Newest Maltby Playability for 2024

[bellairemi]

10 hours ago, Barfolomew said:

 

 Damn bro stop being so cheap and get some Titleists...  You gotta have some extra clubs laying around you can sell off if you aint got the cash 💰 

 

99% of golfers dont have the insight of which clubs match them perfectly based on CDIM, VCOG and MOI numbers...... but you sound so convinced that you know what you like perfectly...... What's point of your deep analysis if you're gonna ignore it 🤦‍♂️😂

Yeah but being cheap also means I don't like my primary set being forged and getting wear spots :).  

[Barfolomew]

14 hours ago, bellairemi said:

Yeah but being cheap also means I don't like my primary set being forged and getting wear spots :).  

 

Hahaha.... you need a cheap intervention 😂 What you playin now that's such a great deal?

 

Buy used Titleists or last years model!  All my clubs are used except for lob and gap wedges cause need fresh grooves.  My used 2015 OnOff Kuros were mint and half priced prob $700ish and haven't worn out in 8 years and used to play 4 times a week w practice lol

 

If you play so much that your wearing out clubs then you deserve to have the best clubs out there cause your a serious golfer.... Golf's a lot cheaper then being into boats or sweet cars etc... be nice to yourself amigo lol 💪

[bellairemi]

40 minutes ago, Barfolomew said:

 

Hahaha.... you need a cheap intervention 😂 What you playin now that's such a great deal?

 

Buy used Titleists or last years model!  All my clubs are used except for lob and gap wedges cause need fresh grooves.  My used 2015 OnOff Kuros were mint and half priced prob $700ish and haven't worn out in 8 years and used to play 4 times a week w practice lol

 

If you play so much that your wearing out clubs then you deserve to have the best clubs out there cause your a serious golfer.... Golf's a lot cheaper then being into boats or sweet cars etc... be nice to yourself amigo lol 💪

Ping I e1 - probably worth about $150. 

[robbie91]

If anyone has the time / interest, would it be possible to briefly summarize each of the measurements, what is ideal, and what changes in these measurements means for club playability. I've tried to do a bit of research but most of it is flying over my head! 

[Barfolomew]

1 hour ago, bellairemi said:

Ping I e1 - probably worth about $150. 

 

Damn you are cheap 😂😂😂

 

We gotta start a Go Fund Me page on WRX to get you some Titleists

[OttoVonBizMarkie]

On 4/10/2024 at 12:28 PM, Barfolomew said:

Has the MPF ever helped someone here choose a club?

 

Kind of? I like to test clubs so I use some MPF data points as a way to sort which clubs might work for me.

 

For instance, my favorite iron as a kid was the Mizuno MP-53 - based on that I have a decent idea on how other irons will play. I always compare the "C" dim and MOI to start (I play less now, so I try to go a little bit higher on both if I can) and test from there. Some clubs that fit that archetype play well, a few don't, but in general those clubs all "work" for me. My favorite modern iron is the i210, so I kind of do the same thing.

 

I've never paid much attention to actual VCOG (see i210s above) for clubs made after tungsten and other metals became a "big thing" with weight distribution. I always thought that Ping's toe weights manipulated the data and made the cog seem higher than it should be (I have no idea if it actually does, I know little about physics beyond what I learned in 11th grade).

 

The actual MPF score? Not nearly as important to me.

 

That being said, I still spend way more "testing" irons than I should.

[tomg1969]

On 4/10/2024 at 3:30 PM, teedub21 said:

I don't put much faith in this.  Seems like a lot of mumbo jumbo.  I've hit the Ping Blueprint S and now have my new set of i530's.  There's no way in any universe the blueprint S is more forgiving.  

Exactly. These ratings are garbage. If anything, I would choose irons with lower MPF ratings if you’re looking for more forgiveness. 

[jeffrey r]

8 hours ago, tomg1969 said:

If anything, I would choose irons with lower MPF ratings if you’re looking for more forgiveness. 

 

Well, that’s not really the answer either. I see a pretty good correlation between higher MOI scores and actual forgiveness on the course. Beyond that, I don’t know much about what the other numbers mean. But going with the lower MPF in and of itself ain’t going to get you more forgiveness.

[dekez]

14 hours ago, robbie91 said:

If anyone has the time / interest, would it be possible to briefly summarize each of the measurements, what is ideal, and what changes in these measurements means for club playability. I've tried to do a bit of research but most of it is flying over my head! 

