We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Ralph Maltby's MPF

SuperStroke
Perkins Rooster

Perkins Rooster

Active member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
2,592
Reaction score
6
Location
Manitoba
Handicap
10.1 RCGA
Is there a consensus here on the usefulness of these numbers? I looked at them and the results seem....bizarre. Apparently Ping Anser irons are in the GI category. Huh?
 
Some people like them, I am not one of them.
 
I just don't see the point of the list. Wasn't he giving crazy numbers to all TM irons for a while?
 
Chunkylover77 said:
I just don't see the point of the list. Wasn't he giving crazy numbers to all TM irons for a while?
Click to expand...

Yes, the R9 irons were quite funny actually.
 
Not a fan of these at all
 
I don't really understand all the numbers. But from what I can gather, I don't like it. Some of the categories seemed off. And it seems to deter people from certain club styles.
 
Id never heard of this before until I saw this thread and googled it. Wow. Interesting stuff.


Who knew that golfworks clubs and Maltby's clubs were so "playable"?

Those are some pretty good looking Maltby blades getting some more than double points than any other blade.




My names thainer and I play SGI irons! :)
 
Thainer said:
Id never heard of this before until I saw this thread and googled it. Wow. Interesting stuff.


Who knew that golfworks clubs and Maltby's clubs were so "playable"?

Those are some pretty good looking Maltby blades getting some more than double points than any other blade.




My names thainer and I play SGI irons! :)
Click to expand...

Great point about it being so self serving. Maybe TaylorMade or Cleveland or some other OEM should make their own index.
 
MPF is pretty worthless, IMO. Maltby has some pretty, "interesting" opinions when it comes to golf clubs.
 
Ok that's what I was thinking, thanks.
 
Thainer said:
Id never heard of this before until I saw this thread and googled it. Wow. Interesting stuff.


Who knew that golfworks clubs and Maltby's clubs were so "playable"?

Those are some pretty good looking Maltby blades getting some more than double points than any other blade.




My names thainer and I play SGI irons! :)
Click to expand...

I am the same way. I googled this and found it to be pretty stupid honestly
 
Wow this guy seems full of hot air. Im not going to waste my time on it. TM CBs are not GI?
 
The MPF is the only objective comparison of golf clubs using numbers/measurements rather than just opinion, feel, etc...

It's not the bible but gives you an idea / basis for comparing two different clubs.

I could attest that the PING S-series DOES belong in the GI category because that's what PING is famous for - making playable clubs. For years, I've been using the S59 "blades" for the last 8 years and while I'd though it was a players iron it never felt harsh even on toe/heel hits on my 2-iron (yes, back in the day). So I am not surprised that the S56 continues down that line.

The Cally X-Proto that I play now are true player irons - still easy to hit but mis-hits are punished with a harsh feel and huge loss of distances (a mishit 5-iron will only get 7/8 iron distances).
 
neova said:
The MPF is the only objective comparison of golf clubs using numbers/measurements rather than just opinion, feel, etc...

It's not the bible but gives you an idea / basis for comparing two different clubs.

I could attest that the PING S-series DOES belong in the GI category because that's what PING is famous for - making playable clubs. For years, I've been using the S59 "blades" for the last 8 years and while I'd though it was a players iron it never felt harsh even on toe/heel hits on my 2-iron (yes, back in the day). So I am not surprised that the S56 continues down that line.

The Cally X-Proto that I play now are true player irons - still easy to hit but mis-hits are punished with a harsh feel and huge loss of distances (a mishit 5-iron will only get 7/8 iron distances).
Click to expand...

I disagree with this quite a bit. Someone calling something objective by using only numbers, can be easily manipulated by making the calculation and numbers needed match what they build.

As to the rest....What makes a GI iron and what makes a Players Iron?
Perimeter weighting?
Used by ACTUAL players?
Onset? Offset?
 
