Maltby Playability Factor

[billchao]

I started looking at the Maltby Playability Factor of various clubs and I'm wondering how valid this system is? I always just assumed I didn't have the swing to play musclebacks but I was surprised to see how low my current clubs are:

2016 Callaway Apex - 349

It's actually lower than the Pro version, as well as a number of musclebacks from other manufacturers. It's surprising because I felt these clubs are very forgiving and I have no problem hitting them at all. So going by the MPF, I should have no problem with most modern clubs, including blades. Is that really the true or are there design elements in the heads that aren't factored in the MPF?

Here is a link for those interested: https://www.golfworks.com/iron-head-mpf-ratings/a/870/

[Shindig]

My very informal opinion:  it largely jives with what I've observed.  That having been said, when I did the most swing testing, my swing was awful.  I was playing MP-57s for a while (2008-2011, deluded myself into thinking that since I broke 100 and then 90 less than a year later, scores in the 70s were soon upcoming!), and felt that TaylorMade's R7s weren't much different than mine.  Turns out they're comparable on the MPF.  And the Nike VR Blades felt a tad more forgiving than my MP-57s, and sure enough, something like 100 points higher.  

When I knew I wouldn't be playing for a while, I went with high-MPF cavity backs.  And even with approach shots being my best stroke-gainer (or lowest stroke-loss) most rounds, my new irons are going to be Ping G400s.  Unlike some very good players here, I won't be able to determine from the feel of contact what I'm doing wrong, especially not during a round.  Maybe if I reach near-scratch I can reconsider using high-forgiveness irons.  That's more Maltby Philosophy than MPF.  I think part of my delusion in the MP-57s was seeing Chuck Hogan's books talking about how yes, you too can play "players' irons" because you're capable of a good swing.

Anyway, @WUTiger can probably give more detail about MPF -- he knows far more about these than I do.

[Piz]

The MPF uses things like blade length, sole width, vertical center of gravity, etc...to rank a clubs performance on less than perfect strikes.  My old Orlimar irons, the longer of which have negative bounce, would rate very low.  My current set, Maltby TE irons, are not quite so demanding.  The gap wedge, for example, has 6 degrees of bounce.  A poor pass is still a poor pass; but it is less shocking to the system.  It's a bit like mats vs grass: a high MPF club isn't as punishing, generally, when you catch one a touch fat.  If you strike perfect...it makes no difference.

[MarvChamp]

Suggest reading about the various measurements and what they represent in deciding the MPF, plus what they say about limitations of use (eg, I think they say shaft will be an important influence).

Anyway it was all too technical for my understanding fully. But I too have noticed that my old Cleveland TA 5's and TA 6's (both high MPF) were easier to hit than some later clubs. And my current Mizuno JPX800 HD's are listed as Ultra GI clubs and are very easy to hit. Likewise high MPF Tommy Armour 545U Silverbacks. So I think the MPF can be one of the considerations in club selection for those of us who need very forgiving clubs.  -Marv

[WUTiger]

The MPF serves as a clearing house to divide different irons into general playability categories.

Be aware that Ralph Maltby, who developed the MPF system, gives two cautions in using it:

• The MPF rating takes into account only the head design capabilities; it doe not rate the shaft.
• Golfers trying iron models 100 MPF points apart on ratings may not notice much difference in feel and performance of the two models. When you get a gap of 300 points, that's when the difference shows up.

Now, the ratings get confusing when you compare the Golf Digest Hot List categories with Maltby's MPF. The Hot List ranks clubs in market niche: Player's, Game Improvement, and Super Game Improvement. MPF ratings, on the other hand, are determined by a six-factor math equation based on different measurements take from the clubhead.

Another factor is one's year group in golf. Guys like me who grew up in the 1970s swinging persimmon-headed drivers with 130-gram steel shafts. So, we tend to be a bit more "handsy" than younger golfers. Fitters tend to recommend I use game-improvement (Hot List category) irons with lighter R-flex shafts, since the last thing I need is offset to help me square the face.

