Newest Maltby ratings.

[LaymanM]

> @ex0dus said:

> > @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

 

See my post above i500 is one of those playable sets that doesnt score well. Hollow iron with hot face. I500 is easy to hit just doesnt follow Maltby theory on club design so it doesnt work. I think it doesnt account for how hot the face is and that's why it scores low.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @ex0dus said:

> > @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

 

The vertical CG is 0.94". Mid-point of a golf ball is 0.84". That is why the i500 has such a low rating.

[ex0dus]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

 

 

> The vertical CG is 0.94". Mid-point of a golf ball is 0.84". That is why the i500 has such a low rating.

 

I know. This is an example of why i think he overvalues cg location and undervalues MOI in his MPF ratings. The MOI on this club is over 15, but it scores lower than most blades.

 

On these hollow irons the cg is pulled farther rearward which increases launch angle. I don't know but i suspect that they are putting the cg location higher to lower the launch angle and increase spin.

 

Just look at Pings s58 (from 2006) compared to the Iblade. The S58 has a MPF of 778 vs 430 for the Iblade. Is the S58 really that much easier to hit than the Iblade, which has a much higher MOI?

 

The Titleist 718 mb actually has a higher MOI than the S58, yet somehow the S58 is a "super game improvement" iron according to MPF.

[Z1ggy16]

I pretty much only look at C dim and VCOG. I really wish he'd add another column instead of C dim or in addition to it which is the ratio of CDIM to the total blade length. Obviously large GI clubs will have a higher CDIM because it's a longer head, but that doesn't mean that the sweet spot is in the center still. Ideally, we'd want the sweet spot as close to physical center as possible, not really the biggest CDIM.

 

Also, VCOG being lower is probably best for guys who aren't top notch iron strikers. I get why pro's might want it a little bit higher but it does make launching the ball tougher and overall forgiveness a bit lower for Average Joe.

[pjc]

> @LaymanM said:

> > @ex0dus said:

> > > @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

>

> See my post above i500 is one of those playable sets that doesnt score well. Hollow iron with hot face. I500 is easy to hit just doesnt follow Maltby theory on club design so it doesnt work. I think it doesnt account for how hot the face is and that's why it scores low.

 

No, the reason why it scores so low is because of the very high vertical COG measurement. Depending on how one comes into the ball and strikes it, it can be very detrimental to some. Also, the type of turf that one plays from, hard lies, soft lies etc. Off the tee it probably won't matter as much, but like the engineers at the Golfworks say, you can't judge by the way an iron looks or seems to be. The measurements absolutely mean something, they just might not relate to everybody.

[chigolfer1]

Great discussion. Very informative.

[NRJyzr]

> @LaymanM said:

> > @ex0dus said:

> > > @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

>

> See my post above i500 is one of those playable sets that doesnt score well. Hollow iron with hot face. I500 is easy to hit just doesnt follow Maltby theory on club design so it doesnt work. I think it doesnt account for how hot the face is and that's why it scores low.

 

It's the CG that makes it score so low, a full tenth of an inch above the midpoint of the golfball. That and possibly a C Dimension that's lower than Mr Maltby prefers.

[mukster]

I usually look sympathetically at the Maltby ratings for my irons when I’m going through a slump, but then look at them like a boss when I’m swinging well :smile:

[ThinkingPlus]

> @ex0dus said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

>

>

> > The vertical CG is 0.94". Mid-point of a golf ball is 0.84". That is why the i500 has such a low rating.

>

> I know. This is an example of why i think he overvalues cg location and undervalues MOI in his MPF ratings. The MOI on this club is over 15, but it scores lower than most blades.

>

> On these hollow irons the cg is pulled farther rearward which increases launch angle. I don't know but i suspect that they are putting the cg location higher to lower the launch angle and increase spin.

>

> Just look at Pings s58 (from 2006) compared to the Iblade. The S58 has a MPF of 778 vs 430 for the Iblade. Is the S58 really that much easier to hit than the Iblade, which has a much higher MOI?

>

> The Titleist 718 mb actually has a higher MOI than the S58, yet somehow the S58 is a "super game improvement" iron according to MPF.

 

Vertical gear effect doesn't do much for irons. There is not enough lever arm.

[lordemsworth]

I also think something changed with the way he measures around 2010/2011 which makes it really hard to compare irons before that era.

I’m sure if the S58s were measured today, they would have a value closer to the iblades and appropriate categorization.

[BlackM00Nlight]

Yep. MOI and Vcog are what I look for. Category ratings are skewed for his personal preference. Individual numbers are accurate but overall number has its flaws.

[ode1]

> @munichop said:

> 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.

 

Have you tried the Maltby STi? Amazing forgiveness and the leading edge has plenty of relief.

[ex0dus]

> @lordemsworth said:

> I also think something changed with the way he measures around 2010/2011 which makes it really hard to compare irons before that era.

> I’m sure if the S58s were measured today, they would have a value closer to the iblades and appropriate categorization.

 

I am not sure his measurements have changed. Check out his TS1 irons:

 

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

 

They also have a MOI lower than the 718 mb but they have a MPF 711.

[DFinch]

> @chigolfer1 said:

> Reinforces the thought that my 2006 TM R7s were/are just really nice, solid clubs with a low COG. Maybe I should just stick with them and save some cash?

 

My 53 year old legit scratch golfer playing partner still plays them, and they are in my top 3 irons of all time with the Macgregor 1025M and Maltby TS-2.

 

[Clafoone]

the method MPF is measured has not changed over the years. Only difference I've seen is the utilization of 5 Irons prior to 2010/2011 and 6 Irons thereafter. Looking at the first 30 club ratings for 2018, Maltby only holds 3 spots. The remainder are pretty well spread out among other manufacturers. Looking back over the past 3 years, you could hardly say Roger Maltby is biased towards his own line. Even if he was, why wouldn't one build a club to a particular set of spec's that you believe in? I myself don't want my COG above the centerline of a golf ball!

[ChaosTheory]

Ralph Maltby

Roger Maltbie

 

Easy to mix up.

[Clafoone]

Yeah, I had a brain cramp!