Maltby Playability Factor

[QuigleyDU]

I have been looking at this some and I find the numbers confusion and a bit all over the place. Can someone that understands them well explain how they get to them? Here are a couple of examples. These cobra irons are all very very similar except the last that has tungsten in it. I would think that would make it more forgiving. Not less.

 

 

[Golfrnut]

The first rule of the MPF...ignore the MPF ratings.

[Golfrnut]

http://wishongolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Technical-Analysis-of-Maltby-Playability-Index.pdf

 

In the end, ratings are not really physics based even though they are built upon physical properties of the club head. There is "opinion" involved in what makes one head more playable than another, so the numbers are in effect, tainted by personal opinion.

[QuigleyDU]

> @Golfrnut said:

> http://wishongolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Technical-Analysis-of-Maltby-Playability-Index.pdf

>

> In the end, ratings are not really physics based even though they are built upon physical properties of the club head. There is "opinion" involved in what makes one head more playable than another, so the numbers are in effect, tainted by personal opinion.

 

so it is essentially worthless. Got it. Thanks. It seemed all over the place.

[Golfrnut]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @Golfrnut said:

> > http://wishongolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Technical-Analysis-of-Maltby-Playability-Index.pdf

> >

> > In the end, ratings are not really physics based even though they are built upon physical properties of the club head. There is "opinion" involved in what makes one head more playable than another, so the numbers are in effect, tainted by personal opinion.

>

> so it is essentially worthless. Got it. Thanks. It seemed all over the place.

 

VCOG, RCOG, head weights, MOI...all awesome. Great product on head specs ruined by one category IMO.

[dlygrisse]

Maltby loves him some C Dimension. Basically the sweetspot is farther from the hosel. If you pull that off you win. Nothing else really matters. There is some good info, but the ratings are flawed, highly, in many ways.

[QuigleyDU]

> @dlygrisse said:

> Maltby loves him some C Dimension. Basically the sweetspot is farther from the hosel. If you pull that off you win. Nothing else really matters. There is some good info, but the ratings are flawed, highly, in many ways.

 

ok, so now I am curious. As I am very interested in the current cobra iron. That is why I was looking in the first place. Wouldn't/shouldn't the Tungsten in the toe bring the sweet spot out towards the toe? The "C" dim in this is less than in previous irons.

[Golfrnut]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @dlygrisse said:

> > Maltby loves him some C Dimension. Basically the sweetspot is farther from the hosel. If you pull that off you win. Nothing else really matters. There is some good info, but the ratings are flawed, highly, in many ways.

>

> ok, so now I am curious. As I am very interested in the current cobra iron. That is why I was looking in the first place. Wouldn't/shouldn't the Tungsten in the toe bring the sweet spot out towards the toe? The "C" dim in this is less than in previous irons.

 

Tall hosel, short blade length would be my off the cuff guess.

[Cwebb]

The new dark finish head has a measured Actual Vertical COG (sweet-spot) at .883". That is too high for most players regardless of what the head looks like, because the center of a golf ball is .840"....and a pure strike requires that the COG of the head design arrives at or slightly below the center of the ball. Thus any head design that has an AVCOG (sweet-spot) that is higher than the center of a ball is more difficult to hit for most players, especially from tighter and normal fairway lies.

 

As an example, if you compare that .883" AVCOG with many of the most popular Mizuno blades, you will see a trend of a lower sweet-spot. MP-32: .750", MP-33: .718", MP-5: .789", JPX 919 Tour: .800"

[QuigleyDU]

> @Cwebb said:

> The new dark finish head has a measured Actual Vertical COG (sweet-spot) at .883". That is too high for most players regardless of what the head looks like, because the center of a golf ball is .840"....and a pure strike requires that the COG of the head design arrives at or slightly below the center of the ball. Thus any head design that has an AVCOG (sweet-spot) that is higher than the center of a ball is more difficult to hit for most players, especially from tighter and normal fairway lies.

>

> As an example, if you compare that .883" AVCOG with many of the most popular Mizuno blades, you will see a trend of a lower sweet-spot. MP-32: .750", MP-33: .718", MP-5: .789", JPX 919 Tour: .800"

 

Thank you.