 

The key measurements are:

C-DIM (C dimension) - This is the horizontal length from the sweet spot of the club face to the hosel.  The sweet spot on traditional blades is not in the center of the club face, but closer to the hosel.  Moving it towards the center makes it less likely for you to hit the hosel and shank it.  It's heavily correlated to an overall longer blade length, though, and there's an argument to be made that a longer blade length is worse from the rough.

 

VCOG (Vertical Center of Gravity) - This is the vertical length from the ground to the club's center of gravity.  The center (radius) of a golf ball is 0.842."  The theory is that the lower the VCOG measurement, which means the lower the center of gravity is compared to the golf ball's, the easier it is to get a ball off of the ground.  Think of the old Tight Lies fairways.  Lower VCOG = higher flight.

 

MOI (Moment of Inertia) - This measures how susceptible the club face is to twisting (blade opening or closing on an off-center strike).  The higher the number, the less susceptible to twisting.

 

MPF (Maltby Playability Factor) - A formula that Ralph Maltby came up with to calculate the overall playability of an iron using mostly the measurements above.  The higher the number, the more forgiveness the iron offers and the easier it is to play. It is generally used to place irons into categories like: Traditional, Players, Game Improvement, Super Game Improvement.  Maltby has noted that you can't tell much difference between irons that are within 100 points of each other.

 

Many people just focus on the C-Dim and VCOG rather than the MPF.  That's basically saying that the blade length and tungsten weighting is more important than MOI.

[tomg1969]

1 hour ago, jeffrey r said:

 

Well, that’s not really the answer either. I see a pretty good correlation between higher MOI scores and actual forgiveness on the course. Beyond that, I don’t know much about what the other numbers mean. But going with the lower MPF in and of itself ain’t going to get you more forgiveness.

I was being a bit sarcastic, but the ratings do not illustrate reality.

Two examples from the 2024 clubs are Titleist T150 vs T200 and the Callaway Apex Series. In both cases, the ratings have the more forgiving option rated the lowest.

The Ping i5oo series is another example. 

 

I think the issue is probably related to modern design (CG vs. MOI), especially with players distance irons.

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, tomg1969 said:

I was being a bit sarcastic, but the ratings do not illustrate reality.

Two examples from the 2024 clubs are Titleist T150 vs T200 and the Callaway Apex Series. In both cases, the ratings have the more forgiving option rated the lowest.

The Ping i5oo series is another example. 

 

I think the issue is probably related to modern design (CG vs. MOI), especially with players distance irons.

Why do you think the T200 is more forgiving than the T150? Honest question.

[tomg1969]

13 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Why do you think the T200 is more forgiving than the T150? Honest question.

Honestly because I’ve played them both and it’s not particularly close imo. 
 

T200 is easier to launch, goes farther, is better on thin strikes, is better on toe strikes and handles fats better. 
 

“Forgiveness” is always difficult to quantify because it means different things to different people. If all we want to measure is resistance to twisting, then you can use MOI. The problem with these ratings is that they are supposed to be “playability” ratings. 
As a baseline, that should mean a rating for ease of use, which could include forgiveness, launch, spin, landing angle etc. 

 

If we are trying to rate clubs on ease of use, for the general golfer, in my opinion, based on my experience, there’s no way that anyone can say that the T150 is easier to use than T200.
 

More workable? Yes. Better feel? Yes. More consisting/accurate? Probably.
Easier for the average golfer to play? No chance.
 

Just my .02….

Edited April 13 by tomg1969

[Kyfra]

11 hours ago, tomg1969 said:

Exactly. These ratings are garbage. If anything, I would choose irons with lower MPF ratings if you’re looking for more forgiveness. 

By all means grab something from the players classic group and hit it all over the face. That should go well.

 

https://store-k9nvqai7wz.mybigcommerce.com/content/PDFs/Head_MPFs/MPFRatingsChart.pdf

 

[tomg1969]

2 minutes ago, Kyfra said:

By all means grab something from the players classic group and hit it all over the face. That should go well.

 

https://store-k9nvqai7wz.mybigcommerce.com/content/PDFs/Head_MPFs/MPFRatingsChart.pdf

 

Try Apex pro vs the CB or MB and get back to me 

[ThinkingPlus]

28 minutes ago, tomg1969 said:

Honestly because I’ve played them both and it’s not particularly close imo. 
 

