We've launched the new forums! Read more here

I dont know how you feel about Maltby Playability Factor but here are 2014 additions.

SuperStroke
BrianW

BrianW

Active member
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
339
Reaction score
109
Location
Seattle, WA
Handicap
19.0
I dont take this as gospel but always found the Maltby Playability Factor interesting. They added 2014 clubs on 7/14. Here they are for your info. I am shocked by a couple. I think you will know which.
Adams XTD -799
Titleist AP1 714-781
Mizuno JPX EX-753
Ping Karsten-749
Cobra Bio Cell-715
Cobra Bio Cell +-709
Nike VRS Covert-675
Ping S55-594
Callaway X2 Hot-589
Mizuno JPX Pro-577
Wilson D100-524
Titleist AP2 714-517
Ping I25-512
Nike VRS Covert Forged-511
Callaway X2 Hot Pro-510
Taylormade Tour Preferred CB-464
Wilson C100-426
Callaway Apex Pro-417
Wilson D100 ES-413
Adams XTD Forged-399
Mizuno MP4-397
Wilson FG Tour V2-369
Callaway Apex-337 (Yes the non pro version)
Titleist MB 714-321
Taylormade Tour Preferred MC-218

Let the fireworks begin!
 
Ping S55 Higher than I25? weird!?
 
It's nice to see Cobra in the 700's, there clubs are very underrated this year. It's also nice to see Adams get some props.
 
interesting concept, and funny how all the maltby products are rated higher than 1000

also, I cant find the 2013 ratings, are they still out there?
 
There is a post buried deep in the X2Hot FW thread about me grabbing a BIO 6 iron just to warm up before swinging 3W on a monitor.

I felt like it was a really great feeling iron that was really easy to put on the ball. Not 100% on the looks, but I'd kind of like to hit some outside. I'm actually really surprised at the Apex being sub 400 category. I think they are well beyond "very difficult" since there are so many of us here having great success with them.
 
I think the list is dependent on who's nice to him that week.
 
just out of curiosity, where are you getting these from online? I see on his website that there are new 2014 ratings..but when i click on any manufacturer, i don't see through 2013. For example, most recent Cobra iron is the Amp Cell, not the Bio Cell? Was this a print copy somewhere?
 
Still trying to figure out the Callaway Apex part. Smh
 
Is there an actual formula for this rating. Or is it all just subjective, 1 through 800 sort of thing.
 
blugold said:
Is there an actual formula for this rating. Or is it all just subjective, 1 through 800 sort of thing.
Click to expand...

there are a ton of components that make up the score, which is why i kind of wanted to see the detail, but either my internet-Fu is lacking, or it's not available on Maltby's site..
 
The MPF is an interesting concept - have learned some bits about it over the years. The overall score is heavily weighted based on low and rear-ward COG location, thus that is what type of iron GolfWorks tends to design and sell (also can see why some of the major OEM offerings are rated higher as well). For me, the overall rating didn't make as much of a difference. I did find that one or two of the individual measurements seemed to "play nice" with my swing.

Went digging into some old archived info. Below is an explanation of some of the parts that make up the MPF (there is a formula that leads to the overall value).(As a disclaimer, the below information was probably picked-up from various sources, including another golf forum and perhaps the Maltby or GolfWorks site.)

C Dimension- This is the horizontal COG. If a club has a higher measurement here, it means it will be more forgiving across the face, because the horizontal COG is farther towards the toe.
Basic VCOGLateral face measurement of vertical center of gravity.
MOI- The heads resistance to twisting. This has the lowest priority in the final MPF calculation. Maltby has found the MOI is less important in an iron vs a driver.
Actual RCOGRearward center of gravity measurement.
Actual VCOG- Actual VCOG is a combo of the Basic VCOG and the Actual RCOG.
- What does a high COG mean in reality? The club will not be very forgiving at all if you strike it low on the club face. It also will produce a lower launch and spin rate. If you have a steep downward angle of attack and you don't tend to mis low on the face, a higher VCOG could be a good design for you. If you're a sweeper that doesn't take much of a divot, in all likelyhood a higher VCOG won't play very forgiving, especially from tighter lies.
- How low and rearward the COG is. A lower number here will be more forgiving low on the face and produce higher launch/spin.
- If you tend to mis your shots "thin", try a lower COG design.
MPFOverall "measure" of iron playability/forgiveness based on a compilation of the above measurements.
 
