I dont know how you feel about Maltby Playability Factor but here are 2014 additions.
Martsy
New member
agreed, which is why i think the MPF is neat, if not necessarily useful. Subjective testing is just that...and even if i go to a bay one day and swing a club, i could be having a bad day or a great day and sway results. I love seeing empirical data. Now if you question the actual data itself (rather than the presentation), that is another conversation. I have no reason to believe Maltby skews TM data versus Callaway, for example...so seeing a competitive analysis is interesting at least, even if the data points being selected might not tell the whole story.
exactly...but is there reason to believe there's bias if you're comparing his TMaG results versus Callaway? If it's biased, it should atleast be relatively biased, no? You'd have to be a fool and see the MPF and say "wow, i should buy Maltby's clubs since they're tops". It still doesn't mean you derive useful information out of it. Ideally, I'd love to see a test like this published from someone unbiased, like THP...but in lieu of that, beggars can't be choosers.
- Admin
- #28
That completely depends if you put any validity at all to his "testing". In all of my research I have ever done on this subject (and sadly its hours wasted), there is not a single "expert" that put any stock at all into it and have science to back up their argument. This includes people in the industry, those out of it and those retired that know the system very well.
AoxomxoA
New member
There doesn't seem to be a correlation from the MPF to actual play. Sure, there is an equation that shows that cavity backs will end up with some higher number than blades… but how does the differences in the numbers translate between clubs falling into a certain range to an on course swing, that's still a mystery.
To me, the individual measurements are the more useful thing about the MPF listings. For instance, if you tend to hit the ball a bit low on the face, a club with a low vertical COG is probably better. But, at the end of the day you can find out what works for you by hitting clubs. "Playability" or really forgiveness in this case differs from person to person.
Sometimes when a result is so far fetched it tells you straight away that the methodology is flawed. That was my reaction to the list after seeing the s55 rated with a higher forgiveness factor than the i25. From everything else I've read and experienced while demo'ing the clubs, there's just no way that is right. That is a pretty big chink in the MPF armor.
Very true, but this is also because you and I have very different swing characteristics, so my results with a Ping Karsten (as an example) might be very different from yours. In the end, it's still going to be better for each of us to give various makes/models a run to find a good fit. This is why I don't pay much attention to the overall rating, but might look at a couple of individual measurements based on a typical miss for me.
ryebread
New member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2012
- Messages
- 2,556
- Reaction score
- 2
- Location
- Sasquatching for lost balls...
- Handicap
- Googolplex
Lots of good points in this thread about the validity of the numbers, debate on their accuracy and value, the fact that Maltby makes components, etc.. I'd in some quick thoughts as someone who has spent a lot of time digging through the data:
- The overall MPF is meant to class clubs into groupings. A 50 point difference in one club head to another probably isn't something the average player could ever really tell the difference from. A 150 point range defines the classes, and Maltby's argument is only by moving between the classes will the average player really see any impact.
- Maltby makes components, but not all of his components have high MPF. The highest MPFs he's recorded actually weren't his clubs. I'm sure he's biased, but I don't think he's just out there shilling gear. If you read his forums, he doesn't really push his own stuff and he talks a lot more about shaft fitment than one would expect based on the fact that he publishes the MPF. I suspect he genuinely designs his clubs to the factors that he thinks are important. Whether or not that is actually correct is highly debatable.
- The individual measures are measurements. The MPF is a collective calculation based upon those. Even if you don't trust the MPF at all, you can learn a bit about the head design from the individual measurement factors. You can also find some heads that have worked for you, look at their individual factors and then find similar heads.
- Maltby seemingly puts a lot of a stock in weight low and back equating to forgiveness. This also translates indirectly into offset creating more forgiveness.
- This only looks at the head, and really only looks at the middle iron head. How a set actually plays also depends on the shaft pairing, the shaft length, the overall weight, the lofts, etc..
- What Maltby doesn't really seem to capture in the head part is the width of the sole and the shape of the leading edge. Yes he talks about weight low and back, but that can be accomplished multiple ways and doesn't always correlate to sole thickness and turf interaction. I think that's a huge part of head playability.
- What works for one player doesn't necessarily work for another. The example of the picker versus the sweeper is a good one.
