Jump to content
IGNORED

Hard to hit clubs


Note: This thread is 2062 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

I'm in the market for a set of Burke Mashies or Spalding Symetrics. Forgiveness?? I don't need no stinking forgiveness!!! (They're the two lowest rated sets on the list FYI, at -873 and -606 respectively) :P
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Some of the old Wilson and Spalding blades were really hard to hit... I found a few in a thrift store when I was a kid... Very unforgiving on mis-hits... Modern clubs... Most are at least a little more forgiving, even blades, I had a set of Taylormade EL-1 irons, and they weren't very forgiving, but they weren't impossible to hit... My Exotics CNC irons weren't really forgiving at all, hell my V-Blades from 2000 are more forgiving and I hit them further... My CU'S are very forgiving compared to those however... As far as Mizuno going -100 on MPF on the next model I have no idea...
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

For you guys that hang on these MPF numbers. Malpy says clubs that are within 100 points from each other will play close to the same.

Ralph Maltby?

Each category represents a range of 150 Playability Factor points. This range encompasses the spectrum of performance characteristics. The higher the Playability Factor rating of a particular model ...The more it will help a golfer get the ball into the air. The less sensitive the design is to off-center hits (ie the larger its sweet spot). Simply put, via Maltby Playability Factor, a higher handicap golfer will experience straighter shots and more consistent distance (typically longer) with a HIGHER Playability club. That same golfer, with a LOWER Playability club, would find it more difficult to get the ball up in the air and the feel at impact would be less solid The result would be a tendency for shots to miss to the right or left and be shorter.

Ultra Game Improvement

851 & Up - All Players Benefit: The absolute easiest to play golf club designs. Almost cannot tell a loss of distance or unsold feeling on off-center hits. Highest technology available. Mostly very low center of

gravity. All benefits from "Super Game Improvement" category also apply. Becoming more popular with tournament pros.

Super Game Improvement

701 - 850 - All Players Benefit: Irons in this category are extremely easy to play. Very solid hits more of the time. More consistency. Best distance. Mostly lower center of gravity heel/toe/low soleweighting. Becoming more popular with tounrament pros.

Game Improvement

551 - 700 - All Players Benefit: Hits the ball straight and fairly solid on off-center hits with little distance loss. Heel/toe/soleweighting and some muscleback designs. Popular with tournament pros.

Conventional

401 - 550 - Better Players Only: 0-14 handicap, 450-550 points should be considered minimum popular iron design category for tournament pros who play muscleback blades. Above 15 handicap would be best moving up to game, super or ultra improve categories.

Classic

251 - 400 - Difficult To Play: Very good players only. 0-5 handicap is best and a solid ball striker. No game improvement features. Still used by some tounrament pros. Best to use 325 as minimum MPF.

Player Classic

0 - 250 - Not Recommended: Very few if any tournament pros still play clubs in this category. It is absolutely essential that the ball be struck very close to the club's center of gravity. Center of gravity is usually higher and toward the heel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

These classes get confusing when people mix up the Maltby MPF and GD Hot List categories. Here is my rough estimate of how the two systems compare:

Maltby MPF

Golf Digest Hot List

Ultra Game Improvement

Super Game Improvement

----------------------------------------

Game Improvement

--------------------------------------

Player’s

Super Game Improvement

Game Improvement

Conventional

Classic

Player’s Classic

I have written Golf Digest three times asking how their cut-offs compare to actual MPF zones, but have never gotten a response.

Here's the difference:

  • MPF is determined by measuring the clubhead on six factors, and putting the data into an equation which generates the MPF. (Maltby cautions that MPF deals only with clubhead design - it doesn't take shafts into account)
  • The Hot List three, as best I can determine, classifies clubs according to the intended market niche of the manufacturer.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

These classes get confusing when people mix up the Maltby MPF and GD Hot List categories. Here is my rough estimate of how the two systems compare:

Maltby MPF

Golf Digest Hot List

Ultra Game Improvement

Super Game Improvement

----------------------------------------

Game Improvement

--------------------------------------

Player’s

Super Game Improvement

Game Improvement

Conventional

Classic

Player’s Classic

I have written Golf Digest three times asking how their cut-offs compare to actual MPF zones, but have never gotten a response.

Here's the difference:

MPF is determined by measuring the clubhead on six factors, and putting the data into an equation which generates the MPF. (Maltby cautions that MPF deals only with clubhead design - it doesn't take shafts into account)

The Hot List three, as best I can determine, classifies clubs according to the intended market niche of the manufacturer.

What's more confusing is as @jcjim stated Maltby acknowledges that most people won't be able to tell the difference between a 400MPF and 500MPF club.  What's the point of having that level of granularity if it's not discernible by the average golfer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

My experience is you can tell. The designs will be very different. I have irons just a few points apart and the soles are extremely different in just one model up in the same line. One is a hollow iron almost like a small hybrid the other a players pocket CB.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I did an experiment twice with MP-52, MP-32 and i20. There was a pretty obvious difference. I also tested the AP2 with a launch monitor along with MP-54 and found them to be about the same. They feel pretty different, and they also perform different. With easier to hit clubs, the flights are much more consistent, like with the i20, even with what I feel are pretty bad mishits. MP-25 felt like the i20, but in a smaller head. Nice! Maybe I'm just at the point where it makes a difference in my game?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

What's more confusing is as @jcjim stated Maltby acknowledges that most people won't be able to tell the difference between a 400MPF and 500MPF club.  What's the point of having that level of granularity if it's not discernible by the average golfer?

