Original AP1 upgrade to AP2 712 Too Much?

[evan01]

I have been playing with an original set of AP1's, Thinking of passing the old clubs down to my son. I play at about a 10 handicap. Is it too much of an upgrade to go the latest and greatest of the AP line?  AP2 712?

[WUTiger]

Is your HDCP rising, falling, or staying the same? And, how much time do you have to work on your game?

AP2 irons aren't blades, but you'd probably need to be a fairly good ballstriker to use them effectively.

Club engineer Ralph Maltby rated the Titleist 710 iron models in his 2010 Maltby Playability Factor report, but does not yet have ratings for the new 712 models.

Titleist 710 irons family

Model	MPF	Category
AP1	828	Super Game Imprv
AP2	548	Conventional
CB	517	Conventional
MB	321	Classic

Golf Digest would consider Conventional and Classic as Player's irons.

- - - - - - - - -

So, under the 710 family you would have a significant drop in playability going from AP1 to AP2. On occasion, follow-on models will have a shift in playability over earlier ones. But don't expect the MPF ratings on 2012 irons until late spring.

Note that MPF only analyzes clubhead design and characteristics; it doesn't take the shaft into account.

If you're interested in Maltby's seven-category MPF system, check this chart:

[boogielicious]

evan01,

If you like the feel of the club and they hit well in testing, then you should be comfortable with playing them.  they are designed to be forgiving on miss hits.  I went from Adams A4 to Mizuno Mp 57 with no issue.  I actually feel I strike the ball better with the 57s.

[Mr. Desmond]

Oh, gosh, I guess the MPF has some use, I just wish it wasn't called "playability." It is solely based on factors that Maltby believes increases or decreases forgiveness - which is basically the club head design - but not the design of the sole or grin - which I think says a lot about playability. Maybe they should call it the Maltby Forgiveness Factor...

I say "Demo!"

[evan01]

Thanks for the chart. I am 50 and would hope there is time for me to improve my game. The fact you have more room to work the ball gives me and area that I can practise and try to work into my game. I heard they have worked on the distance factor. Possible the club was a little to forgiving and not letting people hit it as long as they should.

[WUTiger]

Quote:

Oh, gosh, I guess the MPF has some use, I just wish it wasn't called "playability." It is solely based on factors that Maltby believes increases or decreases forgiveness - which is basically the club head design - but not the design of the sole or grin - which I think says a lot about playability. Maybe they should call it the Maltby Forgiveness Factor...

I say "Demo!"

The MPF gives golfers - or those trying to help them select clubs - a rough-cut device for determining which models of irons might fit your game. And, it's a systematic calculation allowing comparisons across different manufacturers.

I say "Demo" ranks as solid advice for actually making the choice, but MPF can save players some time. Frequent advice on here is "try all the irons you can." But this would take a long time. This afternoon, I went online and checked out the iron sections of Adams, Callaway, Cleveland, Titleist, Mizuno, Nike, Ping and TaylorMade. Among these eight companies, I counted about 60 current model men's irons. Add on women's and it moves past 70. It will take awhile to test 60 sets of irons.

If you consider the trade-ins and clearance sales of prior-cycle irons, these numbers double.

MPF can help you narrow down to what models of irons you might want to try from different manufacturers.

Also, MPF allows you to compare new and old models within a family of irons. For example, the Callaway X20 Tours have an MPF = 716, in the SGI category. But the X22 Tours had MPF = 591, which is barely in Game Improvement. Reviews of X22 Tours often described them as somewhat difficult to play, compared to the X20 Tours.

As for forgiveness, it has a lot of overlap with playability. Forgiveness is enhanced a lot by MOI and perimeter-weighting, and putting the Vertical Center of Gravity lower in the clubface. Perimeter weighting and low VCOG both increase the lift the clubhead generates.

Again, MPF deals with clubhead design. Maltby cautions that MPF does not take into account factors such as shaft - torque, kickpoint and weight - and grip size and weight. For seniors such as me, lightweight steel shafts are suggested for those of us who want to play GI irons. The lighter shafts tweak our clubhead speed and distance, without the problem of ballooning the ball with UGI irons.

So, MPF can help us narrow the models of irons we test on the launch monitor.

Basically, 30 HDCP players don't gain much by spending a week testing irons such as Ping S56 or Titleist 710 MB (muscleback / blades).

[evan01]

Mr. Boogielicious, wher in the Boston area you from?

[smoothswing]

Absolutely one hundred percent go for the AP2s!! I started playing golf a few years back with TM R7 irons. My game was never the same after lessons from a PGA pro and adding AP2s on HIS advice after 4 months of regular lessons.

The first thing you will like about them is their look at address and then the feel off a good hit. They ARE forgiving! My game got so much better after using these.

[BushwoodCC]

My experience: - Played (original) AP1s for a while, The moved to TM r9s.  Played those for two years, and bought a set of (original) AP2s on a bit of a lark. After playing the AP2s for two rounds, shot a career low of 72.  Found the AP2s to be very easy to hit, and I ma not a great ballstriker.  I was impressed enough with the AP2s that I got a set of 712 AP2s for Christmas this year.  My GHIN in 8.6, and have fluctuated between 11 and 7 over the time period I just described.

Based on my experience, I found the AP2s a good fit for my game - I think you would as well given the description that you provided.