- He seemingly puts little stock in MOI. I've heard MOI used to describe resistance to twisting (as he seemingly uses it), but also with respect to MOI matched overall clubs (an entirely different scale). Frankly, I'm confused, so I'm glad that he doesn't stress this in the final MPF. Granted, again, whether he is correct in doing so is debatable.
Having said that, the biggest things that jumped out at me were the XTDs and the Apexes. Having held the XTDs in my hand, and having an idea about what Maltby seemingly likes, I'm the most surprised by that number. That's his second most forgiving class (SGI) and it is in a club that doesn't look particularly forgiving to me at first glance. Granted, I have not hit them, so maybe they're easier to play than they look (which is kind of the point of the MPF).
With respect to the Apex, I'd need to look at the individual measurements to understand why. While I don't think these would get Ultra Game improvement, or even SGI, I'd think they'd at least be similar to the X2Hots. At first glance, that's a head scratcher, though Callaway's non-SGI offerings have been moving steadily down in the MPF over the last couple of years.
- The overall MPF is meant to class clubs into groupings. A 50 point difference in one club head to another probably isn't something the average player could ever really tell the difference from. A 150 point range defines the classes, and Maltby's argument is only by moving between the classes will the average player really see any impact.
- Maltby makes components, but not all of his components have high MPF. The highest MPFs he's recorded actually weren't his clubs. I'm sure he's biased, but I don't think he's just out there shilling gear. If you read his forums, he doesn't really push his own stuff and he talks a lot more about shaft fitment than one would expect based on the fact that he publishes the MPF. I suspect he genuinely designs his clubs to the factors that he thinks are important. Whether or not that is actually correct is highly debatable.
- The individual measures are measurements. The MPF is a collective calculation based upon those. Even if you don't trust the MPF at all, you can learn a bit about the head design from the individual measurement factors. You can also find some heads that have worked for you, look at their individual factors and then find similar heads.
- Maltby seemingly puts a lot of a stock in weight low and back equating to forgiveness. This also translates indirectly into offset creating more forgiveness.
- This only looks at the head, and really only looks at the middle iron head. How a set actually plays also depends on the shaft pairing, the shaft length, the overall weight, the lofts, etc..
- What Maltby doesn't really seem to capture in the head part is the width of the sole and the shape of the leading edge. Yes he talks about weight low and back, but that can be accomplished multiple ways and doesn't always correlate to sole thickness and turf interaction. I think that's a huge part of head playability.
- What works for one player doesn't necessarily work for another. The example of the picker versus the sweeper is a good one.
- He seemingly puts little stock in MOI. I've heard MOI used to describe resistance to twisting (as he seemingly uses it), but also with respect to MOI matched overall clubs (an entirely different scale). Frankly, I'm confused, so I'm glad that he doesn't stress this in the final MPF. Granted, again, whether he is correct in doing so is debatable.
Having said that, the biggest things that jumped out at me were the XTDs and the Apexes. Having held the XTDs in my hand, and having an idea about what Maltby seemingly likes, I'm the most surprised by that number. That's his second most forgiving class (SGI) and it is in a club that doesn't look particularly forgiving to me at first glance. Granted, I have not hit them, so maybe they're easier to play than they look (which is kind of the point of the MPF).
With respect to the Apex, I'd need to look at the individual measurements to understand why. While I don't think these would get Ultra Game improvement, or even SGI, I'd think they'd at least be similar to the X2Hots. At first glance, that's a head scratcher, though Callaway's non-SGI offerings have been moving steadily down in the MPF over the last couple of years.
Last edited:
-CRW-
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 10,399
- Reaction score
- 1,977
My dad recently had a fitting a club champion and was fit for the XTD's. He tried multiple make/model club heads and shafts and said without a doubt they were the easiest to hit and were the most consistent with least dispersion. He wasn't biased and had never heard of the XTD clubs before the fitting.
He is typically a good iron striker but only plays a few times a year. I would have expected a big SGI iron to be recommended to him.
I'm interested in the AP2's versus the TM CB's. I have the 712 AP2's and they definitely require more focus and skill for me than the new TP CB's. Granted there is a difference in listed models, but the AP2's don't have the progressive increase in head size or offset that the TP CB's have. My new TP CB's arrive today so I'll know more soon.
