Is the MPF any help?

[yannechyba]

This "playability" factor has me confused

Perhaps I have grown so used to my old sticks that I dont care about how "forgiving" or "playable" they are. Having wrist problems for quite some time now have pushed me to "wanting" to find something a bit more forgiving than my Mizuno MX23's, and after following a friends advice into the golfworks site and there, in the MPF (Maltby Playability Factor) list I discovered than my MX23's are much less "friendlier" than other seemingly "hard-to-hit" items such as Tour versions from Ping or Callaway.

According to the MPF (playability factor by Maltby), the s58's (778) are WAY more forgiving than the X20 Tour (716), Cleveland C4's (707), TM R7's (632)... and to my big surprise, my MIZ MX23 (463), which I considered to be quite forgiving. I have yet do fully understand what this MPF has to do with the real effect on MY game, but if anyone here can shed some light on the subject..


THANKS!

[hobbygolfer]

Tom Wishon wrote a long story about the MPF and it's systemical deficits. It's a fact, that there are some interesting aspects to it, but to me first of all the MPF is a marketing tool. Maltby designs his clubheads to perform as good as possible in the MPF-testing. Others do have different approaches to clubhead design that sometimes sacrifice the rules of MPF while still being extremly forgiving and playable. MPF is not the end of all rating system.

 

Regards,

Michael

[Solutions Etcetera]

Ditto above. It can be a useful guide for some designs, but there is a fair bit Maltby does not consider so YMMV.

 

If you want more info do a search on Maltby and MPF as there is much here that has been previously discussed/debated.

[tomg1969]

I agree with the previous posters, but what pretty curious about the S58's that you mention. I began the season playing G5's, and had switched to I5's when I decided that I had to see for myself. I bought a set of used S58's and they are without a doubt, now my gamers.

They are as forgiving as the I5's and more accurate. Pretty amazing. I don't know what this says about the MPF, but it is certainly a pretty impressive job by Ping! :good:

[stevestrike]

Having wrist problems for quite some time now have pushed me to "wanting" to find something a bit more forgiving than my Mizuno MX23's, and after following a friends advice into the golfworks site and there, in the MPF (Maltby Playability Factor) list I discovered than my MX23's are much less "friendlier" than other seemingly "hard-to-hit" items such as Tour versions from Ping or Callaway.

Without getting into the merits of the MPF, which I happen to like, but many on this site do not, I will say that I've been very outspoken here about the fact that the Mizuno MX-23s are NOT forgiving or very good as GI clubs.

 

Are they nice? Yes.

 

Do they feel and look great? Yes

 

Are they "forgiving"? No!

 

Use the MPF as a starting point in your research, but not as a definitive guide. The final answer must be determined by how you hit the club. Also, if you are having wrist problems, you might want to look into graphite shafts, which should absorb more of the shock, and allow you to play comfortably for longer.

[wildwilly911]

mpf is a bit off compare GW heads and snake eye heads, the same heads are a couple hundred point different, now hold the two heads side by side and there identical. the system is a bit scewed

[rms1959]

From my personal experience, I think there is some merit the the MPF scale. Early this year I purchased a set of Ping I3 Plus Blades. I've always wanted some Pings so I did some research, found a new set and pulled the trigger. At the time I didn't know what the MPF was. After a few rounds struggling to make contact I emailed Mr. Ralph Maltaby to get the MPF. He came back with 523 (I think but close). I didn't have trouble hitting the short irons but the long and middle irons were tough. A couple of months ago I came across a set of Cleveland Launcher LP irons. They are much higher on the scale, 881. I'm here to tell you the Clevelands are far superior. Easier to hit, longer and more accurate. I know the I3 are a older design but just looking a the ease-of-use factor, IMO it's something to consider. Hope this helps. Good luck.

[TerpGOLF]

I think there is definitely merit to MPF. It shows Callaway as the most forgiving irons out there, which is my experience. You would think if Maltby wanted to rig a test that would put his gear in the best light he would figure out a way to exclude the big guys.

 

Also I agree that the MX-23s are not all that forgiving; this from a guy who has played them the last 2 years.

[yannechyba]

As another poster already contributed in this thread, I also had a chance to try for myself a set of s58's, and...they are absolutely not harder to hit than my MX23's. Pretty much the opposite. I guess is one more of those cases where you and a certain club model just "click" and they just work fine for you. I thought they would be no contest against the R7's, and much to my surprise, the Ping's play easier, feel nicer, and hit longer for me. I must stress out the fact that I just play 6-9 irons, the rest is hybrids and wedges now.

 

The poster that states "Mx23's are not forgiving" is quite close to my actual perception. They may be more forgiving than any other club in their MP lineup, but when the MP60's came out, I tried them and found out they were actually easier to play for me! I have heard also quite a few golfers in my HDCP (12) saying that they play better with the S58's than I5's, too...

 

Has any of you guys played with the Cally X20 tours? Do they compare?

[yannechyba]

mpf is a bit off compare GW heads and snake eye heads, the same heads are a couple hundred point different, now hold the two heads side by side and there identical. the system is a bit scewed

 

I was thinking the same, but then I remembered the many "clone" heads around...I even played clones when I started playing golf, and believe me: they may "look" identical, but man....play them and you'll see and feel the HUGE difference...