T200 is easier to launch, goes farther, is better on thin strikes, is better on toe strikes and handles fats better. 
 

“Forgiveness” is always difficult to quantify because it means different things to different people. If all we want to measure is resistance to twisting, then you can use MOI. The problem with these ratings is that they are supposed to be “playability” ratings. 
As a baseline, that should mean a rating for ease of use, which could include forgiveness, launch, spin, landing angle etc. 

 

If we are trying to rate clubs on ease of use, for the general golfer, in my opinion, based on my experience, there’s no way that anyone can say that the T150 is easier to use than T200.
 

More workable? Yes. Better feel? Yes. More consisting/accurate? Probably.
Easier for the average golfer to play? No chance.
 

Just my .02….

The measured data would support the higher launch and more playable thin and toe shots of the T200 although the difference should be minimal. The T150 has a little higher MOI which theoretically should provide a little less twisting and less distance loss on off center strikes.

 

For most players I wouldn't expect a dramatic difference in performance. Certain club delivery positions might favor one club over the other, but really splitting hairs. The club measurements are very similar.

[bluedot]

The angst over the MPF ratings always amuses me.  Maltby has devised a formula for putting irons into one of several broad categories; it's a tool for understanding a particular club beyond the marketing.  It's no different than the advanced metrics that are being used now in sports; none of them necessarily give a complete picture, but all of them are potentially useful tools.

 

The fact that Titleist doesn't market the T150 as "forgiving" is a marketing tactic; Titleist is in the business of selling golf clubs.  The actual difference in the MPF ratings between the T150 and T250 is insignificant; the two irons are in the same category in the MPF ratings.  That does NOT mean that the two clubs play the same, though; it would be huge misuse and misunderstanding of the ratings to think so.  I play the T250s, but I hit the T150s extensively at a Titleist fitting.  FOR ME, the launch and descent angle and turf interaction were different enough to distinguish the two from each other, not to mention the look at address. 

 

If you want to use the MPF ratings before a purchase, then read the category descriptions, look at the category that you're interested in, and see what's there.  Don't overthink the numbers; that's Maltby's job.  Thinking that you should (or shouldn't) get the T200 because the T150 is just as forgiving is just NOT what the MPF ratings are about; Maltby doesn't even use that word!

 

[hook_or_slice]

3 hours ago, bluedot said:

........

 

.... Thinking that you should (or shouldn't) get the T200 because the T150 is just as forgiving is just NOT what the MPF ratings are about; Maltby doesn't even use that word!

 

 

Maltby actually does use the word "forgiving".

 

From Maltby's website:

 

"MPF is broken down into 6 categories. The categories range from the easiest, most forgiving clubs made today (Ultra Game Improvement) "

[bluedot]

10 hours ago, hook_or_slice said:

 

Maltby actually does use the word "forgiving".

 

From Maltby's website:

 

"MPF is broken down into 6 categories. The categories range from the easiest, most forgiving clubs made today (Ultra Game Improvement) "

I’ll take your word for that, although I couldn’t quickly find it.  But “forgiving” is NOT in the summary of any of the 6 categories of irons, including Ultra Game Improvement.  

[RacineBoxer]

On 4/13/2024 at 9:37 AM, ThinkingPlus said:

The measured data would support the higher launch and more playable thin and toe shots of the T200 although the difference should be minimal. The T150 has a little higher MOI which theoretically should provide a little less twisting and less distance loss on off center strikes.

 

For most players I wouldn't expect a dramatic difference in performance. Certain club delivery positions might favor one club over the other, but really splitting hairs. The club measurements are very similar.

 

Sometimes, despite all these different measurements, something as simple as sole thickness could really make an iron more "forgiving" for some players. The T200's have thicker soles (and a thicker topline). Otherwise I agree with you, there shouldn't be that much difference. I would venture a guess if we asked the top 5-10 Titleist engineers that worked on the T series irons if the T150 or T200 was more forgiving we'd get 100% saying the T200 was, and they'd be able to explain why. In THEIR opinion. It would then seem their opinion is different that Mr. Maltby's. 

