Cleveland Launcher HB iron and Maltby Playability Factor (MPF)

[PingPoncho]

The MPF ratings for the Launcher 2018 irons were not as high as I supposed they would be.

The MPF rating for Callaway Big Bertha 2019 received a very high rating

The MPF rating for Ping G710 received another low rating than what I was expected.

 

Can someone explain in simple terms why each of these received the ratings they got?

If you own the Launcher irons, what other irons did you find easier to hit and why?

[arbeck]

Maltby is just compiling the location of the COG's and the MOI of the club to decide which is "easier to hit". He ignores some other important things. The Big Bertha get's higher marks because the "C" Dim is bigger than the Cleveland. This measures the distance between the hosel and the horizontal center of gravity. Anything hit on the toe side of the horizontal COG will cause twisting. The BB probably has a longer blade length than the Cleveland which causes this difference. The second advantage the BB has is the VCOG. It has the lowest VCOG of any of the clubs. hitting the ball above the VCOG will cause it to launch higher. MPF severely punishes clubs with a high VCOG. The Ping has a VCOG much higher than the BB, and is punished greatly for it. The formula also takes into account RCOG and MOI, but does not factor them in quite as heavily.

There are some giant flaws with this approach. First, if two clubs of equal loft and equal VCOG/RCOG hit the same ball, the peak height will be determined by the ball speed. If you have a thinner faced iron (from hollow construction) you might gain more ball speed. It's possible that in that case the ball trajectory is too high. In that case you have two options. You can either strengthen the loft or raise the CG higher. You'll notice that the loft of the BB is 3* stronger than the Cleveland and 2* stronger than the Ping. Ping and Cleveland have made a decision to raise the CG higher rather than crank the lofts super low. IMHO this makes the club far more playable than the BB. More loft is almost always your friend. I have no trouble hitting a 40* blade but I'm not going to try hitting a 24* blade.

[PingPoncho]

Ping 6 loft is 26, Cleveland is 26.5 and Callaway is 26

[ChipNRun]

Selections from @arbeck's remarks:"Maltby is just compiling the location of the COG's and the MOI of the club to decide which is "easier to hit". He ignores some other important things. ... MPF severely punishes clubs with a high VCOG. The Ping has a VCOG much higher than the BB, and is punished greatly for it. The formula also takes into account RCOG and MOI, but does not factor them in quite as heavily. ..."
First of all, Maltby takes a look at factors which help the launch of clubs, generally known as user-friendliness. Maltby himself cautions that MPF does not take into account the shaft, or the ball being played.The Ping iron is not punished for its VCOG - it is given a rating score that puts it into SGI category.
Several years ago, I switched from Stiff back to Regular flex shafts. Early competitors were the Callaway X20 and second-wave Big Bertha models, and the Ping G10. All three irons rated in the Maltby UGI category. That said, the three did not launch the ball the same. The BB and Ping G10 came with stock high-launch shafts, and the head + shaft combo ballooned the short irons and wedges for me. The X20, however, had a mid-launch Uniflex shaft that delivered much more controlled trajectory.
Since then, most of my full and rough iron fittings put me in the irons which Maltby rates as SGI, and Hot List rates as GI.
Another point of caution: Maltby MPF and Golf Digest Hot List categories don't match up. MPF assigns club models to categories based up on an algebraic equation based upon head characteristics. Hot List assigns clubs to categories by perceived market niche. Here is a rough comparison of the two systems.:
[img]https://s3.amazonaws.com/golfwrxforums/uploads/385/HZSY78Z99YPL.jpg[/img]

[gdb99]

The Callaway is 24* according to the chart.

[Tree Levino]

It's best to look at elements of the MPF scores, not the end scoreHitting the irons outdoors is very important - some irons that are "less forgiving" in theory can actually just work better for you because of the way they set up, how they interact with the ground, how the centre of gravities work with your swing etcYou're overthinking if you think you need that much tech to hit a golf ball. Scores over time for amateurs haven't gone down with tech increases. Our minds hold us back.

[PingPoncho]

I see that but when I go to Callaway website, it shows this has the lofts for the Big Bertha 2019. Is Ralph wrong on loft?

[pingpal6]

Those are Callaway target specs. It doesn’t take into account their manufacturing tolerances. The loft listed on Maltby is the actual measured loft of the head provided for measuring

 

[pingpal6]

Also if the vertical COG does not get below the equator of the golf ball, the ball will not get very airborne (if airborne at all) regardless of the loft.

[pingpal6]

If you fail to get the VCOG below the equator of the ball, you will lose fare more ball speed than you whatever extra ball speed a hollow design will give. And to be honest, with 40 degrees of loft the strike is so oblique that the thinner face does not have nearly as much effect as a reduction of loft would

 

[boggyman]

If one can’t hit the HBs they should look for another hobby. Seriously, they are super easy to elevate and are uber forgiving. I’ve had 2 sets, both with Px 5.0 in steel and sometimes wish I still had a set sometimes.

[BogeyParBogey]

The HB Launcher are as easy an iron to hit as perhaps has ever been released. The CG is very rearward in the head resulting in appropriately named "launcher" type of flight.

Dave

[Tanner25]

The HB iron lines continue to be under rated. Perhaps, the unconventional looks or someone playing a hybrid iron, wouldn't be acceptable in most 20-40 something groups. Started at age 50 with the HB3 and never turning back.

[dmeeksDC]

I agree with this analysis. Also, IMO, there is too much focus on a low center of gravity club always being an asset. It really depends on your swing. I consistently hit down on the ball, so I will generally hit real low center of gravity clubs too high. A higher COG will give me more of a penetrating trajectory and more carry. I played the Ping i200 and hit it really well. Some of the low COG clubs, the ball just shoots up more than out. I’d rather have more loft and a COG a little higher because I’ll still be below the equator of the ball at impact.

Not only is loft your friend, so is forward shaft lean at impact.

A really low COG might help if you’re always making contact low on the club face or adding dynamic loft at impact (“helping” the ball launch with wrist flip) but better longterm results from fixing those swing flaws. Remember, a high number of amateurs are adding loft at impact, so design compensations help. If you do have those tendencies, buy an Impact Snap and spend 10 minutes a day with it. If you are hanging back at impact the correct impact feel will seem a lot more shifted to your left side (for a RH player) with the clubhead behind the hands at impact. All of a sudden, you don’t need such a low COG.

MPF can help if you know what design parameters suit you. But if you choose off the overall MPF score, the highest ones will be low and rearward COG plus long blade length (high C Dimension measurement). And that category of clubs is not what I want, because it will typically be a pretty large head with a hockey stick blade length.

[Red4282]

Bingo. No other answers needed...Ill add that mpf scores have a heavy bias for low vcog. If you need help getting the ball up then great. If you flip and add loft then not great.

[Red4282]

this is completely and utterly false.

[propman]

Just scored a used set of Callaway Steelhead xrs which might have the highest mpf ever - 967.

[ThinkingPlus]

Not even close. Callaway Fusion Wide Sole circa 2006 - 1203. I am not certain that is highest although probably close.

[propman]

Oh well if I cant hit the xr, need to find something else to do.