Maltby Te forged - question

[Tommyj]

You can also read through the questions on the Golfworks website for each iron head. Answers are provided by JimY who answers all the online questions. He describes the PTM as being "as forgiving as the G700", but this is probably based entirely on the MPF number. He says in the same answer that PTM and TE are about equal in forgiveness.

Honestly, I can't imagine how either TE or PTM can be even close to G700 in forgiveness in actual on course play. As many have said here, you really can't read too much into the MPF numbers.

[Tommyj]

[Marco Colo]

Frankly I believe wouldn’t mind playing the i210, but if the TE/DBM are in the same category and not too much punishing with toe strikes, they look too good not to go with those.

Moreover the fact that are one forged piece and the consistent good feedback on the quality, sold me.

I have played G400 and G410 for the last two years, out of the 3 of my golfing life. Nothing bad to day and somehow I love them, but don’t ask why I hit the new level 610 much more consistently and the forged feel got me.

When I hit bad, no club is gonna save me, but when I hit good I feel more rewarded and dispersion is tighter.

 

[BogeyParBogey]

I have not hit the i210 in full disclosure, but based off MPF measurements, forum user statements, etc... it appears the design goals are different:

Ping:

Design goal is high MOI for the size

COG is fairly high per measurements

Maltby:

Design goal is to provide minimum COG and sweet spot centered heel to toe

MOI is fairly low per measurements

I've used the TE forged. I usually shoot low 90, a good round is under 90, and a bad round is more than 95. I'm distance challenged and was having some difficulty getting enough distance out of the Maltbys. I think they are really nice if they suit your game.

I'm using my old standbys the G15s this year. Last I used 716 AP2s mostly. I don't find iron selection seems to affect my scores that much.

Dave

[CyFan]

TE/DMB will be similar to i210/i200 in size, although the Maltbys will have less offset in the long irons. Should be similar in forgiveness, although the MPF numbers will say the Maltbys are more forgiving.

 

I’ve found the MPF numbers to be helpful when comparing two similar irons, but not as a raw number. For example, the MPF number of a thin soled blade really isn’t apples to apples compared to a wide soled cavity back.

[Marco Colo]

Dave we are in the same place. High 90 bad round, high 80 a very good one.

I also don’t have much difference when changing clubs, it’s more if I am in a good swing or bad swing day.

And we talk about G410 reg shaft and normal grips vs s55 midsize grips and ctaper 120 stiff!

i tend to believe that although I am a slow swing guy, 75/78 mph with 7i, the stiff shaft better suits my swing

[ThorntonMelon]

It's funny, this thread is great because it combines a lot of different issues all in one.

I started reading it because I'm a picker who usually doesn't take a big divot that is a low spin low ball player, but love the feeling of flushing a hollow body club. Obviously you can't get everything you want, but the idea of a lower cg club with more toe forgiveness is interesting.

At 35* for a 7 iron, that's basically a 8 iron in most sets, so I do wonder if loft for loft there actually is a difference.

[IamMarkMac]

I desperately wanted to like Maltby iron heads (DBM is what I had). For whatever reason, the irons simply didn't have enough "pop" as well as not having the feel of strike I wanted.

[Awalkspoiled]

They are smooth, relatively forgiving compared with other midsize forgings, especially if your miss is thin, and can be bent at least 4° for lie and loft. That's the secret, too, if you're not a sweeper. bend them 1-2° weak which gives you a little more bounce and activates the relatively wide sole. I've played the M-05 and the MTF and built maybe 50 sets for various guys. Not all of them are still in play but most of them get back in the bag once in a while when the latest and greatest turns sour. Really classic clubs.

[Marco Colo]

True. That’s my bad. I have started with the original question and then evolved in what it is now.

I am confident that the they are what I need. Classic look, forged and great design, thinnish sole, forgiving with low toe strikes, which is my usual miss.

[MountainGoat]

Club makers trained in the Maltby tradition believe that toe strikes are a fitting problem and reflect a club that's been built too long and too light. Just keep that in mind when selecting shafts.

 

[Marco Colo]

That’ a great advice thanks indeed!