The level of detail is determined by scientific measurement. The clubs are assigned to categories, which have an upper and lower point range.

If a new iron design scores in the Classic (MPF) category,the average golfer likely will find it more difficult to hit than one in the SGI (MPF) category.

The categories allow the player to do some rough sorting on iron models before test-hitting them. A couple of years ago I spent the afternoon counting all the iron models offered by the major OEMs for a three year period (to catch both new and clearance category irons).

I came up with something like 70+ models. If you can use the categories plus seeing the clubs in person to narrow your try-out roster down to about a half-dozen, you can save a lot of time in your search.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Those ratings also bounce around in ways that shouldn't make sense, in the pic below guess which head has the lowest rating. It's the Altitude at 581 which Cleveland designed to be their SGI offering in that line.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I don't know if I can explain this sufficiently to help but..

The other numbers that make up the MPF are the scientific measurements of that club. First to compare you have to know where your misses are whether they are horizontal/ vertical, or high/ low. or toe/ heel. where the center a gravity of the clubs you own now and how it compares to the new you are looking up in the MPF.

In other words the final MPF isn't supposed to be something that is to be used as a final determination as to the forgiveness of any club unless you know about how you hit your clubs, where you miss that club and how it compares to the club you are looking up on the MPF.

As I said before there are many clubs that are made by the Mfg.one to be the players club and one that is the GI club and the players club is listed higher on the MPF than the GI club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a nice article depicting a frying pan vs hammer being similar to blade irons vs cavity backs.http://www.oobgolf.com/content/the+wedge+guy/golf+equipment/5-2032-Blades_Versus_Cavity_Backs_A_Golf_Club_Epiphany.html

I think impact tape could be useful if you think your swing is getting sloppy with your big chunky irons. The idea is smaller heads have a more compact sweet spot and over time you will hit them better more often simply by using them I can attest to this being very true! On the flip side a bad miss will lose yards it's prettty much as simple as that vs a chunky iron on the toe getting you to the green distance, You gotta ask your self though whats better 2 feet from the pin or flag high in the grass off to the right. From experience being 12 yards short is the same as 12 yards long so in that sense it's not game improvement. Hybrids and such help you when you have large target that demands carry for instance a par 3 211 yards over water to a big green. In this case the green is your target,but when you have 152 yards to a smaller green and short is fairly safe a blade will outperform.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a nice article depicting a frying pan vs hammer being similar to blade irons vs cavity backs.[URL=http://www.oobgolf.com/content/the+wedge+guy/golf+equipment/5-2032-Blades_Versus_Cavity_Backs_A_Golf_Club_Epiphany.html]http://www.oobgolf.com/content/the+wedge+guy/golf+equipment/5-2032-Blades_Versus_Cavity_Backs_A_Golf_Club_Epiphany.html[/URL] I think impact tape could be useful if you think your swing is getting sloppy with your big chunky irons. The idea is smaller heads have a more compact sweet spot and over time you will hit them better more often simply by using them I can attest to this being very true! On the flip side a bad miss will lose yards it's prettty much as simple as that vs a chunky iron on the toe getting you to the green distance, You gotta ask your self though whats better 2 feet from the pin or flag high in the grass off to the right. From experience being 12 yards short is the same as 12 yards long so in that sense it's not game improvement. Hybrids and such help you when you have large target that demands carry for instance a par 3 211 yards over water to a big green. In this case the green is your target,but when you have 152 yards to a smaller green and short is fairly safe a blade will outperform.

The subtle difference between a cavity and a blade is really something only a scratch or plus handicap might be able to take advantage. Every now and then I get a good shot with my blades, and it does go pretty far. However, even on what I think are really awful shots my Ping i20 land me within 20 yards of my targets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

I would find it interesting if someone would take an Iron Byron and go Cavity versus Blade on small intervals across the face.

Basically truly measure the sweet spot area.

I'm betting our friends at Ping have done this, both with their own clubs and with their competitors.  But I bet they won't tell us all the results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

I would find it interesting if someone would take an Iron Byron and go Cavity versus Blade on small intervals across the face.

Basically truly measure the sweet spot area.

I'm betting our friends at Ping have done this, both with their own clubs and with their competitors.  But I bet they won't tell us all the results.

Yeah, I have some pretty definitive results for my own swing, and I'm reasonably sure it could apply to at least a few other people. All I can say is distance isn't everything. :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Really don't need a robot to see the sweet spot on a huge SGI head is bigger than a tiny blade. For similar sized heads I suppose the difference (how forgiving) in the design even if they have similar sized sweet spots. My old 845's were one of the better GI clubs of their day and they look tiny compared to todays players CB's and even some blades. I loaned a friend my old MacGregor Tour PCB's and he struggled with those and he plays Mizuno blades, can't remember which ones. Even the 9 iron in the PCB set looks like a butter knife. I bought those when I thought I was getting good. Joke was on me anything not great was a massive loss of distance, like 120 yard 5 iron lack of distance that barely got off the ground. Felt like I was hitting rocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 2062 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...