[ChipNRun]

MPF is a good clearing house tool for helping a golfer determine what irons to try out. Several years ago when my golf day got rained out, I did a survey of all the iron models - 2 years old or less - from the major OEMs. I came up with 60+ models. Using the MFP as a guide, one could narrow down likely iron choices to maybe 10 or so that _fit your zone_ before you start test-hitting.

 

Yes, MPF puts a lot of emphasis on VCoG and AVCoG. Lower VCoG helps get the ball launched. @Cwebb 's point about the center of the golf ball being .840" is critical in understanding this.

 

Be aware that too low a VCoG likewise can cause problems, especially in wedges. In 2016, the Vokey SM6 wedges introduced the Progressive Center of Gravity design. PWs had lower COG to promote ball speed, SWs had mid COG for consistent distance gapping, and LWs had higher COG to prevent ballooning of shots. Hogan and other OEMs introduced variable COG at the same time.

 

Also note that Ralph Maltby himself acknowledges the limits of the MPF system. MPF only takes into account clubhead, not the shaft... and golfers may not notice much performance difference between irons within 100 MPF points of each other.

 

I have found the MPF useful in comparing different irons models by the same manufacturer. Back in 2009 I was switching out irons for the first time in 14 years. In the Callaway line, I was comparing the X20 Tours with new X22 Tours. I found the X22 irons, despite being newer, harder to hit than the X20 version. An MPF comparison helped explain: X20 Tours had MPF = 716, the X22 Tours MPF = 594. Callaway had pushed for a more "players" design with the X22 Tours, which meant the average golfer found them more difficult to launch.

[Cwebb]

> @ChipNRun said:

 

> Yes, MPF puts a lot of emphasis on VCoG and AVCoG. Lower VCoG helps get the ball launched. @Cwebb 's point about the center of the golf ball being .840" is critical in understanding this.

>

> Be aware that too low a VCoG likewise can cause problems, especially in wedges. In 2016, the Vokey SM6 wedges introduced the Progressive Center of Gravity design. PWs had lower COG to promote ball speed, SWs had mid COG for consistent distance gapping, and LWs had higher COG to prevent ballooning of shots. Hogan and other OEMs introduced variable COG at the same time.

>

> Also note that Ralph Maltby himself acknowledges the limits of the MPF system. MPF only takes into account clubhead, not the shaft... and golfers may not notice much performance difference between irons within 100 MPF points of each other.

>

> I have found the MPF useful in comparing different irons models by the same manufacturer. Back in 2009 I was switching out irons for the first time in 14 years. In the Callaway line, I was comparing the X20 Tours with new X22 Tours. I found the X22 irons, despite being newer, harder to hit than the X20 version. An MPF comparison helped explain: X20 Tours had MPF = 716, the X22 Tours MPF = 594. Callaway had pushed for a more "players" design with the X22 Tours, which meant the average golfer found them more difficult to launch.

 

The specific reason that that X20 Tours are easier to hit for most players, is that they have a lower AVCOG (sweet-spot) at .712" vs the X22 Tour at .818". As well as a higher MOI, but that is less significant than sweet-spot (COG) location in irons.

 

Now compare that to a design that has an even higher sweet-spot which is above the center of the ball, like the one mentioned above at .883" and we've got something that is very much harder to hit for most players.

 

It's always interesting to take a look back through history and see what the actual measurements are for blades that have been referenced as "not that hard to hit". All the way back to the most popular Hogans and Wilson Staffs from the 1960's and 70's. They almost always have an AVCOG that is well lower than .840"

 

[Cwebb]

> @QuigleyDU said:

 

> ok, so now I am curious. As I am very interested in the current cobra iron. That is why I was looking in the first place. Wouldn't/shouldn't the Tungsten in the toe bring the sweet spot out towards the toe? The "C" dim in this is less than in previous irons.

 

The issue is that just putting weight towards the toe, without factoring in every other detail that influences the COG location, is not precise, without actually measuring the head design to see what it did.

