in this thread, its CG is .910", which is a fair bit higher than the center of a golfball.

  • Like 2

The Ever Changing Bag!  A lot of mixing and matching
Driver: TM Original One 11.5* set to 10*, Aldila RIP Alpha 80 X, 43.5"
3w:  Cobra King LTD, Matrix 8m3 X, 42"
Hybrid:  TaylorMade Stage 2 Tour, NV105 S or DGS400

Irons grab bag:  3-PW Mizuno MP37, Recoil Proto 125 F4 (reshaft pending); 1-PW Golden Ram TW282 or Vibration Matched Golden Rams, RIP Tour 115 R (coin flipping for the reshaft project); 1i & 3-PW Golden Ram TW276, NV105 S
Wedges:  Dynacraft Dual Millled 52*, DGS400; Scratch 8620 DD 53*, SteelFiber i125 S; Ram Watson Scoring System 55*, DGX 7i shaft; Ram TG-898, DGS400; Ram TG-898, NV105 S; Wilson Staff PMP 58*, DGS300; Ram 1982 Commemorative Nickel 58*, Dynamic S; Ram TW282, DGS; Ram TW276, DGS; Ram Troon Grind 58*, Dynamic S; Maltby Design 60* mid sole, DGS400; Maltby Design 60* mid sole, NV105 S
Putter:  Snake Eyes Viper Tour Sv1, 34"
Balls: Wilson Staff Duo Professional or TaylorMade TP5

Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd be nice to see the equation used. It lists all the different variables but it seems to place a lot of weight on CG placement, both vertically and horizontally. I wouldn't pay too much mind to the final number, but the individual parameters such as MOI and CG location. MOI is seems to have surprisingly less impact on his ratings as that's what would quantify the club head's ability to resist twisting on off-center hits aka "forgiveness"

Link to post
Share on other sites

> @gvogel said:

> PIng iE 6-iron - 556; Ping i200 - 474; Ping i210 - 338. Definite trend going on there.

> Also, PIng i500 - 188. Almost unplayable by most?

 

 

Look at the vertical CG. In each case, it's getting higher and higher, above the golf ball centerline, that's why the scores are lower and lower.

 

If you can get that relatively high CG on the ball, they won't be a problem to play. The MOI of each is high enough for those who want or need it.

  • Like 1

The Ever Changing Bag!  A lot of mixing and matching
Driver: TM Original One 11.5* set to 10*, Aldila RIP Alpha 80 X, 43.5"
3w:  Cobra King LTD, Matrix 8m3 X, 42"
Hybrid:  TaylorMade Stage 2 Tour, NV105 S or DGS400

Irons grab bag:  3-PW Mizuno MP37, Recoil Proto 125 F4 (reshaft pending); 1-PW Golden Ram TW282 or Vibration Matched Golden Rams, RIP Tour 115 R (coin flipping for the reshaft project); 1i & 3-PW Golden Ram TW276, NV105 S
Wedges:  Dynacraft Dual Millled 52*, DGS400; Scratch 8620 DD 53*, SteelFiber i125 S; Ram Watson Scoring System 55*, DGX 7i shaft; Ram TG-898, DGS400; Ram TG-898, NV105 S; Wilson Staff PMP 58*, DGS300; Ram 1982 Commemorative Nickel 58*, Dynamic S; Ram TW282, DGS; Ram TW276, DGS; Ram Troon Grind 58*, Dynamic S; Maltby Design 60* mid sole, DGS400; Maltby Design 60* mid sole, NV105 S
Putter:  Snake Eyes Viper Tour Sv1, 34"
Balls: Wilson Staff Duo Professional or TaylorMade TP5

Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense to me that as ball speed off the iron increases you have two things you can do to keep the ball flight from getting too high. You can decrease loft or you can move the CG higher. There's only so low you can go with lofts (and I'd argue we've already reached that point). That makes raising the vertical CG the easiest way to control the ball flight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> @BrianMcG said:

> > @"nohny noke" said:

> > Can Maltby's MOI measurements be trusted? There is a standard way of measuring this, right?

>

> Yes.