I did a rainy-day survey several years back to determine how many iron models - two years old or less -  were at play from the major OEMs. I came up with 60-something models. MPF would tend to narrow down likely model choices to 10 or so - much more manageable than testing 60+.

[billchao]

4 hours ago, Shindig said:

My very informal opinion:  it largely jives with what I've observed.

That's good to know. I don't get to try out different irons anymore so my testing experience is limited.

4 hours ago, Piz said:

If you strike perfect...it makes no difference.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I pure the ball every time, or even often. My problem has always been that as clubs move up in the forgiveness spectrum, they also tend to move up in the easy to launch spectrum. I don't really need help launching the ball high, especially when it becomes difficult to launch the ball low when I want/need to.

2 hours ago, MarvChamp said:

Suggest reading about the various measurements and what they represent in deciding the MPF, plus what they say about limitations of use (eg, I think they say shaft will be an important influence).

I looked at the shaft system and it's a bit more confusing. The MPF for irons is simple to understand because it's a scale. The shaft MPF looks just like the Myers-Brigg type indicator, which to me is just four characters of jargon.

47 minutes ago, WUTiger said:

The MPF rating takes into account only the head design capabilities; it doe not rate the shaft.

I get that. But if I already know what shaft I like in my irons, then I can just look at the heads right? Or would different heads work differently with the same shaft?

50 minutes ago, WUTiger said:

Golfers trying iron models 100 MPF points apart on ratings may not notice much difference in feel and performance of the two models. When you get a gap of 300 points, that's when the difference shows up.

That makes sense. I've always shied away from blades, but if my current clubs are basically blades despite the marketing, maybe there's no reason not to use blades.

It just seems weird to me that Callaway would develop the Apex to be harder to hit than the Apex Pro, according to the MPF. That's why I was questioning if there were other design elements that possibly aren't considered in the MPF.

1 hour ago, WUTiger said:

Now, the ratings get confusing when you compare the Golf Digest Hot List categories with Maltby's MPF. The Hot List ranks clubs in market niche: Player's, Game Improvement, and Super Game Improvement. MPF ratings, on the other hand, are determined by a six-factor math equation based on different measurements take from the clubhead.

Golf Digest's list doesn't mean much to me. I always felt it was limited with only three categories, plus it always seems like certain OEMs get more attention than others.

[Midpack]

Timely thread for me too. My current 20 yr old forged cavity backs have a MPF of 387. 

I've never liked the harsh pinging feel of cast clubs, but maybe they're much better now. The new cast cavity backs that I like best are 685. And I am wondering how they'll really play since I can only try them on a mat indoors.

The same clubmaker also has a forged cavity back with a 438 MPF, and they feel FAR better (softer). But based on MPF I may not gain anything with the new forged CB's vs my old ones. 

So I am still on the fence WRT buying.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Midpack

[boogielicious]

18 hours ago, billchao said:

I started looking at the Maltby Playability Factor of various clubs and I'm wondering how valid this system is? I always just assumed I didn't have the swing to play musclebacks but I was surprised to see how low my current clubs are:

2016 Callaway Apex - 349

It's actually lower than the Pro version, as well as a number of musclebacks from other manufacturers. It's surprising because I felt these clubs are very forgiving and I have no problem hitting them at all. So going by the MPF, I should have no problem with most modern clubs, including blades. Is that really the true or are there design elements in the heads that aren't factored in the MPF?

Here is a link for those interested: https://www.golfworks.com/iron-head-mpf-ratings/a/870/

I studied this a while back. I think it is a good comparative scale to showcase the differences in heads from a dimensional standpoint. I've created spreadsheets because I'm a nerd. But it doesn't help you with sound and feel. Those are personal.

[Hacker James]

so which is better, a small or large MPF number? My Hogan Apex Plus is 163, my Hogan Edge's not listed but I am guessing around 400. The Apex has a DG Shaft, the others are Legend graphite.

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by Hacker James

[Missouri Swede]

22 hours ago, billchao said:

Here is a link for those interested: https://www.golfworks.com/iron-head-mpf-ratings/a/870/

That's a good link.  Thanks for posting that.

