List of player CB with least offset

[wam78]

Cobra does an awesome job in this category of iron.  The forged cb is great, but so is the king tour mim.  Some of the least amount of offset I’ve seen.

 

I agree with above about Wilson Staff CB.  Just had a set built and they have little to no offset.  The hosel transition is pretty fantastic.  Here is a pic looking down the hosel of the 8i in the staff cb.  Second pic is the 7i after being built.

 

[sadclevelandsports]

On 5/4/2020 at 2:27 PM, Ri_Redneck said:

Exactly! Measured MOI is virtually the same, but MOI CF is very different. I don't really agree that the VCOG plays as big a role as the MPF calculations do. I prefer to focus on the measured MOI instead. VCOG CAN make a clubhead easier to hit, but it doesn't make it less likely to twist on an off-center hit. RCOG, however, can help with that, it's just limited because of lack of depth in iron head design compared to say, a driver head. Accuracy and consistent distance on off-center contact is influenced the most by the measured MOI of the clubhead.

BT

 

I know I'm reviving an old thread, but can you or anyone else explain this concept to me?

[Ri_Redneck]

22 hours ago, sadclevelandsports said:

 

I know I'm reviving an old thread, but can you or anyone else explain this concept to me?

Dispersion is most affected by MOI of the clubhead (with proper zero delivery. ie. no tilt in rotational axis). MOI relates to the resistance to twisting, so the more weight that is moved as far as possible from the COG gives the most affect to resist twisting. With irons, that HAS to be in the heel and toe because those locations allow for the most distance. In woods, you can also move the weight rearward because the clubhead has depth.

 

Lower VCOG helps by elevating the launch by placing more weight lower in the clubhead. However, it doesn't help with dispersion. Also, those who have a near ideal launch can actually suffer from a major drop in VCOG ( I am one of these people). IMHO, contact does not feel as true when the actual COG is not behind the ball.

 

Hope this helps.

 

BT

[sadclevelandsports]

1 hour ago, Ri_Redneck said:

Dispersion is most affected by MOI of the clubhead (with proper zero delivery. ie. no tilt in rotational axis). MOI relates to the resistance to twisting, so the more weight that is moved as far as possible from the COG gives the most affect to resist twisting. With irons, that HAS to be in the heel and toe because those locations allow for the most distance. In woods, you can also move the weight rearward because the clubhead has depth.

 

Lower VCOG helps by elevating the launch by placing more weight lower in the clubhead. However, it doesn't help with dispersion. Also, those who have a near ideal launch can actually suffer from a major drop in VCOG ( I am one of these people). IMHO, contact does not feel as true when the actual COG is not behind the ball.

 

Hope this helps.

 

BT

Thanks so much, sorry I should have specified. My question is regarding MOI vs MOI-CF. Don't know what it means that certain blades can have a higher MOI than thier cb counterpart but have a lower MOI CF.

 

[NRJyzr]

4 hours ago, sadclevelandsports said:

Thanks so much, sorry I should have specified. My question is regarding MOI vs MOI-CF. Don't know what it means that certain blades can have a higher MOI than thier cb counterpart but have a lower MOI CF.

 

 

MOI CF is Momentof Inertia Correction Factor.  Its part of the formula in calculating the final MPF score.  It's essentially giving MPF bonus points for designs with higher MOI based on how low the CG is.  The lower the CG, the more points added to the final MPF score.

 

It's not an actual physical measurement.

 

[sadclevelandsports]

4 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

 

MOI CF is Momentof Inertia Correction Factor.  Its part of the formula in calculating the final MPF score.  It's essentially giving MPF bonus points for designs with higher MOI based on how low the CG is.  The lower the CG, the more points added to the final MPF score.

 

It's not an actual physical measurement.

 

Gotcha. So if we can simplify things to say that MOI measurements equates to "forgiveness," does that make, for instance, the 620MB (which has a higher MOI measurement than the CB) inherently more forgiving than the 620CB? Logically, perimeter weighting seems like it would boost "forgiveness" but given the MOI values, is there another parameter (excluding size of face, CG) that is looked at to indicate the amount of forgiveness, or is the MB more forgiving than the CB based on its MOI number?