Then it comes to my next problem, which is the shaft suited to me. Unfortunately in Baku there are no golf shops and the shafts available at the academy center are limited. Anyhow I will work with my pga coach to find the most suitable.

Not sure if the matter with the awt 2.0 is the weight or the stiffness, or maybe they were good, but the club didn’t suit my game.

In the weekend I have played with my New Level 610 with Dynamic Gold S300 and I really like it, maybe the flight was a bit lower than my liking, but especially when not hit very good.

Many variables, but a true fitting is out of my current options.

[MountainGoat]

The TE Forged is a traditionally lofted, traditionally weighted head. IMHO, I think it's happiest with a traditionally weighted TTDG shaft of the appropriate flex for your swing speed. Alternated choice would be AMT White, although your dislike of the AWT2.0 suggests that the new progressive mass shafts might not be the way to go. If you liked the S300 in another club, than that's a good choice for the TE. I would not go with anything that's ultra-light in an attempt to pick up distance by increasing club length.

[Marco Colo]

Copy that. Really appreciate the recommendation

[NRJyzr]

Traditional LoftsI'm not trying to pick on anyone here, or otherwise, but I wish people would stop referencing traditional lofts. When you get right down to it, it's a concept that has no real meaning. Lofts have continued to change throughout the steel shaft era, slowly getting stronger in order to entice new club purchases.

On top of that, the answer is dependent on your audience. For those in their 30s and younger, it's likely to mean 27/47 for 5i/PW. For those in their 50s, it's 30/50 or weaker. For hickory players, your 32* club is probably a 4 iron.

/end soapbox

[MountainGoat]

In true WRX tradition, I have once again been chastised for trying to be helpful. Honestly, I wonder why I bother to log in.

[Marco Colo]

Please don't. Your intervention was very helpful and provided very good added value to the conversation. The other guy's comment, not to be perceived as offensive, was just the result of a bad day, probably.

Frankly, although I'm pretty new in golf, I understand where you are coming from. When I got my G400, 30* for a 7i was considered strong side lofted. Today, it is the norm for GI irons at least and OEMs are pushing the boundaries to lower loft (27* and yesterday I saw a video of a 26*). Pretty sure technology and other stuff need the loft to become stronger, due to the launch/descending angle etc., but still.

[MountainGoat]

In the post above, I pointed out the the TE Forged is essentially an old-school club patterned after the original early 90s Hogan Edge. I remember the Edge to be the first forged cavity back iron. I ran across this picture of the Edge and it's specs. I think you'll see the similarities:

[Marco Colo]

Yep. They also remind me the miura 301 somehow. But Maltbys look better then the Hogan’s

[ode1]

I had not considered that re: the TE's, bending (weak to add bounce). The concern would be that the ball flight was already a tad high for me (compared to other similar lofted heads), hmmmmm. Something to think about anyways!

[Sparky14]

While you are on-point about lofts, the OP asked to compare the TE to the modern clubs. You can't compare TE to P790 without noting the loft and length difference.

[NRJyzr]

I don't disagree with that. @MountainGoat, I'm sorry if I offended you. I wasn't disagreeing with you, or the points you made. If I did disagree, I would have fully quoted your post and gone from there. The "I'm not trying to pick on anyone here" is not passive aggressive BS, it's meant sincerely.
I'm only attempting to make a tangential comment, nothing more.
I'm sorry if I've harshed your mellow

[Marco Colo]

Happy 2020 guys.

Very close on pulling the trigger on a set of DBMs.

As long I will not be able to hit them before I purchase, I have it ping i210 (hoping for similar reactions, for sure more similar than my 410s) with kbs tour 120 and dynamic gold.

kbs all days for me. I like the feel and the flight.

Coming to my order, I have narrowed my selection to 2 shafts: kbs tour R/R+ or kbs tour FLT R/R+.

Sure I have some doubts, given by me hitting a small head and the fact I have read that the DBMs are high launch clubs, but probably not as high as my 410..

 

Any experience/recommendation with those shafts on the Maltby’s heads?