[ThinkingPlus]

5 minutes ago, RacineBoxer said:

 

Sometimes, despite all these different measurements, something as simple as sole thickness could really make an iron more "forgiving" for some players. The T200's have thicker soles (and a thicker topline). Otherwise I agree with you, there shouldn't be that much difference. I would venture a guess if we asked the top 5-10 Titleist engineers that worked on the T series irons if the T150 or T200 was more forgiving we'd get 100% saying the T200 was, and they'd be able to explain why. In THEIR opinion. It would then seem their opinion is different that Mr. Maltby's. 

Sole thickness can also make an iron less forgiving if you play very firm turf. As in all things, each design feature can help some folks, but hurt others. That's what makes having the raw measurements important. Wish they provided bounce values.

[RacineBoxer]

On 4/11/2024 at 8:20 PM, dekez said:

 

I'm still in the VCOG > MOI camp. Many of the most favored clubs by even better players have low VCOG. e.g. Srixon ZX7, ZX5, Titleist T150, TaylorMade .790.  Only Ping appears to be going the alternate route.  And one of their most iconic sets, the S59, was a low VCOG set. 

 

Some low spinners on that list. And some Titleist irons that were designed for the best players in the world, like the 718MB or 620MB are both over .800.

 

The P790 is an interesting one. I'm not a massive believer in fliers (another hotly debated topic) but the P790 VCOG is pretty darn low, less than .700. I can go through several pages of Titleist or Ping data and see zero iron sets below 0.7. Maybe this is a contributor to fliers that needs more investigation? I mean think about it, what happens when you hit a driver low on the face (i.e. below the COG)? Spin goes up. What happens when you hit a driver high on the face (i.e. above the COG), spin goes down. I've seen many fitters say that the Ping i210 was a go to club to give to people if they needed more spin. Probably makes sense that it has a relatively high COG (could lead to more spin). Maybe lower COG can slightly increase fliers from shots struck high on the face, especially with debris? Might be a case of multiple things adding up: high on the face +5 yards, some grass between clubface and ball +5 yards, excessively low COG +5 yards.

 

Lastly, to me, it seems like rearward COG would have a really, really big impact on ballflight. I know with drivers with a lot of weight really far back I have to change my delivery or else I get moon balls. So for example, one could be like "OMG look at that high COG on the Ping G400/410/425 set of irons, that's terrible, those things won't launch!". Yet we all know that's not true. Ping G series irons launch high. With ease. Well, maybe its because they have a wide sole and if you look at their cross sections, the mass is moved away from the face and pulled back. So that combination of wide sole/weight back counters a somewhat higher COG, perhaps, perhaps, MORE than making up for a higher VCOG that might lead to challenges with launch. Lastly, a lot of people probably hit balls somewhat high on the face with some regularity. I know I do. My irons frequently show wear a little toe side and a little high. I'm sure that's not good but it happens to be my miss pattern. A little higher COG might help those shots struck high on the face still perform (mass + not quite as much spin loss). Just a theory. 

 

Lastly, I do think what all these numbers get to is the need to find a set that works for YOU. Are you a picker or a digger? Is your miss thin or high on the face? Heel or toe. Do you draw or slice it too much? All these little differences can either help or hurt you if you aren't careful. 

[RacineBoxer]

15 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Sole thickness can also make an iron less forgiving if you play very firm turf. As in all things, each design feature can help some folks, but hurt others. That's what makes having the raw measurements important. Wish they provided bounce values.

 

Yeah I remember watching a video with Ian Fraser from TXG and he really struggled to hit a wide sole iron. Just did not work well with his delivery. 

[NRJyzr]

38 minutes ago, RacineBoxer said:

The P790 is an interesting one. I'm not a massive believer in fliers (another hotly debated topic) but the P790 VCOG is pretty darn low, less than .700. I can go through several pages of Titleist or Ping data and see zero iron sets below 0.7. Maybe this is a contributor to fliers that needs more investigation?

 

The hotspot flier is a product of spin production.  If your spin is at a certain level, you can see a significant distance jump from the reduction in spin coming from contact slightly above the CG.  Vertical gear effect is the generator.

 

As a side note, look at all four generations of the P790.  The CG hasn't always been this low, it's tended to be a fair bit higher.

 

 

Edited April 17 by NRJyzr

[gvogel]

23 hours ago, bluedot said:

The angst over the MPF ratings always amuses me.  Maltby has devised a formula for putting irons into one of several broad categories; it's a tool for understanding a particular club beyond the marketing.  It's no different than the advanced metrics that are being used now in sports; none of them necessarily give a complete picture, but all of them are potentially useful tools.