 

Characteristics such as....heel height, toe height, hosel mass, blade length, shape of muscle or cavity, etc

[QuigleyDU]

> @Cwebb said:

 

> > Yes, MPF puts a lot of emphasis on VCoG and AVCoG. Lower VCoG helps get the ball launched. @Cwebb 's point about the center of the golf ball being .840" is critical in understanding this.

> >

 

> It's always interesting to take a look back through history and see what the actual measurements are for blades that have been referenced as "not that hard to hit". All the way back to the most popular Hogans and Wilson Staffs from the 1960's and 70's. They almost always have an AVCOG that is well lower than .840"

>

 

to your point, here are some mizzy irons I found interesting. In two cases the "blade" has a higher score than the cavity back irons.

 

 

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

one more just for fun. I have to say, that this is opening my eyes a bit. Although it is probably much more of a rabbit hole that I wont ever get to the bottom of.

 

 

[firstbatch]

 

 

And then there is the ping i 500.....maltby categorizes it as almost unhittable. Lol

 

[sdandrea]

The MPF threads are one of the reasons I prefer to demo irons before I buy. ;)

[Cwebb]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> one more just for fun. I have to say, that this is opening my eyes a bit. Although it is probably much more of a rabbit hole that I wont ever get to the bottom of.

>

>

>

 

It's not a rabbit hole at all, if you take the time to understand what the most relevant measurements actually mean. The top three categories are AVCOG, C-dimension, and MOI. Then you can match those with what your personal tendencies are and how you might pick up some "help" with these details.

 

For example, if someone has an impact pattern and miss tendency that is towards the toe, then a design with a longer C-dimension would help... and a bonus being a higher MOI as well. C-dimension is the higher priority, because a higher MOI only helps to "resist twisting", it doesn't make up for a COG (sweet-spot) that is a wrong fit for the given player.

 

Another example, never choose a design that has a higher AVCOG (sweet-spot) if your tendency is to miss low on the face, you're generally a picker, or you want a design that easier to hit from tighter lies

[QuigleyDU]

what do the categories stand for? I get (from left to right)

 

head weight.

I don't know what C dim stands for but I understand that to be how far out on the toe the center of gravity is.

VCOG I think is vertical center of gravity.

MOI - Moment of Inertia

actual RCOG =??

VCOG adjust=??

Actual vs. Basic VCOG= ??

VCOG C.F. = ??

MOI C.F.=??

[sdandrea]

This thread makes my head hurt.........

[PostandGhost]

> @firstbatch said:

>

>

>

> And then there is the ping i 500.....maltby categorizes it as almost unhittable. Lol

>

 

I use to think the MPF ratings were poo poo until I hit the i500s. I remember thinking to myself "how could these not be easy to hit?" Were they forgiving... in a sense, but they never felt solid, no matter how centered my strike was. As it turns out, you needed to hit those things 4 grooves too high to get them to work. i500 forgiving, yes, playable, no.

[Cwebb]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> what do the categories stand for? I get (from left to right)

>

> head weight.

> I don't know what C dim stands for but I understand that to be how far out on the toe the center of gravity is.

> VCOG I think is vertical center of gravity.

> MOI - Moment of Inertia

> actual RCOG =??

> VCOG adjust=??

> Actual vs. Basic VCOG= ??

> VCOG C.F. = ??

> MOI C.F.=??

 

Unless you want to get into the formula and math that they use to calculate the final score in the MPF (it gets complicated), the only ones you really need to focus on are AVCOG, C-dimension, and MOI.

 

Actual Vertical COG is a combination of the basic and rearward COG's to arrive at the actual height of the COG (sweet-spot). C-dimension is the distance of the COG from the center of the hosel. MOI is it's resistance to twisting when struck away from the COG.

 

To make it really simple, if we have a sweet-spot (COG) that is "easier to find" on the face for the given player, then the head design will have a better chance of being "more playable". For most players, that is a sweet-spot below the center of the ball and further from the hosel (shank). Having to flirt with a shank in order to get pure contact, is not the best idea for most

[QuigleyDU]

> @Cwebb said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > what do the categories stand for? I get (from left to right)

> >

> > head weight.

