New Maltby Playability Factors.

[bwhitish]

Well here goes my annual contribution to people discussing the Malby Playability Factor. I know many think its useless and some find it a little useful. So here are the 2020 additions. Callaway Mavrik Max 780, Mavrik 677, Epic E19 631, Mavrik Pro 592. Cobra SZ One 865, SZ 824, T Rail 770. King Forged Tec One 570, Forged Tec 472. Mizuno MP20 HMB 478, MP20 MMC 416, MP20 359. Taylor Made Sim Max 834, Sim Max OS 651, P790 607, P7TW 282. Ping G710 749, Blueprint 458. Titleist T300 895, T400 851, T200 690, T100 530, 620 CB 465. 620 Blade 287. Tommy Armour 845 828, 845 Forged 415. Wilson Launch Pad 524, D7 Forged 438, Staff Model 365. Have fun!

[Tree Levino]

How badly does that make me want blueprints? Bad. Haha.

[kylesilk]

Are these listed yet?

[northernmi]

Yes, they are all listed within the respective manufacturers.

[Bt31]

I was surprised at how high the T400 MPF is.

 

[RogerinNewZealand]

Wilson Staff looks a winner.....

[NRJyzr]

The final MPF score isn't what you should be looking at. It's essentially a "grade" of how close that clubheads is to what Ralph Maltby prefers in his designs.

That being, a low CG that's far from the hosel.

 

[aquapig]

Ok hopefully I'm not alone in my ignorance. Although I've read about it a million times on here, I've never given it much thought. What's this Maltby thingy all about?

[tgoodspe1991]

Everything looks about as expected, with a surprise being the Blueprint's score. Although, as someone said before, the MPF is more a measurement of how low and toe-side the CG is. Nobody should be buying just based on MPF alone, but the measurements are valuable to find an iron that works best for your swing. Personally, I've had the best results with irons that measure the vertical COG at around .850. These types of irons are always going to have lower MPF scores, but they work far better for my swing that super low CG irons.

[dmeeksDC]

I agree with this. I hit down on the ball well, so the low CG not always the best. I also look for C-Dimension around 1.2, give or take. A little lower is OK, a lot higher just means it is a huge blade. I don’t go by the MPF score. It favors clubs with long blade lengths and I don’t strike those as well.

[MountainGoat]

...and back from the face.

[northernmi]

Understanding the individual measurements and how they suggest a club will interact with your game is invaluable. I am a picker with my usual miss being low toe so lower COG and longer CDim benefit me a lot. Several times I have demoed clubs and been surprised at the results (both good and bad) until I looked at the Maltby measurements (not the overall MPF).

[cgasucks]

While others in this posts say about the CG in relation to the hosel determines the MPF rating is true. In layman's terms, the MPF Rating measures the forgiveness in an iron (the higher the rating, the more "forgiving" it is).

[tgoodspe1991]

Also, C-Dimension is a somewhat misleading factor into overall MPF scores. A club can have a small C-Dim number and it's MPF score will be greatly impacted, however, that club might have a small C-Dim because the overall blade length is also small.

I agree with you that any blade with a high C-Dim usually just means a longer blade length (unless there's obvious toe-weighting design). In general, I prefer a smaller blade length, so I also look for C-Dim around 1.1 to 1.2.

Knowing your numbers makes it a lot easier to narrow down potential iron design options, and it does give good understanding as to why some irons just never "click" for your swing. My numbers line up perfectly with the newly measured 620MB, which is probably why (to me) they are the best irons I've hit in a long, long, long time. And boy, did I test out a LOT of clubs this year.

[MattUtah]

I think the overall score really used to mean something but modern iron design has moved past what his formula measures. The individual numbers are useful if you know what you’re looking for.

[NorthTXGolf]

I have almost seen no one talk about the big bertha irons which are ranked #1. Are they huge? lol

[animalgolfs]

 

Like an MP-14 hooked up with an older Eye 2+ milf

[Bamabowtie]

Dredging up this thread instead of starting a new one...looking hard at the Ping i210 but I am now a bit perplexed at their MPF score of 338! The i200’s were 474 and even Blueprints like mentioned here are 458. I only learned of this rating system today but still, what gives on the i210’s? From all the accounts I’ve read here they are one of the more forgiving irons in their category.

