Master "Forged vs. Cast" or "Blade vs. Game-Improvement" Iron Thread

[SamGray]

Knowing almost nothing about your game I am going to struggle to give you much but I will try. Definitely go hit the clubs on a launch monitor and GET FIT. Also do my pass up the mizuno mp64's. Don't be afraid to hit anything and everything on the monitor and see what happens... It's the only real way to make sure you choose the right clubs. Welcome to TST!

[BENtSwing]

I was torn between the AP2's and JPX825 Pros, and I hit both A LOT...I ended up with the Mizunos because they felt better to me and gave me slightly better distance control, but the AP2's will give you plenty of feedback. Great clubs. Zach Johnson and Jason Dufner use them...'nuff said.

[SamGray]

I was torn between the AP2's and JPX825 Pros, and I hit both A LOT...I ended up with the Mizunos because they felt better to me and gave me slightly better distance control, but the AP2's will give you plenty of feedback. Great clubs. Zach Johnson and Jason Dufner use them...'nuff said.

But also the feel of Mizuno irons are second to none... Okay maybe Miura... but you cant get those unless you are absolutely loaded

[GaijinGolfer]

If you have to ask whether or not you should be hitting blades,  you shouldnt be hitting blades.

[mp33 man]

I've never used a set of "bladed" irons:) but I would recommend getting a cheap single used blade from golfsmith or ebay and try to hit it at the range. You said that you like to work the ball allot but it really depends on what type of "working" you like to do. Blades don't necessarily make it easier to work the ball left and right but they will generally be easier to work up and down... Also depends allot on shafts.

[saevel25]

Who would want to hit bladed irons. If anyone has ever hit a bladed iron shot, its just horrible.

[WUTiger]

If you have to ask whether or not you should be hitting blades,  you shouldnt be hitting blades.

+1

[RJstank]

Thanks for the advice everyone, really helped me out!

[Pigems]

Not sure if anyone has already seen/posted this or not, but for those who haven't its a great tool in helping to choose a new iron set. It's the Matlby MPF Chart (Maltby Playability Factor), which is basically every major OEM's irons broken down into a numerical rating for Playability/Forgiveness. There even broken into categories of UGI, SGI, GI,Traditional, ect. Look it up, It's a really cool and usefully chart. :)

[GaijinGolfer]

Not sure if anyone has already seen/posted this or not, but for those who haven't its a great tool in helping to choose a new iron set. It's the Matlby MPF Chart (Maltby Playability Factor), which is basically every major OEM's irons broken down into a numerical rating for Playability/Forgiveness. There even broken into categories of UGI, SGI, GI,Traditional, ect. Look it up, It's a really cool and usefully chart. :)

Im not a fan of the MPF because it makes no sense.

[saevel25]

Im not a fan of the MPF because it makes no sense.

I agree, I think his method is off. I never liked it that much.

[MFrench]

Thin to win!

[LuciusWooding]

Not sure if anyone has already seen/posted this or not, but for those who haven't its a great tool in helping to choose a new iron set. It's the Matlby MPF Chart (Maltby Playability Factor), which is basically every major OEM's irons broken down into a numerical rating for Playability/Forgiveness. There even broken into categories of UGI, SGI, GI,Traditional, ect. Look it up, It's a really cool and usefully chart. :)

I don't really place any stock in the MPF rating, but the Maltby TE irons are a great deal. You can't really hit them to test but they feel as good as you can hit them and look great at address (thin topline, almost no offset), in addition to being plenty forgiving. I have them in the bag from 3-PW and I would consider them as good or better than anything in the price category. My set cost about 200 for the 8 heads, though I bought them a few at a time, and then I added my grip and shaft of choice, which I chose rather expensive models for. They can also custom assemble them including loft and lie adjustments for 10$ a club, but I do my own assembly now because it's not worth paying someone else. They did a pretty good job on the first couple, though. They also released them in a black finish now as well as chrome. There are also blade models for the same price, though I don't think anyone benefits from blades. Your call though.

http://www.golfworks.com/search.asp_Q_ipp_E_5000_A_t_E_c_A_c_E_671

I would consider Mizuno irons but they cost about double, and the shafts I use were the primary expense in my set; they cost a lot less if you go for a more basic shaft. You'd need to find a pretty well used iron set and luck out on the specs in order to get as good of a setup. I decided it was better to get a brand new set without the need for adjustments, new grips, etc. I also don't like dynamic gold shafts much so I didn't get stuck with those like so many other companies do; I paid around 550 including grips vs about 1200 for the Mizuno equivalent with the same shafts.

[WUTiger]

I don't really place any stock in the MPF rating, but the Maltby TE irons are a great deal. You can't really hit them to test but they feel as good as you can hit them and look great at address (thin topline, almost no offset), in addition to being plenty forgiving. I have them in the bag from 3-PW and I would consider them as good or better than anything in the price category. ...