 

Thanks for the video. As an avid hybrid player, I wish he'd update his measurements for clubs that commonly replace long irons. I know that MOI is just one part of the forgiveness equation, but I'd love to know if the 'easier to hit' clubs are actually higher in resistance to twisting on off-center hits than their iron counterparts.

 

And I guess, whilst I'm in the weeds, my question is - what factor of increased MOI would it take for an average golfer to notice a change in ball flight? For example - I'm currently playing Wishon 870ti's with an MOI of 16.29 g/cm2. Would I, as a slightly above average golfer notice a difference in flight 'correction' due to the increased MOI of say, JPX EZ's with 18.85830 g/cm2?

Link to post
Share on other sites

> @"nohny noke" said:

> Thanks for the video. As an avid hybrid player, I wish he'd update his measurements for clubs that commonly replace long irons. I know that MOI is just one part of the forgiveness equation, but I'd love to know if the 'easier to hit' clubs are actually higher in resistance to twisting on off-center hits than their iron counterparts.

>

> And I guess, whilst I'm in the weeds, my question is - what factor of increased MOI would it take for an average golfer to notice a change in ball flight? For example - I'm currently playing Wishon 870ti's with an MOI of 16.29 g/cm2. Would I, as a slightly above average golfer notice a difference in flight 'correction' due to the increased MOI of say, JPX EZ's with 18.85830 g/cm2?

 

Yes, they are typically going to be higher but unfortunately, figuring out how that translates to ball flight differences isn't as simple as just comparing MOI numbers. In the question of hybrids vs irons for off center hits, you also have to consider the bulge of the face and gear effect for hybrids - neither of which you will have for irons. So the average golfer would likely see and notice different ball flights even if the MOI was the same. And that's just respect to directional differences, distance differences is a completely different topic with many other considerations as well.

 

So the only way each player is really going to figure out how much of a difference it makes for them - is to get some foot powder spray and go hit a bunch of balls with each and see how the ball flight actually changes for them for the various hits.

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

> @NRJyzr said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > PIng iE 6-iron - 556; Ping i200 - 474; Ping i210 - 338. Definite trend going on there.

> > Also, PIng i500 - 188. Almost unplayable by most?

>

>

> Look at the vertical CG. In each case, it's getting higher and higher, above the golf ball centerline, that's why the scores are lower and lower.

>

> If you can get that relatively high CG on the ball, they won't be a problem to play. The MOI of each is high enough for those who want or need it.

 

Agree 100%, a lower CG is key in my opinion, with a high MOI.

Randy

Link to post
Share on other sites

> @"NoFancyUsername." said:

> I find some of his ratings strange. eg: the FG100 blade is at 419, yet the C300 forged CB is at 269.

> Having hit the C300's, there is no way it is a harder club to hit than the blade.

 

FG Tour 100 are incredible, very easy to hit

Taylormade M6
Callaway Steelhead XR 4+
Mizuno MP-18 mb 4-PW
Titliest SM7 50f, 54s, 58d
SC Phantom X 5.5

Link to post
Share on other sites

> @LaymanM said:

> > @"NoFancyUsername." said:

> > I find some of his ratings strange. eg: the FG100 blade is at 419, yet the C300 forged CB is at 269.

> > Having hit the C300's, there is no way it is a harder club to hit than the blade.

>

> FG Tour 100 are incredible, very easy to hit

 

Absolutely, my gamers are the 100's. I have the the C300s at my disposal and no way are they harder to hit than the 100s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience with his ratings they are a guide that he developed to assist the player looking for more forgiveness. Most golfers hit the ball lower than they would like and slice. If you look at the the progression of Ping irons thru the years they were designed to help those two issues. Most golfers miss towards the toe so moving the cg there also helps. Maltby has tried to quantify this. I have bought many sets based on his tables and for the most part they are true to his numbers. For me if the distance from the heel to the cg is much different than what I own the clubs will not feel as good to me. What I am now struggling with is turf interaction as I am a digger and as I have aged my hands and wrists are more vulnerable to injury from this. His factors do not address this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> @gvogel said:

> PIng iE 6-iron - 556; Ping i200 - 474; Ping i210 - 338. Definite trend going on there.