17 hours ago, WUTiger said:

The MPF serves as a clearing house to divide different irons into general playability categories.

Be aware that Ralph Maltby, who developed the MPF system, gives two cautions in using it:

• The MPF rating takes into account only the head design capabilities; it doe not rate the shaft.
• Golfers trying iron models 100 MPF points apart on ratings may not notice much difference in feel and performance of the two models. When you get a gap of 300 points, that's when the difference shows up.

Now, the ratings get confusing when you compare the Golf Digest Hot List categories with Maltby's MPF. The Hot List ranks clubs in market niche: Player's, Game Improvement, and Super Game Improvement. MPF ratings, on the other hand, are determined by a six-factor math equation based on different measurements take from the clubhead.

 

1 hour ago, Hacker James said:

so which is better, a small or large MPF number?

The higher the number is a greater degree of "game improvement," it appears. 

My question kind of relates to yours about "better":  If greater "improvement" or "playability" ("forgiveness"?) is gained with higher MPF, what is lost with the higher numbers?  There are a couple things mentioned above (higher launch when not needed, offset when not needed).  Other tendencies that you know, @WUTiger?

I'm playing 2009 Cobra SZ irons, which have an MPF of 789, Super Game Improvement. My swing has changed a lot and my handicap has dropped to about half of what it was when I bought them 8 years ago.  I still consider myself a high handicapper, but I wonder if I need to at least have my fitting checked.  Or is time to look at a new set?  (But if I still benefit most from the MPF of the SGI category, would I be getting into a newer set that's similar to my 2009 clubs--so why spend the money?)

Edited August 19, 2017 by Missouri Swede

[Mr. Desmond]

MPF does not account for turf interaction, so it's theoretically in part as to the playability of a clubhead.

My suggestion - hit what  fits your game - I like my clubs to work on my not so great days - I don't buy clubs for my best days.

Demo, hit outside on grass, get some numbers, take your time.

[billchao]

5 hours ago, boogielicious said:

I studied this a while back. I think it is a good comparative scale to showcase the differences in heads from a dimensional standpoint. I've created spreadsheets because I'm a nerd. But it doesn't help you with sound and feel. Those are personal.

Yea I think it's a good starting point. Now I know I can play clubs in the mid-300s, I can try out different ones to find the ones I like best.

3 hours ago, Hacker James said:

so which is better, a small or large MPF number? My Hogan Apex Plus is 163, my Hogan Edge's not listed but I am guessing around 400. The Apex has a DG Shaft, the others are Legend graphite.

I don't believe there is a "better" number. The higher the number, the easier the club is supposed to be to hit: more forgiving, lower, CoG, etc.

The thing is not everyone needs those design elements, despite the chart saying GI clubs benefit everyone. Some design elements limit what some players can do with a club.

The lists I linked are for the heads only. I'm not sure how they interact with different shafts.

1 hour ago, Missouri Swede said:

My question kind of relates to yours about "better":  If greater "improvement" or "playability" ("forgiveness"?) is gained with higher MPF, what is lost with the higher numbers?  There are a couple things mentioned above (higher launch when not needed, offset when not needed).  Other tendencies that you know, @WUTiger?

Workability is lost. The ability to control height is important to some players and I believe more forgiving clubs are harder to fade/draw by intentionally hitting the ball slightly towards the heel/toe.

Plus, some players dislike the look of SGI clubs. They have wider soles, thicker toplines, longer blade lengths, etc., because that's how they get the perimeter weighting. They can be clunky looking and have been affectionately dubbed "shovels" by some.

1 hour ago, Missouri Swede said:

I'm playing 2009 Cobra SZ irons, which have an MPF of 789, Super Game Improvement. My swing has changed a lot and my handicap has dropped to about half of what it was when I bought them 8 years ago.  I still consider myself a high handicapper, but I wonder if I need to at least have my fitting checked.  Or is time to look at a new set?  (But if I still benefit most from the MPF of the SGI category, would I be getting into a newer set that's similar to my 2009 clubs--so why spend the money?)

This is kind of related to @Midpack's post earlier that I don't have a clear response to.

I believe that there's more to modern iron technology than what is measured by the MPF. Certain materials and construction techniques allow clubmakers today to build a clubhead from a bunch of different components which allows them to do things like put face cup technology into a CB iron. I don't know if the MPF factors those kind of things in or if they just go by static measurements in their calculations.

Basically what I'm speculating is that just because two clubs have similar ratings doesn't mean they perform the same.

[Midpack]

I guess there's no reason I shouldn't use GI irons. I've never been able to work the ball (fade or draw on demand) and I don't ever expect to. I'd be completely happy with straight on demand. 

The things I read about GI irons that gives me pause are a) lower spin rates - I count on good backspin, b) the jacked up lofts, c) harsher feel (forged vs cast?) and d) I don't understand it but I've read GI irons can yield the occasional "hot shot" going 10 yards longer than normal? That would be unwelcome.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Midpack

[WUTiger]

19 hours ago, billchao said:

20 hours ago, WUTiger said:

The MPF rating takes into account only the head design capabilities; it doe not rate the shaft.

I get that. But if I already know what shaft I like in my irons, then I can just look at the heads right? Or would different heads work differently with the same shaft?

Yes! One of my best golf shop days came four years ago when the Ping guy showed up with the new i25 and G25 irons. He had samples of each iron models in both CFS R and S flex shafts (steel CFS). I was able to get the i25 airborne OK, especially with the R-flex shaft. The G25, however carried higher and about 12 yards longer per club. The R-flex was the most reliable.

We don't often get to do a 2 x 2 matrix testing similar clubs like this. But, I got distinct differences from each club-shaft combo. (I was recovering from a bad ankle sprain at the time, not an ideal situation for getting fitted for clubs; so, I made no purchase). 

19 hours ago, billchao said:

20 hours ago, WUTiger said:

Golfers trying iron models 100 MPF points apart on ratings may not notice much difference in feel and performance of the two models. When you get a gap of 300 points, that's when the difference shows up.

... It just seems weird to me that Callaway would develop the Apex to be harder to hit than the Apex Pro, according to the MPF. That's why I was questioning if there were other design elements that possibly aren't considered in the MPF.

Golf clubs are not designed with MPF in mind. Each head is designed to accomplish certain things, given a specific type of shaft. (Quite a few golfers perform best with the stock shafts in these irons, but others get better numbers from an upgrade - you just have to try them out.)

But, when it comes to MPF measures, some score higher than others. Case in point is the X20 Tours vs. the X22 Tours. I got fitted for both, but the 22-version seemed harder to hit. When the 22MPF came out, I found...

      MPFs: X20 Tour = 716 // X22 Tour = 594.

Some hailed the the X22 Tours as being "a true GI club for better golfers," while others complained it was just harder to hit than the X20T.

The lower the club's MPF rating, the lower tends to be the launch. If you have higher clubhead speed, this keeps you from ballooning the ball. Shaft, of course, is also a factor, as I will discuss below.

Before getting the X20 Tours, I played for two seasons with the standard X20 irons. If using the Maltby categories, the X20s rated as Ultra Game Improvement (highest MPF category), along with the mid-era Big Berthas, and the Ping G10 irons. I tried all three, and here is what I found:

• BB and G10 both had high-launch shafts, and I ballooned the short irons like crazy.
• The X20s had a mid-launch Uniflex shaft, and I didn't have the pop-up with short irons.

Edited August 19, 2017 by WUTiger

[billchao]

3 hours ago, Midpack said:

The things I read about GI irons that gives me pause are a) lower spin rates - I count on good backspin

GI irons are designed with lower CoG which increases launch angles. Lower spin allows the ball to travel farther without ballooning. The ball is supposed to descend at a steeper angle to account for the reduced spin.

3 hours ago, Midpack said:

b) the jacked up lofts

Same reason as above. Lower CoG with traditional lofts cause the ball to launch too high with too much spin, affecting trajectory and control. If the ball is hit too high with too much spin, you can actually lose distance.