> > I don't know what C dim stands for but I understand that to be how far out on the toe the center of gravity is.

> > VCOG I think is vertical center of gravity.

> > MOI - Moment of Inertia

> > actual RCOG =??

> > VCOG adjust=??

> > Actual vs. Basic VCOG= ??

> > VCOG C.F. = ??

> > MOI C.F.=??

>

> Unless you want to get into the formula and math that they use to calculate the final score in the MPF (it gets complicated), the only ones you really need to focus on are AVCOG, C-dimension, and MOI.

>

> Actual Vertical COG is a combination of the basic and rearward COG's to arrive at the actual height of the COG (sweet-spot). C-dimension is the distance of the COG from the center of the hosel. MOI is it's resistance to twisting when struck away from the COG.

>

> To make it really simple, if we have a sweet-spot (COG) that is "easier to find" on the face for the given player, then the head design will have a better chance of being "more playable". For most players, that is a sweet-spot below the center of the ball and further from the hosel (shank). Having to flirt with a shank in order to get pure contact, is not the best idea for most

 

Thank you.

 

[sshadow2]

> @Golfrnut said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @Golfrnut said:

> > > http://wishongolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Technical-Analysis-of-Maltby-Playability-Index.pdf

> > >

> > > In the end, ratings are not really physics based even though they are built upon physical properties of the club head. There is "opinion" involved in what makes one head more playable than another, so the numbers are in effect, tainted by personal opinion.

> >

> > so it is essentially worthless. Got it. Thanks. It seemed all over the place.

>

> VCOG, RCOG, head weights, MOI...all awesome. Great product on head specs ruined by one category IMO.

 

Completely agree with this.

[Cwebb]

> @From_Parts_Unknown said:

> I use to think the MPF ratings were poo poo until I hit the i500s. I remember thinking to myself "how could these not be easy to hit?" Were they forgiving... in a sense, but they never felt solid, no matter how centered my strike was. As it turns out, you needed to hit those things 4 grooves too high to get them to work. i500 forgiving, yes, playable, no.

 

Good point. We can have the highest MOI possible, but if the sweet-spot (COG) is in a location that is difficult to find, then the design is more difficult to hit pure.

 

Sweet-spot location is much more important than MOI, in iron design. This is why some "average" players have found certain blade designs to be easier to hit vs some larger cavity backs

[coreyhr]

Bookmarked this thread even though it's a terrible idea for me to do so.

 

Following my next poor ball striking day with my irons...

 

[Noodler]

When it comes to MPF, it's important to understand what aspects in a head design you need for your best fit. Maltby values the C-Dimension most highly in his formula, but a longer blade length may not benefit your swing. For example, during my recent fitting, the pro pointed out that my typical miss was low on the club face (by a couple grooves), but usually with centered contact. Although you might think heads with a lower VCOG would suit my thin miss, in actuality, a lower VCOG also exacerbates my high flight and high spin for my good hits. So he recommended sticking with heads that helped lower my launch and spin (lower VCOG) rather than pick a head that helps with the occasional thin miss. So instead of heading in the GI/SGI direction, I got much better ball flight from player CB type designs.

[QuigleyDU]

> @coreyhr said:

> Bookmarked this thread even though it's a terrible idea for me to do so.

>

> Following my next poor ball striking day with my irons...

>

>

 

Why is it terrible? Are you worried about information overload?

[coreyhr]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @coreyhr said:

> > Bookmarked this thread even though it's a terrible idea for me to do so.

> >

> > Following my next poor ball striking day with my irons...

> >

> >

>

> Why is it terrible? Are you worried about information overload?

 

Haha yep, grass is always greener. "That .06 difference of VCOG in those P790's might just be the ticket for me never to hit another poor iron shot."

[coreyhr]

In all seriousness, I've been thinking about building a Maltby TS1 6 or 7 iron to mess around with. They're highly thought of it seems. Seeing the difference of the VCOG between those and my Z745's is interesting. Would just like compare ball flight and contact with that lower VCOG.