My recent club choices and MPF

[mukster]

I stumbled across someone here mentioning the Maltby Playability Factor and decided to look at how he rates clubs that I have been trying recently. I have been trying clubs with a little more forgiveness than my MP-32s.

 

My own Mizuno MP-32 - 412

Nike VR split - 328

TM R9 TP - 218

Titleist AP2 - 548

Ping S57 - 612

Ping G15 - 844 (not tried these, but they get a lot of love here)

Callaway '09 X-forged - 621 (haven't tried either, get LOTS of love here)

Mizuno MP52 -392

 

 

I found the VR Split "more forgiving" than my MP-32s and the R9 TP and AP2s equally easy to hit.

 

Anyone actually ever look at these numbers? For me, the club must look nice and instill confidence, while still working well for me. Has anyone ever had their decision swayed by the MPF numbers?

[SwingMan]

I think one must look at the factors he uses to rate the MPF in order to determine if you believe this rating is valid to you.

I think the word "Playability" is a misnomer. Maybe it should be head design forgiveness? See below for what I mean.

From the mouth of Ralph Maltby:

"However, beyond playability factor, there are many more golf club attributes that affect how well a golf club will play that MPF does not take into account. MPF categorizes golf clubs using certain design properties that most influence the overall playability of a golf club and therefore are the biggest factors in explaining the key differences in playability between differing designs. As an example, MPF does not take into account design properties such as sole bounce, proper loft angle, proper lie angle, face grooves, sole width, offsets, face progressions, head weight, swingweight, club length and the golf shaft. Playability factor also does not take into account how different swings can bring the club head into impact on different planes, arcs and angles and how the ball is affected regarding launch angle, backspin and feel back to the golfer."

In other words, do not make your choice of clubs dependent on MPF alone. Demo and get numbers.

[bigbore56]

I used to study those MPF numbers a lot, then go shopping. I bought some Ping I10's based on it's numbers, but was sadly disappointed in how they played. I went to S-58's (MPF 778) and was surprised how well I hit them. I guess the numbers might be guidelines, but no longer mean a lot to me...you just have to experiment for yourself.

I just bought S-57's (MPF 612), and there is no way these should be rated under my S58's. They fell better and the tungsten inserts make a big difference....so there is a case when the numbers did not tell the whole truth!

I usually try to take 3 or 4 demo irons (various manufacturers) on the range and hit a bucket of balls before I get too absorbed in the numbers.

[DaveMac]

The MPF has been discussed quite a lot, while it is by no means perfect I think it is a useful resource when it comes to short listing candidate clubs.

The MPF does not take into account confidence factors such as the basic look of a club, the topline thickness, sole grind and bounce to name a few.

The best way to use the data is to isolate what is most important to your game, then compare clubs based on these factors. Data such as the MOI, the center of the club face and the center of gravity probably have a more direct bearing on the performance of a given club than the full playability factor.

You can read some more in this [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/415032-maltby-playability-factor-numbers/page__p__2736106__hl__maltby+playability+factor__fromsearch__1#entry2736106"]topic[/url] and further discussions can be found using the search.

[BlkNGld]

[quote name='mukster' timestamp='1291222083' post='2817935']
I stumbled across someone here mentioning the Maltby Playability Factor and decided to look at how he rates clubs that I have been trying recently. I have been trying clubs with a little more forgiveness than my MP-32s.

My own Mizuno MP-32 - 412
Nike VR split - 328
TM R9 TP - 218
Titleist AP2 - 548
Ping S57 - 612
Ping G15 - 844 (not tried these, but they get a lot of love here)
Callaway '09 X-forged - 621 (haven't tried either, get LOTS of love here)
Mizuno MP52 -392


I found the VR Split "more forgiving" than my MP-32s and the R9 TP and AP2s equally easy to hit.

Anyone actually ever look at these numbers? For me, the club must look nice and instill confidence, while still working well for me. Has anyone ever had their decision swayed by the MPF numbers?
[/quote]

In general, the lower and closer to the center of the clubface the center of gravity is, the higher the MPF.

This is one reason why Ping and Callaway clubs have a history of high MPF amongst OEMs. Less hosel, lower COG, higher MPF. It stands to reason that Maltby clubs will excel in the areas that RM believes important.

However, too low of a COG can result in a less than optimal launch for some swings.

Having played Callaway x series irons for a number of years I was surprised at the stronger ball flight and greater distance I got on well struck shots with GI irons having lower MPF.

[mukster]

Thanks for the replies. I did not think to do a search to see if this had been covered before.

[SwingMan]

[quote name='mukster' timestamp='1291250743' post='2818722']
Thanks for the replies. I did not think to do a search to see if this had been covered before.
[/quote]


Search? -- google it and read Maltby.

I've read so many MPF threads .... and they are all useless... for the most part... a lot of flaming, a lot of insults, a lot of misinformation..

But go at it ...