> Also, PIng i500 - 188. Almost unplayable by most?

 

Im not going to get into the whole mpf rating argument because frankly, im not educated enough in the complex measurements maltby performs on the heads. And two, out of the hundreds of irons mpf ratings, ive hit maybe only 15-20 different irons therefore i cant pass my judgement. So my lack of experience automatically disqualifies me to determine whether or not the ratings are true to its numbers.

 

BUT, i can tell you one thing is for sure. Ive played/hit just about every single Ping iron since 2012, and the CG numbers of the Ping irons are so accurately indicative of its ease of play, that i now always look at the mpf ratings when im curious about a club. It is the most important number for me (not the final mpf rating).

  • Like 2
TS3/785/SM7/Juno
Link to post
Share on other sites

> @nfmoto said:

> Maltby's measurements MOI, CoG, are accurate. His ratings are absolutely worthless nonsense.

 

This. The specific measurements are worth checking out. The MPF rating seems like some random mess he just made up without much thought. IMO he greatly overvalues cg location and badly undervalues MOI.

 

Also a big factor in iron playability is the sole grind which he doesn't address.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

> @ex0dus said:

> > @nfmoto said:

> > Maltby's measurements MOI, CoG, are accurate. His ratings are absolutely worthless nonsense.

>

> This. The specific measurements are worth checking out. The MPF rating seems like some random mess he just made up without much thought. IMO he greatly overvalues cg location and badly undervalues MOI.

>

> Also a big factor in iron playability is the sole grind which he doesn't address.

 

Can you elaborate? For the ignorant like myself, why do you think MOI is a lot more important than the value he ascribes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

> @chigolfer1 said:

> > @ex0dus said:

> > > @nfmoto said:

> > > Maltby's measurements MOI, CoG, are accurate. His ratings are absolutely worthless nonsense.

> >

> > This. The specific measurements are worth checking out. The MPF rating seems like some random mess he just made up without much thought. IMO he greatly overvalues cg location and badly undervalues MOI.

> >

> > Also a big factor in iron playability is the sole grind which he doesn't address.

>

> Can you elaborate? For the ignorant like myself, why do you think MOI is a lot more important than the value he ascribes?

 

IMO vertical MOI isn't all that important for irons except that it tends to place the vertical CG in undesirable places for most golfers. Horizontal MOI provides left-right forgiveness which is worth considering if you tend to miss a lot either heel or toe. Vertical CG is important to consider if you play firm turf and hardpan. A high vertical CG frequently seen in high MOI (vertical) irons can be difficult to hit solidly off firmer surfaces. At the very least you will tend to launch low unless you are a high CHS player. Hope this is helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> @ex0dus said:

> > @nfmoto said:

> > Maltby's measurements MOI, CoG, are accurate. His ratings are absolutely worthless nonsense.

>

> This. The specific measurements are worth checking out. The MPF rating seems like some random mess he just made up without much thought. IMO he greatly overvalues cg location and badly undervalues MOI.

>

> Also a big factor in iron playability is the sole grind which he doesn't address.

 

Disagree, his mpf works for his club design. If you have ever hit his mmb-17 you'd get it. It's not the end all be all, because occasionally there are some very playable designs that dont score well. But for most part, its pretty solid

Taylormade M6
Callaway Steelhead XR 4+
Mizuno MP-18 mb 4-PW
Titliest SM7 50f, 54s, 58d
SC Phantom X 5.5

Link to post
Share on other sites

> @chigolfer1 said:

> > @ex0dus said:

> > > @nfmoto said:

> > > Maltby's measurements MOI, CoG, are accurate. His ratings are absolutely worthless nonsense.

> >

> > This. The specific measurements are worth checking out. The MPF rating seems like some random mess he just made up without much thought. IMO he greatly overvalues cg location and badly undervalues MOI.

> >

> > Also a big factor in iron playability is the sole grind which he doesn't address.

>

> Can you elaborate? For the ignorant like myself, why do you think MOI is a lot more important than the value he ascribes?

 

Check out the Ping i500. I've never hit it but a 188 MPF rating?

 

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

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...