Edited July 25, 2021 by sadclevelandsports

[Ri_Redneck]

9 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

 

MOI CF is Momentof Inertia Correction Factor.  Its part of the formula in calculating the final MPF score.  It's essentially giving MPF bonus points for designs with higher MOI based on how low the CG is.  The lower the CG, the more points added to the final MPF score.

 

It's not an actual physical measurement.

 

This is it exactly. You have to remember, Maltby is pushing HIS theory, not just measurements. His belief is VCOG plays a bigger part in making a clubhead EASIER TO PLAY than any other measurement. The MOI CF is HIS opinion of the affect of the other measurements of the clubhead to make it play easier than the measured MOI would indicate. Some do not share his opinion, I am one. If the measured MOI of a blade is higher than a CB, then that club has more resistance to twisting than the other, period. The COG placement very well could make launching the ball easier, but this will not necessarily decrease dispersion. MOI is displayed in the MPF rankings in OZ/SQIN. Traditionally it is listed in G/SQCM. 0.5 oz/sqin = 92 g/sqcm. In my personal experience, it takes about 500 g/sqcm to make even a small difference in dispersion between two clubs. YMMV.

 

My main gripe in all of the blade/CB threads is that everyone thinks a CB has so much higher MOI than a blade and it's clear in the MPF ratings that it just ain't so. All of those clubheads were measured on the exact same equipment by the same people. The numbers are irrefutable.

 

BT

Edited July 25, 2021 by Ri_Redneck

[NRJyzr]

6 hours ago, sadclevelandsports said:

Gotcha. So if we can simplify things to say that MOI measurements equates to "forgiveness," does that make, for instance, the 620MB (which has a higher MOI measurement than the CB) inherently more forgiving than the 620CB? Logically, perimeter weighting seems like it would boost "forgiveness" but given the MOI values, is there another parameter (excluding size of face, CG) that is looked at to indicate the amount of forgiveness, or is the MB more forgiving than the CB based on its MOI number?

 

I would call the difference between the two negligible.

 

Also, I feel you have to pay attention to the CG location, with respect to your game.  If you miss predominantly towards the toe, you could see better results with a clubhead that has a larger C Dimension with identical MOI; your misses would be closer to the CG, which would result in less twisting.

 

It's not necessarily an easy answer.  😉

 

[RolandofGilead]

2 hours ago, Ri_Redneck said:

This is it exactly. You have to remember, Maltby is pushing HIS theory, not just measurements. His belief is VCOG plays a bigger part in making a clubhead EASIER TO PLAY than any other measurement. The MOI CF is HIS opinion of the affect of the other measurements of the clubhead to make it play easier than the measured MOI would indicate. Some do not share his opinion, I am one. If the measured MOI of a blade is higher than a CB, then that club has more resistance to twisting than the other, period. The COG placement very well could make launching the ball easier, but this will not necessarily decrease dispersion. MOI is displayed in the MPF rankings in OZ/SQIN. Traditionally it is listed in G/SQCM. 0.5 oz/sqin = 92 g/sqcm. In my personal experience, it takes about 500 g/sqcm to make even a small difference in dispersion between two clubs. YMMV.

 

My main gripe in all of the blade/CB threads is that everyone thinks a CB has so much higher MOI than a blade and it's clear in the MPF ratings that it just ain't so. All of those clubheads were measured on the exact same equipment by the same people. The numbers are irrefutable.

 

BT

More backspin also keep balls on line, no? So lower VCOG and higher MOI both contribute to greater forgiveness. I’m not the most enlightened on these details: is there any theory or data suggesting one is more important than the other?

Edited July 25, 2021 by RolandofGilead

[sadclevelandsports]

I am also confused about the point @RolandofGilead brings up. So that sounds logical to me, but going to check on some of the more "forgiving and high launching irons" that I know of, I'm finding them to have high COGs (for example, the G710 has a AVCOG that is higher than the blueprint). Am I missing something?