You have to understand the structure and intended use of the Maltby Playability Factor ratings. The GolfWorks team calculates the MPF using a six-variable math equation. It takes into account such things as vertical center of gravity (VCOG), rearward center of gravity (RCOG), and moment of inertia (MOI).

The MPF ratings divide clubs into six categories, from Ultra Game Improvement down through Players Classic. There's even a 7th no-go category for clubs - mostly historical - that have a negative MPF. The MPF measures the user-friendliness of clubheads. Even developer Ralph Maltby cautions that MPF tells only about clubheads, and does not factor in what type of shaft the club has.

The MPF ratings serve as a rough sorting guide, so that you can try out seven iron models you like rather than 60.

The six MPF categories derive from scientific measurement. The more popular three-way Golf Digest splitout - SuperGame Improvement, Game Improvement and Player's - describes a club's perceived marketing niche. I have e-mailed GD twice asking how the GD trio compare to the MPF, but have received no response.

Maltby notes that analysis of clubs from the 1960s through 1980s shows that the best selling models of an era tended to have comparatively high MPF scores. (This was an analysis of historic clubs: As near as I can tell, the MPF was not publicized until the early 2000s).

[PirateJim]

Everyone has to make their own decisions on what club to get and what they want to play.  I'm about a 10 handicap too and can honestly tell when I don't hit my Ping G20s elsewhere than the sweet spot, and how far I missed. (Usually toward the toe, sadly.)  I don't pay a huge penalty for that miss if it isn't real bad, which is nice on the course, not so important on the range, but if I didn't hit the club poorly sometimes I would be lower than 10.  I'm thinking very hard about upgrading to Titleist 714 AP1s myself, I like the forgiveness, and I don't consider myself a "player" so game improvement clubs are in order for me.

Good luck.

[LuciusWooding]

I actually own a full set of the AC108 irons from Titleist, one of the 3 lowest MPF clubs (-278 or something if I recall) on the list. They were the AP2 of their day, with tungsten heel/toe weighting and not one but 2 cavities in the back, as well as a sharp leading edge with little to negative bounce through the set. They are about 1000 points below my current irons but they are obviously meant to be played a few degrees open given the sole design, which makes them work reasonably well compared to blades from the same era that are around 4-500. In addition to playing them wide open, you have to hit a bit on the hosel side like every other club from that era, in order to make them perform as intended. I'm not saying they're any good, but they do get screwed out of 6-700 points because of how they're measured on paper vs how they are played. Obviously Maltby can design his clubs to give really good MPF numbers for their style, and they do perform well, but these days the principles behind his system like lowering the CG and keeping it in the center of the face are no secret and everyone applies them to their designs as they see fit.

That's not to say I don't agree that Maltby knows what he's doing though. Since there is no definitive measurement for forgiveness his attempt at creating one is pretty good but I'm not going to choose one iron set over another solely because of it. That's my personal opinion though. What made me like the TE irons was their affordability and suitability to my game, since I was looking for a workhorse iron to get me to single digits eventually, not the fact that they have a high MPF. They have exceeded my expectations so far and they aren't holding me back in the least.

[colin007]

I use MP52s, nowhere near a blade, and I can tell immediately whether I hit them good or not. Blades will not "force" you to improve your ball striking.

[StrayCat]

You have to understand the structure and intended use of the Maltby Playability Factor ratings. The GolfWorks team calculates the MPF using a six-variable math equation. It takes into account such things as vertical center of gravity (VCOG), rearward center of gravity (RCOG), and moment of inertia (MOI).

The MPF ratings divide clubs into six categories, from Ultra Game Improvement down through Players Classic. There's even a 7th no-go category for clubs - mostly historical - that have a negative MPF. The MPF measures the user-friendliness of clubheads. Even developer Ralph Maltby cautions that MPF tells only about clubheads, and does not factor in what type of shaft the club has.

The MPF ratings serve as a rough sorting guide, so that you can try out seven iron models you like rather than 60.

The six MPF categories derive from scientific measurement. The more popular three-way Golf Digest splitout - SuperGame Improvement, Game Improvement and Player's - describes a club's perceived marketing niche. I have e-mailed GD twice asking how the GD trio compare to the MPF, but have received no response.

Maltby notes that analysis of clubs from the 1960s through 1980s shows that the best selling models of an era tended to have comparatively high MPF scores. (This was an analysis of historic clubs: As near as I can tell, the MPF was not publicized until the early 2000s).

So what does it all mean in terms of score?  How many strokes between a players club and a GI club, or a SGI club?  2?  5?  10?  I see posts on here all the time where someone will say "with your index, you can't hit a blade".  Why can't they hit a blade?  I hit blades for 25 years and my iron game was the best part of my game and my handicap never got to single digits.

I ask you WU because you're one of the tech guys on here and if you can't quantify the differences then I'll continue to believe that anyone can hit any club if they're willing to work on their swing mechanics.

Your game is bought at the practice range, not at Golfsmith.