Titleist T100 - T100S - T200 Maltby Playability Released

[JStang]

I know this isn't the end all be all when it comes to rating forgiveness but I'm surprised at the results. The T100 are very forgiving based on the Maltby scale and very little difference compared to the T200. 

 

	Brand	Model	Year	Head Wt.	“C” Dim.	Basic VCOG	MOI	Actual RCOG	Loft		VCOG Adjst.	Actual VCOG	VCOG C.F.	MOI C.F.	Calc. Points	MPF	Category
	TITLEIST	T200 #6	2021	259.1	1.250	0.781	13.7890	0.487	27.5		-0.045	0.736	0	41	555	585	Game Improvement

	Brand	Model	Year	Head Wt.	“C” Dim.	Basic VCOG	MOI	Actual RCOG	Loft		VCOG Adjst.	Actual VCOG	VCOG C.F.	MOI C.F.	Calc. Points	MPF	Category
	TITLEIST	T100S #6	2021	258.8	1.287	0.782	14.3313	0.429	27		-0.016	0.766	0	29	550	580	Game Improvement

	Brand	Model	Year	Head Wt.	“C” Dim.	Basic VCOG	MOI	Actual RCOG	Loft		VCOG Adjst.	Actual VCOG	VCOG C.F.	MOI C.F.	Calc. Points	MPF	Category
	TITLEIST	T100 #6	2021	257.7	1.294	0.786	14.0656	0.441	29.5		-0.003	0.783	0	28	539	569	Game Improvement

Edited October 6, 2021 by JStang

[JStang]

New vs. Old T100 Comparison

 

2019 T100

 

	Brand		Year	Head Wt.	“C” Dim.	Basic VCOG	MOI	Actual RCOG	Loft		VCOG Adjst.	Actual VCOG	VCOG C.F.	MOI C.F.	Calc. Points	MPF	Category
	TITLEIST	T100 Forged #6	2020	258.7	1.264	0.784	14.7982	0.431	30		0.012	0.796	0	30	498	528	Conventional

 

2021 T100

 

	Brand	Model	Year	Head Wt.	“C” Dim.	Basic VCOG	MOI	Actual RCOG	Loft		VCOG Adjst.	Actual VCOG	VCOG C.F.	MOI C.F.	Calc. Points	MPF	Category
	TITLEIST	T100 #6	2021	257.7	1.294	0.786	14.0656	0.441	29.5		-0.003	0.783	0	28	539	569	Game Improvement

[JStang]

New vs. Old T100S Comparison
 

2019 T100S

 

	TITLEIST	T100S Forged #6	2020	258.6	1.270	0.798	14.6348	0.423	28		0.001	0.799	0	29	500	530	Conventional

 

2021 T100S

 

	TITLEIST	T100S #6	2021	258.8	1.287	0.782	14.3313	0.429	27		-0.016	0.766	0	29	550	580	Game Improvement

[JStang]

New vs. Old T200 Comparison

 

2019 T200

 

	TITLEIST	T200 #6	2020	259.5	1.362	0.801	14.5313	0.503	26		0.055	0.746	0	44	660	690	Game Improvement

 

 

2021 T20

 

	TITLEIST	T200 #6	2021	259.1	1.250	0.781	13.7890	0.487	27.5		-0.045	0.736	0	41	555	585	Game Improvement

 

[golfer55082]

Thanks for the information. I have never heard of this ranking but I agree that 2021 T100 iron is very forgiving for its size, and noticeably more forgiving than callaway x-forged 18 (my current gamer) and a few others  in my recent fitting. 

[JJgolfwrx]

@JStang Thanks for taking your time to post this. I hoping for Callaway's TCB to be on there soon, but I doubt it.

[Cactus Jack]

Thanks for sharing. 

 

I assume folks will bash the MPF results. However, I never understand why. MPF simply represents a numerical value for the physical aspects of an iron head. No more, no less, and every head in their database is measure exactly the same way. To be clear, it's not a forgiveness rating system, it's a measurement system. For simplicity sake, the ratings are grouped into bands, which approximate general playability, but not absolute playability. For example, based on the physical attributes of a 1920's Mashie, one might find it to be less playable than a new T100. However, given an individuals swing dynamics a Mashie might actually produce better results.    

[dlow206]

Some of us play T300 you know...

 

Looks like the playability score dropped a little bit on the T300 from 2020, but doesn't seem like a meaningful amount

[lazyjc4]

Surprising stuff, thanks for posting!

[bladehunter]

Pro tip.  Turn your phone horizontal to see it clearly.  
 

 

thanks for posting the info.  About what I expected. The new t100 is a smidge bigger all over.  

[golfer55082]

13 minutes ago, Cactus Jack said:

Thanks for sharing. 

 

I assume folks will bash the MPF results. However, I never understand why. MPF simply represents a numerical value for the physical aspects of an iron head. No more, no less, and every head in their database is measure exactly the same way. To be clear, it's not a forgiveness rating system, it's a measurement system. For simplicity sake, the ratings are grouped into bands, which approximate general playability, but not absolute playability. For example, based on the physical attributes of a 1920's Mashie, one might find it to be less playable than a new T100. However, given an individuals swing dynamics a Mashie might actually produce better results.    

I scrolled down to find that Callaway Apex CF 16 iron is listed as less forgiving than the Apex Pro 16 !!… you are right….. it’s not worth bashing.

[Cactus Jack]

38 minutes ago, golfer55082 said:

I scrolled down to find that Callaway Apex CF 16 iron is listed as less forgiving than the Apex Pro 16 !!… you are right….. it’s not worth bashing.

 

Just like clockwork 🙂 . The above comment demonstrates the lack of understanding I knew would find it's way into this thread.

 

For folks that are interested in understanding better what MPF is, and is not, below is a quick snippet followed by a link for a more detailed explanation. Understanding the measurements vs. looking at a score is the context needed to make the data meaningful. 

 

Brief Summary:

 

Playability Factor is determined by a simple evaluation of the laws of physics and applied advanced mathematics to develop a formula that computes an index of clubhead Playability. For example, for irons the formula evaluates five dimensional and mass properties of an iron head

Vertical Center of Gravity

Horizontal Center of Gravity

Rearward Center of Gravity

Geometric Center of the Face

Moment of Inertia

 

Detailed Summary: https://ralphmaltby.com/what-is-mpf/

[Drivingrangehero]

It has its benefits and limitations I suppose. 
 

People find benefit with the V-COG numbers and C-DIM numbers as well, but you can have two sets of clubs with almost identical numbers that play far differently I have found. 
 

I had a set of Titleist 716 T-MB irons and a set of Mizuno HMB’s. On paper, they are almost the same club according to the MPF scale, but they played far different to me due to turf interaction.   
 

I don’t know if the sole width, leading edge, effective bounce…et is listed on the MPF site,?but I hit the HMB’s far better than the TMBs 

 

I assume some of the V-Sole players may find issue with some MPF ratings as well. 

[Valtiel]

2 hours ago, golfer55082 said:

I scrolled down to find that Callaway Apex CF 16 iron is listed as less forgiving than the Apex Pro 16 !!… you are right….. it’s not worth bashing.

Is there any reason you feel like that should be different? The are both extremely similar irons with the Apex have a slightly higher MOI, but the Apex Pro having a slightly lower CG, which Maltby favors for their MPF rating. I don't necessarily agree with how they weight things as i've stated in the past, but there is no actual spec that you could point to that makes the case for the Apex being clearly a more forgiving iron than the Apex Pro. 

As for the new TItleist irons, i'm glad they didn't sacrifice too much MOI going for the sleeker package, and the CG coming down is nice to see as well. 

[jason1998]

I'm surprised there is a difference between the T100 and the T100s heads. It is small (maybe to the point of being negligible) but my understanding that the only difference between these two is loft. So why should there be any difference at all? Maybe the decreased loft changes the COG measures ever so slightly?