 

Also, a separate question.. I know the MPF isn't something that is considered highly credible, but I am really confused as to how it's measured. I would expect a club that has a higher MOI and a lower AVCOG to have a higher MPF. I own both the iblades and the blueprints. The iblades definitely require less effort to hit well. And yet, the MPF value is lower. Additionally, really hard to believe that the iblades have a higher AVCOG when they launch so much easier. What the the world am I missing here?

Edited July 26, 2021 by sadclevelandsports

[NRJyzr]

10 hours ago, sadclevelandsports said:

I would expect a club that has a higher MOI and a lower AVCOG to have a higher MPF. I own both the iblades and the blueprints. The iblades definitely require less effort to hit well. And yet, the MPF value is lower.

 

Essentially, Ralph Maltby believes MOI is less important than CG location.  The MPF formula is set up along those lines; a lower CG with a higher C-Dimension is his preference.  MOI ranks third, with less influence in the formula.

 

Also, when considering the vertical CG, 0.840" is an important number.  That's the diameter of a golfball.  In the MPF formula, having a CG above that point is a badness. 🙂  Someone with a shallow attack will have to essentially hit the ball fat in order to hit the CG.   

 

You're encountering one of the fun aspects of these discussions, that the CG locations are *not* being moved as company literature/marketing tells us (lower and farther back).  😉

 

As a result of the Driver Spin Wars, we've learned that spin changes as does the vertical CG; raise the CG and the spin is raised.  IMHO this is why the CG is being raised on irons, to increase spin rates.  The golfballs spin less, one of the aspects of COR based iron designs appears to be lower spin....  it seems that if they don't get the spin up in some way, Joe Average Golfer would find them unusable due to too low spin.  This is just my personal opinion, for what little it's worth.

 

Anyway, getting back to it....  TLDR version, Ralph Maltby doesn't think MOI is particularly important in iron design theory.  And he really likes a low vertical CG.

 

[dmeeksDC]

5 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Essentially, Ralph Maltby believes MOI is less important than CG location.  The MPF formula is set up along those lines; a lower CG with a higher C-Dimension is his preference.  MOI ranks third, with less influence in the formula.

 

Also, when considering the vertical CG, 0.840" is an important number.  That's the diameter of a golfball.  In the MPF formula, having a CG above that point is a badness. 🙂  Someone with a shallow attack will have to essentially hit the ball fat in order to hit the CG.   

 

You're encountering one of the fun aspects of these discussions, that the CG locations are *not* being moved as company literature/marketing tells us (lower and farther back).  😉

 

As a result of the Driver Spin Wars, we've learned that spin changes as does the vertical CG; raise the CG and the spin is raised.  IMHO this is why the CG is being raised on irons, to increase spin rates.  The golfballs spin less, one of the aspects of COR based iron designs appears to be lower spin....  it seems that if they don't get the spin up in some way, Joe Average Golfer would find them unusable due to too low spin.  This is just my personal opinion, for what little it's worth.

 

Anyway, getting back to it....  TLDR version, Ralph Maltby doesn't think MOI is particularly important in iron design theory.  And he really likes a low vertical CG.

 

I agree with Maltby. MOI in irons never seems to matter to me. I definitely would not buy any club based on high MOI. Typically if it is real high the iron is one I won’t like. It will be a shovel or be imprecise. Some of my favorite irons, when I look them up they have lower MOI and it didn’t matter. Hit them better and easier to work. Maybe MOI matters at a minimum point and after that, pushing it higher only proves the law of diminishing returns.  
 

And super high MOI in a driver is even worse. I find them hard to square into impact. One of the OEMs, Titleist I believe, even worked on lowering the MOI on a head design of one of its new models because it performed better. The famous Japanese designer who was at Epon forever and then founded SYard said he thought drivers with really high MOI are more difficult for some players to hit well. Driver performance doesn’t get automatically better simply by designing heads with higher and higher MOI. I see plenty of players with their new super high MOI drivers launching into the trees. 

