• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
kilbyman

Maltby playability factor question

12 posts in this topic

So I noticed on the 2009 maltby iron list, the Nike TW VR muscleback was rated higher (more playable) than either of their cavity backs, and the Mizuno MX series. Does this mean that the Nike blades are easier to hit than their cavity backs? I'm confused.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

I'd be interested to know the answer too. The clubs I'm playing with are rated rather low on the scale, R7 draw, but are typical GI clubs from a looks/feel standpoint. There are even a few musclebacks and players irons rated easier to hit according to the scale.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how accurate it is.

it's only a load of measurements.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have hit the blades - THe TW VR Blades
they are forgiving for a blade - but dont kid yourself - they are a blade and will let u know it when you hit it wrong
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Maltby has like 8 out of the first 10 spots on that list tells me everything I need to know about it.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

The fact that Maltby has like 8 out of the first 10 spots on that list tells me everything I need to know about it.

I think he developed the MPF, then designed his irons with that in mind - but I hear ya. I must be letting gravity be my guide - the irons I've typically preferred are always near the bottom of the list. Whatever.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Maltby has like 8 out of the first 10 spots on that list tells me everything I need to know about it.

Maltby also doesn't design Players' Irons, even Players' Cavities, as we think of them. I think he's several times expressed the opinion that everyone should play Game Improvement irons. It's no surprise that ease of hitting - or whatever it is that MPF measures - is the focus of his designs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

. . . he's several times expressed the opinion that everyone should play Game Improvement irons

Hence the underlying "who cares" nature of the MPF.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MPF is a numerical designation of certain qualities of particular golf clubs, but has very little to do with how they will feel in your hands, and when you strike the ball.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MPF is a numerical designation of certain qualities of particular golf clubs, but has very little to do with how they will feel in your hands, and when you strike the ball.

Maltby Playability Factor is based upon six measurements made on an iron from a set of clubs. I made a copy of the MPI table, but have had trouble loading it to this site. I also made up a table comparing the six-category MPF system with the three-category Golf Digest system. Basically, the higher the MPF, the easier it is to hit the club and get it airborne. Clubs with a very high MPF are harder to "work" as far as height control goes, because the Vertical Center of Gravity is so low (VCOG is a key measurement). Low VCOG means ball pops up pretty high. And yes, sometimes a blade club will have a higher MPF than a muscle-cavity: Callaway X22 Tour MPF = 594 | X Forged (2009) MPF = 621 Ping S59 MPF = 660 | I10 MPF = 560 | S57 MPF = 612 In Ping 560 vs. 660 is a noticeable difference; otherwise, 20 or 30 points difference is negligible. Maltby says: * MPF classes suggest which category of club might be best for you. But, you still need to comparison test clubs. * MPF is a starting point, but does not take into account shaft flex and kickpoint. His website has lots of info on club design and club comparisons: http://www.ralphmaltby.com/ Website doesn't show the MF categories, or how you calculate MPF. For this you need his book Maltby Playability Factor: Book I MPF Irons (2005). Some golf shops have copies of it for about $1, as a new version is in the works. Super book if you like golf club design and/or history of golf club development. Lots of pictures and engineering drawings in full color.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: Maltby' original system uses six categories of clubs. Most people on here use the Golf Digest breakdown of clubs as players, game improvement, and super game improvement. GD basically combines some of Maltby's original six.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand how MPF works, and it's a useful tool for revealing many of the physical properties of the golf club. But, for me, it stops there. Doesn't tell you how the ball will respond to the dynamics of an individual player's swing, how the club will feel in your hand, how it will feel when it is swung, how it will feel when the ball is struck, how it will feel on fat and/or thin shots, how it looks at address, etc. All things being equal, game improvement clubs will be easier to hit than player's cbs or mbs, but it simply can't tell you how well a club will work for you or how much you will like it.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Posts

    • GAME GOLF - Digital Tracking System
      Well, I went ahead and bit. Amazon Warehouse Deals has a few for $86 each. I had a $25 Amazon GC from Christmas, so after tax, it's going to be $66. It says the packaging is damaged, but no mention of problems with the device. Here's hoping it comes in good shape, and that it warms up pretty quickly so I can use it!
    • "5 Minutes Daily" Practice Challenge (February 2016)
      The tournament I was supposed to play in was cancelled , so I played in a shotgun start today. The group I was in played at a quicker pace than the group in front and the group behind us, so I had plenty of opportunities for practicing greenside chipping and bunker shots as well as putting.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      While I expect it's largely accurate, I was more interested in a link to the actual quote than your paraphrase. The context of the question and interview plus the exact wording gives a clearer understanding of the statement. I accept deeper field of talent, I don't accept that it's automatically 'a ton' or an order of magnitude greater. What's the average score relative to the field (or % making the cut) in the PGA for the Pros vs. the PGA qualifiers from then to now? That could provide some insight to relative gap between majors field depth then and now. I am certain it's gotten harder for the PGA qualifiers to make it tot he weekend. I am less certain by how much the margin has shifted. The reason I stress the Majors and Opens is that size of field and openness to qualifiers is very important in making the top competitors face many elite players with potential to have a hot run of form. You're comparing apples to oranges there. That was ~ 1.5 million players in the U.S., not the world population of golfers. About 26 million golfers today in the U.S. Worldwide in 1920 who knows? But including Europe, Australia, and other 'commonwealth' countries it was likely double that - maybe triple. Also I can find no credible estimate that supports 100 million current golfers worldwide. Most generous is about 61 million. While there are a lot of clubs world-wide, participation of 'casual' unaffiliated golfers per club is not going to be the same as in the U.S. and that's the only way I get a number close to 100 million based on actual data. U.S. golf population talent base roughly tripled between Jack and Tiger and I expect worldwide it was a similar rate of increase. I think since the 1920's the U.S. has had about half the wold golf population, though that's started to decline of late as Asian participation increases. Jack was head and shoulders above highly competitive fields for nearly a generation similar to Tiger. I don't think human abilities change by orders of magnitude in short spans of time so I expect that Jack was an outlier of similar human ability as Tiger. How close and who has the edge is IMO debatable. Were Tiger's achievements (esp. the 'beat the field' streak) tougher than Jack's because of field depth, yes. How much more I'm not as sure as you. Did a relative 'competitive break' from full field events offered by the WGC's help Tiger there? Don't know but it's possible. Combine Tiger's regular wins and Majors and I have no problem giving him the greatest player of all time nod. I just don't think it's as cut and dried or by as large a margin as you seem to. They didn't play against each other so your confidence isn't any more a fact than my uncertainty. We're both estimating. Size of the field actually competing matters too, not just who wasn't invited to the party. I like the idea of a top player field and enjoy watching the events, but if only the top 50 players are playing they all have a better shot statistically than if the field was open to 156 or more players who are still very 'elite' in skill. As you've said in many posts, golf skill performance is highly variable. I agree and that's why I think size of field is relevant to the comparison, because I think the scoring variability of the top 90 golfers in the world overlaps considerably with the next 90 down and even a bit beyond that. That's why I wondered whether WGC wins are a bit less valuable than a major or a full field PGA tour event that's also open to Monday qualifying. Granted the world ranking system is better than it used to be, but it still weights international events more strongly than they deserve. Some of the reasons I think you may be undervaluing Nicklaus' achievement in comparing across eras.
    • "5 Minutes Daily" Practice Challenge (January 2016)
      I managed to complete the January challenge (without missing a day, I believe). It was a great months' work for my game - having to blog every day sure helps to focus each session.
    • Steel vs Graphite generic question
      S300 is one of the lowest launching steel shafts.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries