We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Ralph Maltby Playability rating for clubs

SuperStroke
J

jnug

New member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
11
I just went looking for it and sure enough the Maltby Playability rating is still rating clubs all the way out to the 2010 additions. It does not look like they have changed the ratings method but they have added a whole bunch of categories that I had not seen last time I had looked at it. They now include UGI for Ultra Game Improvement for example. That is not one I have seen before. It looks like they are trying to chop up the more traditional clubs differently as well. They have a Classic category and a Conventional category. All this is just for irons.

While I can surely see why they would want all these new categories i wonder if the rating methodology still works for all of the different irons that there are today, especially when you consider how many people are making shaft choices.
 
I like Maltby for a lot of things, but frankly find his "ratings" so far off and out there (always have) that it leaves people baffled.
 
They were quite mind bottling.
 
MPF is garbage plain and simple. His ratings for TM irons are so completely out of whack I don't know how he can publish them.
 
Well I don't think the ratings are trying to establish "goodness" one way or the other right. But the list has some clubs rated closely that you just would not think would be close to each other. That is what I was referring to earlier. I think there is just so much going on with clubs now and that has got to be some sort of a weighted system. I would think it attaches a value to some things in a way that just makes it nonsense. It is a good idea but there has got to be something really screwed up in the actual rating system.
 
Hmm, it says my brother's G10s are easier to hit than my SZs.
I don't think so!
 
Been biting my tongue on this thread for a while... do you guys even understand what Maltby's measurements mean? JB, I'm surprised the most by your reaction.

If you want to look at the score and nothing else and assume Maltby is saying this club is better than that one you're ignoring the science behind the scores. Let's take a look at the SZ vs G10 argument given above. Both are given Super Game Improvement ratings and are 16 points apart. That's essentially saying that they're the same in terms of playability... until you look at the data behind the scores. The G10 is going to have more lateral forgiveness. They have a higher C-Dim measurement and more MOI. The SZ will be easier to get airborne due to their lower and deeper CG.

If you want to remove all personal ability from the equation and look at the irons with no other influence (a.k.a. "scientifically") the SZ and the G10 would equate to about the same about of forgiveness for our static, generic golfer. However, if you're a golfer that has trouble getting the ball in the air, the SZ will play easier. If you're a golfer that struggles with hitting the center of the face, but doesn't have launch angle issues, the G10 may be for you. These measurements also ignore the effect of the shaft. Could you get a higher launching shaft to help mask the G10's higher vertical center of gravity? Absolutely.

When you come to the 2010 TaylorMade scoring, it is very simple to diagnose. They have an insanely high vertical center of gravity and the horizontal center of gravity is very close to the hosel. These are two things that Maltby's scientific process has shown make clubs harder to hit for the average golfer. If you're a person that's able to hit down on a ball and hit the center (or closer to the hosel) of the club face regularly, you're going to be confused by the R9's scores. A lower skilled golfer or a person that doesn't drive down on the ball will find the R9 hard to hit and get airborne.

Maltby has plenty of writings out there about how the MPF scoring affects better players less. He has an entire article about how a tour professional will find the sweet spot on an iron just by his natural playing ability and his c-dimension measurements are meaningless to that player. If you're one of those players, I'm happy for you. For the 95% of the rest of the golfing world that doesn't have this ability, Maltby's scientific approach to measuring static factors on a club head is anything but "baffling" or "garbage". They are a tool to assist you in selecting an iron head that will help your game.

Is it perfect? No. I wish he'd use some biased weighting of certain scores. Sort of like a cupper's correction on coffee scoring. There are plenty of clubs that have small c-dim measurements, but have extremely high MOI that would cancel some of that out. Nike Sumo irons come to mind on that one. They have a players level c-dim, but 9 tons of MOI. I never really saw an issue with hits out to the toe with those, but there was some amount of directional instability. In the end, the data is the data. Interpret how you'd like.
 
I have studied his scoring for years and know exactly what he is doing and what they are. That does not mean I have to agree with them. In fact I could not disagree more with many of his ratings, especially those of the TaylorMade irons. But man oh man, the Maltby irons sure do get great scores each year. That is for sure.

If someone chooses to use his scoring as a way to look at irons, all the power to them. I truly hope they find what they are looking for and it works for them. I honestly do. However real world testing done by us (and many others) with hundreds of golfers of all different handicaps say something entirely different. And I will take real world testing over this any day of the week.

Taking iron heads and basing them solely off scientific research means very little when no two swings are the same and shafts come into play. Club heads are not engineered on their own anymore. They are engineered with fitting in mind and shafts in mind to help create tools to help different types of golfers.

What some find garbage and self indulgent, others find helpful. That is the way all things are looked at.
 
Couldn't agree more - his ratings are obviously biased
 
I have a hard time understanding the Maltby MPF also...how can the Mizuno JPX-800s be an MPF of 604 while the Callaway X-Forged have an MPF of 621? I am sure the Callaway X-Forged irons are a lot harder to hit.
 
I wouldn't say that his ratings are biased towards his clubs. Instead I would say that he designs his clubs with the factors that he measures in mind. Since he values certain characteristics, he designs clubs that lean towards those charactaristics. Naturally they will score high then. It would not make much sense to create a system and then ignore it when designing your own product. Callaway probably values the same design features since they seem to have pretty high scores as well. Other club manufacturers apparently value other features.

The MPF score doesn't mean that they are necessarily better or worse clubs in and of itself. Depends upon what you are looking for. If a club works for you, use it. Even if it has a lower MPF score, it may have the right characteristics to fit your swing. Even then his MPF information (not just the score) may give you some insight as to why that is.

Also as BenJ noted, a small difference (say 20-50 points) in MPF is insignificant. I believe Maltby has mentioned that most golfers would not feel the difference between two clubs unless the MPF scores were over a 100 and more like 200 points apart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top