[Ri_Redneck]

22 hours ago, RolandofGilead said:

More backspin also keep balls on line, no? So lower VCOG and higher MOI both contribute to greater forgiveness. I’m not the most enlightened on these details: is there any theory or data suggesting one is more important than the other?

Yes, BS will aid in dispersion, but we're talking mm difference, so I can't see it being enough to be ground breaking. Besides, all of the GI/SGI irons claim reduced spin, so I'm not totally sure that the clubs with lower VCOG are giving higher spin.

 

BT
 

 

[Ri_Redneck]

17 hours ago, sadclevelandsports said:

I am also confused about the point @RolandofGilead brings up. So that sounds logical to me, but going to check on some of the more "forgiving and high launching irons" that I know of, I'm finding them to have high COGs (for example, the G710 has a AVCOG that is higher than the blueprint). Am I missing something?

 

Also, a separate question.. I know the MPF isn't something that is considered highly credible, but I am really confused as to how it's measured. I would expect a club that has a higher MOI and a lower AVCOG to have a higher MPF. I own both the iblades and the blueprints. The iblades definitely require less effort to hit well. And yet, the MPF value is lower. Additionally, really hard to believe that the iblades have a higher AVCOG when they launch so much easier. What the the world am I missing here?

I'm with you on that. I don't put any confidence in the ratings. I just use the measurements because they were all done consistently. That's data I can use!

 

BT

[sadclevelandsports]

23 minutes ago, Ri_Redneck said:

I'm with you on that. I don't put any confidence in the ratings. I just use the measurements because they were all done consistently. That's data I can use!

 

BT

In your opinion, what is contributing to the (perceived) ease of launch in the iblades vs the blueprints given that the iblades have a higher COG. Or better yet, the G710 has a AVCOG of 0.878" which is leagues higher than the blueprints, and that this launches ridiculously high. 

[Ri_Redneck]

1 hour ago, sadclevelandsports said:

In your opinion, what is contributing to the (perceived) ease of launch in the iblades vs the blueprints given that the iblades have a higher COG. Or better yet, the G710 has a AVCOG of 0.878" which is leagues higher than the blueprints, and that this launches ridiculously high. 

In my OPINION, it would suspect it is due to the design of the clubhead (face flexing primarily). Both the iBlade and, to a greater extent, the G710 are designed with face-flex technology per Ping's website. The differences on VCOG are around .5 mm, so I can't see that playing much of a role alone. But then, that is simply my opinion.

 

BT

[BURKMI19]

Oh man there are two old school options which always come to mind

Titleist 962b and 990b

Both are cavity but look like mb from address

[Pnwpingi210]

Ping

On 7/25/2021 at 5:54 PM, sadclevelandsports said:

I am also confused about the point @RolandofGilead brings up. So that sounds logical to me, but going to check on some of the more "forgiving and high launching irons" that I know of, I'm finding them to have high COGs (for example, the G710 has a AVCOG that is higher than the blueprint). Am I missing something?

 

Also, a separate question.. I know the MPF isn't something that is considered highly credible, but I am really confused as to how it's measured. I would expect a club that has a higher MOI and a lower AVCOG to have a higher MPF. I own both the iblades and the blueprints. The iblades definitely require less effort to hit well. And yet, the MPF value is lower. Additionally, really hard to believe that the iblades have a higher AVCOG when they launch so much easier. What the the world am I missing here?

Pings break the theory about vcog and launch.  Nearly all the pings have a extremely high COG rating, yet they are always amongst the highest launch and spin irons loft for loft in the category.

 

That maltby data can give you analysis paralysis.  
 

If you miss low, on the toe, or struggle creating ballspeed, launch and spin…. look for an iron with “tech”.  Usually has a multilateral composition (tungsten and tpu) to redistribute mass low and horizontal in the face.  (Tseries, cobra king tour, ping i230, p770, apex pro or even cb)

 

if your miss is vertical or slightly heel side and your create ample ball speed launch and spin …..look for a solid, one piece traditional muscle back or cavity with mass center on the club face (620 series, mp 221/923 tour, apex mb, cobra cb/mb, p7mc, Wilson staff cb)

Edited November 23, 2023 by Pnwpingi210