I wouldn't look at Maltby's MPF as anything but more datapoints from another source. Neither right nor wrong, just another attempt at quantifying. It is up to the consumer to recognize if his methodology makes sense to you or if you punch holes in it. Either way, a critical eye isn't just cynicism but good practice for any of these lists.
 
d_in_la said:
I wouldn't look at Maltby's MPF as anything but more datapoints from another source. Neither right nor wrong, just another attempt at quantifying. It is up to the consumer to recognize if his methodology makes sense to you or if you punch holes in it. Either way, a critical eye isn't just cynicism but good practice for any of these lists.
Click to expand...


Really well said D
 
d_in_la said:
I wouldn't look at Maltby's MPF as anything but more datapoints from another source. Neither right nor wrong, just another attempt at quantifying. It is up to the consumer to recognize if his methodology makes sense to you or if you punch holes in it. Either way, a critical eye isn't just cynicism but good practice for any of these lists.
Click to expand...

I disagree. He says that all maltby clubs are better than any club of a similar type in the same category. I think thats wrong.
 
Thainer said:
I disagree. He says that all maltby clubs are better than any club of a similar type in the same category. I think thats wrong.
Click to expand...


It would look pretty bad if his clubs wouldn't be built to be the best on his scale.

Naturally if I'm looking at the MPF, I don't take into consideration his clubs due to bias. I agree with D that it's not the be all, end all of information, but you can't just disregard all of it as being bad.
 
lcsmrtn said:
It would look pretty bad if his clubs wouldn't be built to be the best on his scale.

Naturally if I'm looking at the MPF, I don't take into consideration his clubs due to bias. I agree with D that it's not the be all, end all of information, but you can't just disregard all of it as being bad.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. Right or wrong, you absolutely can.
His clear bias for and against certain brands makes me disregard it immediately.
No different than if he were to use subjective categories.
 
lcsmrtn said:
It would look pretty bad if his clubs wouldn't be built to be the best on his scale.

Naturally if I'm looking at the MPF, I don't take into consideration his clubs due to bias. I agree with D that it's not the be all, end all of information, but you can't just disregard all of it as being bad.
Click to expand...


It looks just as bad as him telling everyone that his clubs are the most playable. I havent even touched a single club, but i know they arent far and away better than the rest of the competition. They dont have the R&D dollars to keep up with these huge companies, so they cant be THAT amazing.


Him lying about his own clubs prove that hes willing to lie in his data and findings, thus making ALL findings completely false.
 
Bias is almost in any shape of data. I agree with the both of you that his clubs being ranked above others does look a bit foolish. That being said, a savvy customer know that because TM is the #1 driver on Tour, and that Titleist is the #1 ball on tour that it doesn't make them the best on tour.

All I'm saying is you can still use some(keyword) of his data as part of your decision making process.
 
lcsmrtn said:
Bias is almost in any shape of data. I agree with the both of you that his clubs being ranked above others does look a bit foolish. That being said, a savvy customer know that because TM is the #1 driver on Tour, and that Titleist is the #1 ball on tour that it doesn't make them the best on tour.

All I'm saying is you can still use some(keyword) of his data as part of your decision making process.
Click to expand...

Ironically I am not even speaking about his own clubs as much as his clear bias against other clubs (certain brands).
 
lcsmrtn said:
Bias is almost in any shape of data. I agree with the both of you that his clubs being ranked above others does look a bit foolish. That being said, a savvy customer know that because TM is the #1 driver on Tour, and that Titleist is the #1 ball on tour that it doesn't make them the best on tour.

All I'm saying is you can still use some(keyword) of his data as part of your decision making process.
Click to expand...

But those are marketing ploys. This is a marketing ploy designed to look like hard data. Thats deceptive, and all sorts of wrong in many business practices.
 
Thainer said:
But those are marketing ploys. This is a marketing ploy designed to look like hard data. Thats deceptive, and all sorts of wrong in many business practices.
Click to expand...


Callaway Razr Hawk, longer by 6 yards than TM R11... Sound familiar?
 
The R11 driver is not longer or forgiving. That data surprises me that it was held to only 6 yards to be honest...

EDIT: But saying that in a commercial or on a magazine ad is a whole lot different than laying out charts and data and fudging the numbers.


lcsmrtn said:
Callaway Razr Hawk, longer by 6 yards than TM R11... Sound familiar?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top