[ThinkingPlus]

The vertical CG is way high in the i210s at 0.913" which is considerably higher than the midpoint of a golf ball at 0.84". The i200s have a high vertical CG of 0.863", but it is not crazy high. High vertical CGs drive MPF lower because of the difficulty of launching the ball high. Very high swing speed players won't have as much issue due to greater speed and spin generated, but moderate swing speed players might lose a good bit of carry distance.

[Bamabowtie]

Great explanation, thanks!

[LeftyMatt24]

I am so surprised to see t100 and t100s as higher than Srixon z585 irons when z585 is a “game improvement” when t100 is more of a players. Also surprised to see how high JPX 919F and new P790 are. Makes me wonder why I’m playing z765 when I could be playing something far more forgiving in a smaller head.

[Valtiel]

Those are all a pretty good example of how the favoring of C-Dimension creates some wrinkles in what you would expect. The z585 has the smallest C-Dimension value in that list and gets dinged for it. All the other numbers are in the game improvement areas though (VCoG, RCoG, MOI). This is what some of the other posters in this thread meant regarding how you shouldn't always go by the MPF number. If you don't need that "toe forgiveness" because you're someone that lives around the middle or slightly heel side of the face, then the C-Dimension of the z585 is not a bad thing for you. The MPF formula has some "one size fits all" characteristics to it that often have exceptions to the rule.

[OrangeGravy]

A more rearward COG or lower COG? Does anyone know or have any experience with which would launch higher/spin higher, all things club delivery being equal? Or is one more related to spin and the other launch?

[Valtiel]

Lower COG = lower spin and higher COG = higher spin. A more rearward COG will increase forgiveness and launch angle. Strike and loft are still king when it comes to launch and spin though, and you're better off tweaking loft to influence that area, but choosing a club that is more conducive spec-wise to your goal is still smart. If you're looking for higher launch and spin, you'll primarily want to balance loft and vertical COG. e.g. lower COG requiring weaker lofts and vice versa. As an example, I am a mid/high spin and launch player and I like lower COG, weaker lofts, and a slightly lower spin ball. If I were a low ball hitter trying to gain a little height and spin without changing my swing, I would first look at weaker lofts and a spinnier ball, but if I wanted a new set of irons I would probably look for something that I could bend weak while maintaining the correct amount of offset first, then maybe favor a lower COG and a spinner ball, or a medium COG and a medium spin ball. Loft would be the biggest concern though as that will have the greatest impact.

[Shallowface]

How has modern iron design moved past what the MPF measures?

[OrangeGravy]

Thanks for the reply. I'm looking for less height/launch angle in short irons. My Eye 2 +no+ are great 3-6, 7-pw is moon ball city. Swing faults aside, the harder I swing, the higher they go vs marginal distance gain.

[Valtiel]

Ah, yeah that is pretty normal for that type of iron. You have a really far back CG, lots of offset, and very traditional "weak" lofts. All that adds up to high launch as they are designed to do. Really the only thing you CAN do is strengthen the lofts, otherwise you're really just working against too much of a very intentional high launch setup.

The gaps are quite large in the set down there however, so you have room to play with that. You could go from the 7-PW strengthening in increments of 0.5* starting with 1* strong with the 7i, then 1.5* strong in the 8i etc etc. Care would need to be taken once you get above 2* though, and you'll want to be mindful of whatever gapping you have between the PW and your next wedge, but that should help quite a bit.

[HiTrajLoSpin]

Please provide a link ... I can only find the 2019 MPF numbers.

[ThinkingPlus]

Iron Head MPF Ratings | The GolfWorks

There is a PDF for each brand.

[Z1ggy16]

Wow the T100's are over 500... that's pretty impressive. If I wasn't in P760's, no contest those would be my next choice.