New Maltby Playability Factors.

[OrangeGravy]

Yeah I noticed that. Very helpful, thanks again. No place to get lofts checked or bent around here right now. I have an i3 O-Size set I'll sub in @ 7-pw. Their CG is higher and more forward along with a bit stronger lofts. That should help a bit for now.

[HiTrajLoSpin]

You can check the loft (and lie) angles with the Clinometer app on an iPhone:

[OrangeGravy]

interesting. I'll have to check that out

[mukster]

I have always basically avoided looking at the MPF information, basically because apart from the final number, I have no idea what all the other stuff means.

The final number really made no difference. I played Hogan BH-5s (821) and they were fine. Played Nike VR splits that I LOVED (328), Ping i-25 (512) that I never got on with and now Srixon z765s (473) that I rank just behind the Nikes. I also have a set of MP32s (412) that I hit not too bad. I have tried a bunch of other irons over time, but these are ones that I have owned.

Left the Nikes back in the old country so I do not have to carry a set to and fro, but I hit them the best of all of my recent clubs. I guess I should look at the other numbers and see what other numbers are similar for the Nikes and the Srixons, or does it not work like that?

[BirdieRoll]

Some new Maltby MPF ratings just came out for the 2021 models, here's a sampling:

 

Srixon ZX-4:  696

Ping G425  605   (high .89 AVCOG)

Ping G410 is 738 for comparison purposes, .846 AVCOG

Callaway DCB: 614

Callaway Apex: 481

Callaway Apex Pro:  487 (lower AVCOG vs. regular Apex)

Mizuno JPX 921 HM: 746

Mizuno JPX 921 HM Pro: 604

Titleist T300: 895  (not a new model and might be replaced late summer but these spec out with a .724 AVCOG)

 

[Tree Levino]

10 minutes ago, BirdieRoll said:

Some new Maltby MPF ratings just came out for the 2021 models, here's a sampling:

 

Srixon ZX-4:  696

Ping G425  605   (high .89 AVCOG)

Ping G410 is 738 for comparison purposes, .846 AVCOG

Callaway DCB: 614

Callaway Apex: 481

Callaway Apex Pro:  487 (lower AVCOG vs. regular Apex)

Mizuno JPX 921 HM: 746

Mizuno JPX 921 HM Pro: 604

Titleist T300: 895  (not a new model and might be replaced late summer but these spec out with a .724 AVCOG)

 

 

I think the reason for the high VCOG on the Pings is the bounce. Callaway also has tons of bounce and is also measured to have high CGs. I do not think this measurement is accurate at all and is skewing results. 

[the bishop]

48 minutes ago, TigerInTheWoods said:

 

I think the reason for the high VCOG on the Pings is the bounce. Callaway also has tons of bounce and is also measured to have high CGs. I do not think this measurement is accurate at all and is skewing results. 

I agree with you that something is screwy at times in the MPF ratings.  As an example, the W/S C300 forged irons in my sig have an MPF of 269 based on a vcog of .910(!), while the Staff Model blade (of which I also have a set) have an MPF of 365 and a vcog of .861.  While the blades are a very friendly playing blade there is no way they should be considered to have a higher MPF than the C300 forged - no way.  And examples like this can be found all over the MPF charts.  They are a nice resource, but flawed in some respects, IMO.

[Cwebb]

2 hours ago, TigerInTheWoods said:

 

I think the reason for the high VCOG on the Pings is the bounce. Callaway also has tons of bounce and is also measured to have high CGs. I do not think this measurement is accurate at all and is skewing results. 

 

The vertical COG is measured from the "ground line" to the COG.  There have been several Ping irons that have had lower COG's, that also had the higher bounce

[Rod Page]

Hi I recently picked up a set of 1989 Mizuno MZX precision cast and was shocked to find out they had a MPF of 780. Just wondering if there any good because they’re so old? Thanks