MPlefty said:
interesting concept, and funny how all the maltby products are rated higher than 1000

also, I cant find the 2013 ratings, are they still out there?
Click to expand...

From a design standpoint, it makes sense. Maltby' determined a composite feature that he thinks describes forgiveness and designs clubs with optimizing this measure in mind. Whether or not it's the best measure is definitely up for debate.

Similar arguments came up between my Advisor and I when I was in grad school while trying to figure out what measure described the "best" results.
 
VERY interesting that the D100, which are about as SGI as you can get, are so low on the list....
 
russtopher said:
VERY interesting that the D100, which are about as SGI as you can get, are so low on the list....
Click to expand...



yea, that and the apex below the pro's were the two that really stood out. It's funny, i tested the bio cell's and the + version, and couldn't really tell the difference from my results, and went with the less expensive option... This kinda validates my own personal findings.
 
Let's remember guys, Maltby wants to sell Maltby components. I could make up the Jman playability factor and have all kinds of formulas too if I really wanted and bend it to my will.
 
Jman said:
Let's remember guys, Maltby wants to sell Maltby components. I could make up the Jman playability factor and have all kinds of formulas too if I really wanted and bend it to my will.
Click to expand...
I'd buy Jman clubs if they came in LH.
 
Jman said:
Let's remember guys, Maltby wants to sell Maltby components. I could make up the Jman playability factor and have all kinds of formulas too if I really wanted and bend it to my will.
Click to expand...

Please include the Jman Playability Factor (JPF) in your next review. K. Thanks.
 
Jman said:
Let's remember guys, Maltby wants to sell Maltby components. I could make up the Jman playability factor and have all kinds of formulas too if I really wanted and bend it to my will.
Click to expand...

that's certainly true, and if he makes his clubs to fit his own personal standing then so be it. However, dont' discount that he is using an objective test on components that may or may not be important to you or me...but it's still interesting to see 3rd party testing of this level. I certainly am interesting in the info regarding Cobra or Callaway or Taylormade, over what those OEM's give me directly. Even if it is all skewed against the Maltby brand, i think it does provide some relative insight. If Callaway did something like this, I would be interested to see what they had for other oem's as well...and pay less attention to what they rated their own clubs...as an oem is going to obviously use data points that favor themselves.
 
There's plenty of dissension about the MPF in the industry - and not just with major OEM's. Even Tom Wishon disputes the value it offers.
 
So you know, companies do test their clubs against others. When at cobra we got to see about 20 different irons they had tested, cut in half, and analyzed.

Best bet is always just hit them yourself, indexes like this are cool for looks and to get Maltby fans all hot and bothered, but in the end it's not your swing. I guess I'm simple like that.
 
I really like the idea of the MPF but Ive always questioned the accuracy and value of it.
Maybe one day it will be refined into something more useful.
 
Jman said:
So you know, companies do test their clubs against others. When at cobra we got to see about 20 different irons they had tested, cut in half, and analyzed.

Best bet is always just hit them yourself, indexes like this are cool for looks and to get Maltby fans all hot and bothered, but in the end it's not your swing. I guess I'm simple like that.
Click to expand...


Of course they do...but to my knowledge, no one else publishes it. I think everyone would love to see the test data from the other oem's. More info is always better.
 
Martsy said:
Of course they do...but to my knowledge, no one else publishes it. I think everyone would love to see the test data from the other oem's. More info is always better.
Click to expand...

Companies focus on them, you aren't going to get them publishing all kinds of stuff like that, it's just not realistic IMO.
 
Yea it wouldn't really serve much purpose for them, because it would be written off as bias immediately anyway. The Maltby's and Wishon's can get away with that type of thing still, but even they get called for bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top