3 hours ago, Midpack said:

c) harsher feel (forged vs cast?) 

I'm not sure where you get this from. All clubs feel harsh when they aren't hit from the sweetspot and GI irons are designed to effectively increase the size of the sweetspot, making them "softer" over a wider area on the face. Most people complain about GI irons not giving enough feedback because they mask the feel of mishits to some degree.

The whole forged vs cast thing is old school nonsense. I've read articles that say most people doing blind tests couldn't tell the two apart.

3 hours ago, Midpack said:

d) I don't understand it but I've read GI irons can yield the occasional "hot shot" going 10 yards longer than normal? That would be unwelcome.

This I have experienced, but I honestly couldn't tell you if it is a so called "hot shot" or I just happened to catch the ball with just the perfect conditions to produce a longer than normal shot. Human error and inconsistency can't be discounted.

To be perfectly honest with you, unless you are playing a pure blade, all irons are built with GI properties that can produce this hot shot. It's so rare that over the course of a season, you're going to save more strokes from GI clubs being more forgiving than blades, than you would from hitting the occasional hot one.

2 hours ago, WUTiger said:

Yes! One of my best golf shop days came four years ago when the Ping guy showed up with the new i25 and G25 irons. He had samples of each iron models in both CFS R and S flex shafts (steel CFS). I was able to get the i25 airborne OK, especially with the R-flex shaft. The G25, however carried higher and about 12 yards longer per club. The R-flex was the most reliable.

We don't often get to do a 2 x 2 matrix testing similar clubs like this. But, I got distinct differences from each club-shaft combo.

I meant different clubs with similar MPF ratings. Like if you were to compare the Apex to the MP-4, for example, wouldn't the same shaft perform about the same?

3 hours ago, WUTiger said:

Golf clubs are not designed with MPF in mind. Each head is designed to accomplish certain things, given a specific type of shaft. (Quite a few golfers perform best with the stock shafts in these irons, but others get better numbers from an upgrade - you just have to try them out.)

But, when it comes to MPF measures, some score higher than others. Case in point is the X20 Tours vs. the X22 Tours. I got fitted for both, but the 22-version seemed harder to hit. When the 22MPF came out, I found...

      MPFs: X20 Tour = 716 // X22 Tour = 594.

Some hailed the the X22 Tours as being "a true GI club for better golfers," while others complained it was just harder to hit than the X20T.

The lower the club's MPF rating, the lower tends to be the launch. If you have higher clubhead speed, this keeps you from ballooning the ball. Shaft, of course, is also a factor, as I will discuss below.

Before getting the X20 Tours, I played for two seasons with the standard X20 irons. If using the Maltby categories, the X20s rated as Ultra Game Improvement (highest MPF category), along with the mid-era Big Berthas, and the Ping G10 irons. I tried all three, and here is what I found:

• BB and G10 both had high-launch shafts, and I ballooned the short irons like crazy.
• The X20s had a mid-launch Uniflex shaft, and I didn't have the pop-up with short irons.

No, I wasn't suggesting that they were. But I thought the MPF rating was about how easy a club is to hit, not just how high/low it launches.

Anyway all good information, thanks for sharing.

[WUTiger]

4 hours ago, billchao said:

But I thought the MPF rating was about how easy a club is to hit, not just how high/low it launches.

Yes, it is. But, there tends to be a correlation between how high the ball launches and the MPF rating. Better players often choose (using Maltby categories) Game Improvement clubs rather than UGI or SGI because they swing with higher clubhead speed. A head that launches less high may work better for someone with a faster swing. (Prevents ballooning the ball).

This lower launch with the popular promo line that X iron head or X FW head gives you "...the boring trajectory that better players prefer."

4 hours ago, billchao said:

I meant different clubs with similar MPF ratings. Like if you were to compare the Apex to the MP-4, for example, wouldn't the same shaft perform about the same?

Not necessarily. You would have to do a side-by-side with, say, the KBS Tour and see whether Apex or MP4 gave you the best numbers. Remember, club performance is an interaction between the clubhead and the particular shaft.