[lordemsworth]

It’s a little more than loft.  The T100S has a pocket cavity, while the T100 doesn’t (at least up to the 7 iron, I think).

[JStang]

5 minutes ago, jason1998 said:

I'm surprised there is a difference between the T100 and the T100s heads. It is small (maybe to the point of being negligible) but my understanding that the only difference between these two is loft. So why should there be any difference at all? Maybe the decreased loft changes the COG measures ever so slightly?

 

The muscle channel lowers CG. Maltby's rating puts a big emphasis on the VCOG. 

[Pepperturbo]

I wouldn't take the spread between numbers to mean they are literally close in playability.   It doesn't take much quantitative difference to be more difficult, or not so...  Those numbers, IMO, don't transfer well to actual player skill.  I've watched 9/10 index guys not be able to hit my CBs, much less MBs.

 

Maltby MOI of my 620 CB and my 620 MB are very close, yet MPF are quite different.   

Edited October 6, 2021 by Pepperturbo

[JD3]

24 minutes ago, jason1998 said:

I'm surprised there is a difference between the T100 and the T100s heads. It is small (maybe to the point of being negligible) but my understanding that the only difference between these two is loft. So why should there be any difference at all? Maybe the decreased loft changes the COG measures ever so slightly?

loft if more forgiving because it reduces side spin. the 100s would be less forgiving if they didnt position the weight lower. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by JD3

[NRJyzr]

If you want to compare forgiveness, look at MOI.  That's the physics-based measurement of the resistance to twisting on off center hits, which is the point of perimeter weighting.

 

The final MPF score doesn't measure forgiveness in any way.

 

[Audi A-Fore]

1 hour ago, NRJyzr said:

If you want to compare forgiveness, look at MOI.  That's the physics-based measurement of the resistance to twisting on off center hits, which is the point of perimeter weighting.

 

The final MPF score doesn't measure forgiveness in any way.

 

So the T100S is the most forgiving of these 3, since it's the highest MOI? 14.3>14.1 >13.8 for T100s, T100, T200 respectively. 

 

I was considering a split set before but may go with just T100s after looking at these. I think the T200 has slightly higher ballspeeds for whatever reason, but the forgiveness in the longer irons is what I am after. 

 

For reference, I use an Apex '19 Combo set, which shows lower MOI (and MPF) then these (12.3/12.9 MOI for the Apex pro '19 and Apex '19). These numbers suggest the T100s are more forgiving than even the standard Apex '19. 

[2bGood]

3 hours ago, jason1998 said:

I'm surprised there is a difference between the T100 and the T100s heads. It is small (maybe to the point of being negligible) but my understanding that the only difference between these two is loft. So why should there be any difference at all? Maybe the decreased loft changes the COG measures ever so slightly?

I used to think that until I looked into a bit more they are different clubs (not radically so) but the difference is more than just jacked up lofts on the s. 

[dlow206]

I think the real test is I will be going from Srixon ZX5 which is in the 500s MPF, to T300 which is in the high 800s MPF. 

[NRJyzr]

30 minutes ago, Audi A-Fore said:

So the T100S is the most forgiving of these 3, since it's the highest MOI? 14.3>14.1 >13.8 for T100s, T100, T200 respectively. 

 

I was considering a split set before but may go with just T100s after looking at these. I think the T200 has slightly higher ballspeeds for whatever reason, but the forgiveness in the longer irons is what I am after. 

 

For reference, I use an Apex '19 Combo set, which shows lower MOI (and MPF) then these (12.3/12.9 MOI for the Apex pro '19 and Apex '19). These numbers suggest the T100s are more forgiving than even the standard Apex '19. 

 

Yes, that would be true, though those differences are what I would call marginal.  

 

CG location is also worth paying attention to 

[Cactus Jack]

3 hours ago, dlow206 said:

I think the real test is I will be going from Srixon ZX5 which is in the 500s MPF, to T300 which is in the high 800s MPF. 