[Tommyj]

I put together a set of TS-2 irons with FLT R shafts, pulls which I got for a good price. I've played the standard KBS Tour R for many years and just went with the FLT because they were available at the time. Can't say I feel or see much of a difference in ball flight between the FLT and the standard Tour. What I like about the FLT is that they are still constant weight, I don't like AWT type shafts. If I had to pick, I would probably just go with the standard Tour.

Regarding R vs R+, as I mentioned, I've played Tour R for many years. I did have a set of Cobra irons a while back with R+ and you can definitely feel the added weight and stiffness. The great thing about the Tour shaft is that you can select your preferred shaft weight and then hard or soft step to get your desired flex.

One other shaft you might consider, which falls into the same weight class, is the DG 120. I've always liked the DG feel, but the standard weight was too much for me. DG 120 really hits my sweet spot and its not quite as low launch as the standard S300. I definitely prefer the DG 120 S over the KBS Tour S. I also like DG because they produce higher swing weights, KBS has a higher balance point and I'm always having to add weight to the club head.

If I can just throw in my personal opinion here, I would strongly consider looking for a used set of i200/i210 with KBS Tour or DG 120. I've gone down the road with Maltby iron heads and also Golfsmith when they were still a component manufacturer. I always found that component iron heads had something funky in their design that just didn't look quite right - same goes for the TS-2's which I have. And there's not a lot of demand if you try to sell them. I know you've got your heart set on TE/DBM's, but they are a pretty dated design compared to the i210 and certainly not as forgiving. Don't buy into the MPF numbers.

[northernmi]

Interesting how different experiences are. I had the TE Forged in the bag and added a set of i200s thinking they would be more forgiving. For my miss, a little low and on the toe, the i200s were not good at all and it took me 3 rounds and a few range trips to jump right back to the TE Forged.

[Marco Colo]

Always very informative posts. Thanks indeed.

I have found the KBS better for me and launched the i210 a bit higher, which I have liked. The DG felt good as well, but not as good.

Trust me I am considering the i200/210 a lot, but I want to try the Maltby route so much and if it suits, here’s the Jackpot. Nothing better than going to a restaurant, eating a Very nice meal and pay a fair price..

Besides, I don’t think the DMBs will be my last set of irons and next one will be a Ping. I like the company, their approach to golf and golfers and their products, but it’s time to try different routes.

[Marco Colo]

Low toe strike is my second name. I’ll order my DBMs tomorrow

[ode1]

They do perform well on toe strikes!

[Tommyj]

Be sure to specify what swing weight you want when you place your order. TE/DBM heads built to standard length with standard 50-52g grip will probably come out just around D0 with KBS Tour S and closer to C9 with R/R+ without adding weight to the head. They won't change that unless you tell them what you want. Also, order a Club Pak to get the best price. They won't have the exact combination you want, but you call and they'll make substitutions for the shaft and grip you want, and adjust the Pak price accordingly.

[ChipNRun]

@Tommyj said,"Honestly, I can't imagine how either TE or PTM can be even close to G700 in forgiveness in actual on course play. As many have said here, you really can't read too much into the MPF numbers."
You actually can "read the tea leaves" if you understand how the MPF system works. The MPF ratings are based on a four-part equation with values drawn from measurements of a model's clubhead (normally 6i). MPF allows comparison of clubs on overall scores, and on individual values within the equation such as Vertical Center of Gravity and MOI. These factors are those most likely to affect launch, and user-friendliness.
Maltby himself notes the limitations of the MFP system.
It often takes a 200-point spread in MFP score for a person to notice playability difference between two iron models.MPF only takes into account "the mass and dimensional properties of the clubhead itself." Other head design features, and the influence of the shaft, are not considered.The MPF can likewise be used, drawing on individual values, to compare different year models of an iron family. In Callaway land, the X20 Tour had an MPF of 732, while the follow-on X22 Tour had MPF of only 594. Some Callaway fans hailed the X22T as a "true player's club", while others complained it was a degraded, "harder to hit" version of the X20T. A look at the MPF values showed that the X22T had a higher vertical center of gravity and lower MOI. This would make the X22T harder to launch for golfers with lower swing speeds.