 

The fact that Titleist doesn't market the T150 as "forgiving" is a marketing tactic; Titleist is in the business of selling golf clubs.  The actual difference in the MPF ratings between the T150 and T250 is insignificant; the two irons are in the same category in the MPF ratings.  That does NOT mean that the two clubs play the same, though; it would be huge misuse and misunderstanding of the ratings to think so.  I play the T250s, but I hit the T150s extensively at a Titleist fitting.  FOR ME, the launch and descent angle and turf interaction were different enough to distinguish the two from each other, not to mention the look at address. 

 

If you want to use the MPF ratings before a purchase, then read the category descriptions, look at the category that you're interested in, and see what's there.  Don't overthink the numbers; that's Maltby's job.  Thinking that you should (or shouldn't) get the T200 because the T150 is just as forgiving is just NOT what the MPF ratings are about; Maltby doesn't even use that word!

 

It is interesting to me that the Titleist T350 is MPF 820 game improvement, and the T300 is MPF 877 Ultra Game IMprovement.

 

I have both irons with the same shaft.  In a Dome the T350 seems better.  I also have both T150 and T200, with the same shaft.  I think that T200 is easier to hit.  All these are 7-iron.  I am a 7-iron who&e.

[Bad9]

14 hours ago, gvogel said:

It is interesting to me that the Titleist T350 is MPF 820 game improvement, and the T300 is MPF 877 Ultra Game IMprovement.

 

I have both irons with the same shaft.  In a Dome the T350 seems better.  I also have both T150 and T200, with the same shaft.  I think that T200 is easier to hit.  All these are 7-iron.  I am a 7-iron who&e.

I think the MPF people will tell you that the playability difference between 820 and 877 is insignificant and not noticeable unless there are differences in sole design, bounce etc.

[bluedot]

15 hours ago, RacineBoxer said:

 

Sometimes, despite all these different measurements, something as simple as sole thickness could really make an iron more "forgiving" for some players. The T200's have thicker soles (and a thicker topline). Otherwise I agree with you, there shouldn't be that much difference. I would venture a guess if we asked the top 5-10 Titleist engineers that worked on the T series irons if the T150 or T200 was more forgiving we'd get 100% saying the T200 was, and they'd be able to explain why. In THEIR opinion. It would then seem their opinion is different that Mr. Maltby's. 

Yes, BUT Maltby doesn’t say that the T250 is more forgiving than the T150; that’s only being said by us!
 

What Maltby does say is that the irons are pretty similar in terms of “playability”.  It’s then up to the individual player to determine which of the two is a better fit FOR THEM.

 

And they are different.  The top line, the sole, the size; none of those are the same.  I hit them both extensively at a Titleist fitting, and the T250 just worked better FOR ME.  I even worked with the fitter on the possibility of a blended set with T150 short irons, but we didn’t like the launch and descent angles nearly as well.

 

I’m reasonably confident that I could have gotten the T150s and made it work, but they just didn’t fit me as well as the T250s.  I definitely didn’t need to go to the 350s, though I did hit them at the fitting, and I definitely didn’t need to go in the other direction to a true blade club.  
 

That’s what the MPF ratings are for; they can be a tool to help you narrow down choices.  Beyond that, we are misusing Maltby’s formulas.

[Shallowface]

22 minutes ago, Bad9 said:

I think the MPF people will tell you that the playability difference between 820 and 877 is insignificant and not noticeable unless there are differences in sole design, bounce etc.

I remember reading somewhere that Maltby believed most people would not notice the difference in one club versus another unless the point differential was 200 or more, except for the factors you mention.  MPF does nothing to quantify sole design, which I believe is very important particularly in clubs for higher handicaps.  There are older clubs with high MPF ratings that you could use for a razor.  Some of the highest rated Maltby products of the past weren't the most playable when it comes to sole design.

 

As some have mentioned, the best part of the MPF listings is that it allows one to compare the physical properties of clubheads.  It exposes marketing hype such as "we've lowered the COG" when truth is they actually haven't.     

 

The funny thing about most of the people who comment on these MPF threads is that it is clear they haven't actually read the books.  I highly recommend them.  If you actually know what makes a golf club tick, you might save yourself a ton of money chasing marketing hype being sold as performance.  It certainly helped me.

 

BTW, Ralph Maltby is retired from the business and has been for some time.  He isn't involved in the design of the current products.  His autobiography is another great read.