BrianW
Active member
- Thread starter
- #37
Here is a link to the site with te full list in numerical order.
http://www.golfworks.com/images/art/MPFRatingsChart.pdf
I missed a couple:
Taylormade Speedblade-775
Wilson FG Tour 100-419
http://www.golfworks.com/images/art/MPFRatingsChart.pdf
I missed a couple:
Taylormade Speedblade-775
Wilson FG Tour 100-419
ryebread
New member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2012
- Messages
- 2,556
- Reaction score
- 2
- Location
- Sasquatching for lost balls...
- Handicap
- Googolplex
I may have been. My memory is a little foggy. The one I was messing with in the store would not have been an iron that I'd have personally been comfortable with. Granted, I'm a hack that plays mega-SGI clubs like Altitudes, so what I am comfortable looking down at isn't really reflective of the norms.
PureLiquidHell
New member
Pointless statistics, buy clubs you hit the best. Play golf..... Enjoy.
Something's are just over analyzed.
Something's are just over analyzed.
Golf 'N Gator
Formally HoosierGolfer
Agree 1000%. Ralph is a great guy (been through 2 of his classes) but at the end of the day, everyone's swing is different. There is no right and no wrong. Look at my signature! I have three full bags of last year's and this years Callaway clubs on time out in storage and I'm playing my best golf in 12 months with clubs I couldn't sell today for $200 for all 14 clubs.
All this marketing hype and handicaps are not coming down and our course record has stood since 1968..........
KeyserSoze
Member
I went through the past rankings and they appear pretty much in alignment for the clubs I've used over the last 15 years, except my old 1997-2001 Top Flite Tour midsize :dont-know:
Mizuno Grad MP (or something close to it in the 90's) in the 300's
Titleist DCI 762 in the 300's
Cobra FP 2008 in the 600's
JPX-825 Pro in the 400's
JPX-825 in the 600's
I would have guessed the Callaway Apex would have hit around 500 or so.....so that one I don't get.
If anything it's just another data point to digest when thinking about clubs and I don't see anything devious or subversive about his system.
Mizuno Grad MP (or something close to it in the 90's) in the 300's
Titleist DCI 762 in the 300's
Cobra FP 2008 in the 600's
JPX-825 Pro in the 400's
JPX-825 in the 600's
I would have guessed the Callaway Apex would have hit around 500 or so.....so that one I don't get.
If anything it's just another data point to digest when thinking about clubs and I don't see anything devious or subversive about his system.
Last edited:
larryw
lov_betti
Here is the place where you can get all the measurements (not just the MPF). Nice listing by manufacturer and includes all previous year clubs.
http://www.ralphmaltby.com/378
http://www.ralphmaltby.com/378
Scrap Iron
On The Eh Team
I'm really surprised by how low all of Wilson's offerings are.
BlkNGld
Active member
I don't think that Maltby is doing anything like cooking the numbers to suit his sales. Rather, he has a measurement that he thinks reflects what's important to club design. It only stands to reason then that his designs are going to generally strive to meet that.
His measurements are sound, and no reason to think his data isn't accurate. The subjectivity comes in how the measurements get massaged into something called an MPF. But we all like a nice simple rating rather than poring over the individual numbers and figuring out how they work for us.
It's like when Consumer Reports assigns a rating to cars. It's no secret that safety and reliability have a bigger influence on their rankings than they do in an auto enthusiast mag.
His measurements are sound, and no reason to think his data isn't accurate. The subjectivity comes in how the measurements get massaged into something called an MPF. But we all like a nice simple rating rather than poring over the individual numbers and figuring out how they work for us.
It's like when Consumer Reports assigns a rating to cars. It's no secret that safety and reliability have a bigger influence on their rankings than they do in an auto enthusiast mag.
SonofSnowman
Member
I agree. According to Maltby, the D100 falls into the "conventional" category with a score of 524, while the 714 AP2 falls into the same category with a score of 517 and even the Hogan Edge CFT from 2004 falls into the "game improvement" category with a score of 577. That's some fuzzy math.