Please update us when you make the switch. Ralph say it takes a 200+/- rating change to produce noticeable differences in playability. It will be interesting to get your feedback on the sole profiles too as the Srixon V sole is pretty unique. 

[dlow206]

19 minutes ago, Cactus Jack said:

Please update us when you make the switch. Ralph say it takes a 200+/- rating change to produce noticeable differences in playability. It will be interesting to get your feedback on the sole profiles too as the Srixon V sole is pretty unique. 

 

Will do. crossing my fingers for this week. 

[Alan Pllu]

15 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Pro tip.  Turn your phone horizontal to see it clearly.  
 

 

thanks for posting the info.  About what I expected. The new t100 is a smidge bigger all over.  

I have been using this forum for over a year and you have just revealed an entire new world to me!

 

I always wondered how other people could see what's in the bag lists for other users and I couldn't! 

[WristySwing]

18 hours ago, Cactus Jack said:

Thanks for sharing. 

 

I assume folks will bash the MPF results. However, I never understand why. MPF simply represents a numerical value for the physical aspects of an iron head. No more, no less, and every head in their database is measure exactly the same way. To be clear, it's not a forgiveness rating system, it's a measurement system. For simplicity sake, the ratings are grouped into bands, which approximate general playability, but not absolute playability. For example, based on the physical attributes of a 1920's Mashie, one might find it to be less playable than a new T100. However, given an individuals swing dynamics a Mashie might actually produce better results.    

 

Count me in as one of the naysayers and believing that the MPF is mostly fluff.  I understand what it is measuring.  I think it would go over a little bit better if they do away with the category at the end truth be told but I still think it is largely smoke and mirrors..  They have the actual measured values and they feel the need to adjust these values on what seem to be arbitrary, vague descriptions based on what they deem to be good or bad in an iron.  Has anyone actually tested with concrete numbers that a VCOG over 0.840" is detrimental, produces a sub-optimal ball flight, or is a difficult impact location for the average person?  Why is VCOG weighted so heavily and MOI (especially what we know now from drivers) seemingly weighted so little in the calculation, with MOI also having a corrective factor that isn't explicitly explained?  Would the actual values not be more important and indicative of how easy something is to hit?  

I think this is by far my favourite example.  While cherry picked, it provides a very good example of why the MPF is confusing and could be argued as an outdated measurement tool. Here we have a tour blade and a hybrid iron with virtually indistinguishable ratings despite the MOI and rearward COG (two quantifiable, testable things in terms of golf club mechanics that are utilized lately year over year to show how easy to hit something is in terms of lift and directional accuracy) being so far skewed in favour of the hybrid iron.  However, after the VCOG "penalty" is added and the "correction of the MOI" (whatever that means) is added they come out with virtually indistinguishable differences in the MPF score and both with ratings of game improvement.   I don't think you'd get even the most staunch MPF enthusiast, ignorant of the end values if they were done in a blind study, walking away saying these two clubs are even on the same planet in terms of usability for the average player with the same shaft, grip, weight, etc.  Physics or not, a person still has to swing the club and I don't care who you are, almost nobody is going to argue that a blade has the same playability characteristics as a hybrid iron, especially with this skew largely in favour of the Hibore HB before any mystery adjustments are set.

 

[RCGA]

How are they defining "playability" 

 

Because some of these chunky game improvement irons with high MPF scores would be unplayable for me. 

 

I'm seeing some weird results like the somewhat oversized TaylorMade R9 TP irons @ 218 MPF but the Titleist MB blades are 343 

[bladehunter]

3 hours ago, Alan Pllu said:

I have been using this forum for over a year and you have just revealed an entire new world to me!

 

I always wondered how other people could see what's in the bag lists for other users and I couldn't! 

Yep.  I learned this very late too.  So don’t feel bad.  I usually use it vertically.  But occasionally I’ll flip it horizontally to see what else is there.