We've launched the new forums! Read more here

2019 Maltby Playability Ratings.

SuperStroke
BrianW

BrianW

Active member
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
339
Reaction score
109
Location
Seattle, WA
Handicap
19.0
I was on the Golfworks website and I went to the Maltby ratings and the new 2019 club ratings are up. I know many don't care but for those who do I thought I would post them.
Callaway: Big Bertha CF 19 924, Apex Forged 476, Apex Forged Pro 460
Cleveland: Launcher HB 789, CBX 706
Cobra: F9 887, King Forged Tec 495, King Forged MB 262
Mizuno: JPX 919 Hot Metal 754, JPX 919 Hot Metal Pro 660, JPX 919 Forged 619, JPX Forged Tour 433
Ping G410 738
Srixon: Z585 504, Z785 402, Z Forged 350
Taylor Made: M5 687, M6 806, P760 432
Tommy Armour Atomic 794
Wilson D7 517
 
Cool to see them rate the TA Atomic. I hit those in Galaxy last week. Might be the easiest iron ever.
 
I'm not familiar with the Maltby ratings. What are they attempting to show?
 
BrianW said:
I was on the Golfworks website and I went to the Maltby ratings and the new 2019 club ratings are up. I know many don't care but for those who do I thought I would post them.
Callaway: Big Bertha CF 19 924, Apex Forged 476, Apex Forged Pro 460
Cleveland: Launcher HB 789, CBX 706
Cobra: F9 887, King Forged Tec 495, King Forged MB 262
Mizuno: JPX 919 Hot Metal 754, JPX 919 Hot Metal Pro 660, JPX 919 Forged 619, JPX Forged Tour 433
Ping G410 738
Srixon: Z585 504, Z785 402, Z Forged 350
Taylor Made: M5 687, M6 806, P760 432
Tommy Armour Atomic 794
Wilson D7 517
Click to expand...

What do the numbers tell us?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mpfnumberschart.jpg


This is what I found. Interesting
 
I found the information for the new Ping I500, and they are listed at 188!!! I find it hard to believe..... Misprint maybe?
 
Wildcat4life said:
mpfnumberschart.jpg


This is what I found. Interesting
Click to expand...

So my Apex CF ‘19s are listed as a conventional iron...

Hmmmmmm....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Maltby Playability Factor(MPF) is a number for MOI and forgiveness but many people, me included, are not big fans of the ratings. I think the MPF can give you an idea of forgiveness, but it's a foolish way to pick a set of irons, IMO. The higher the number, the more forgiving.

For a reference, the original Ping irons from 1975 have an MPF of 826 and the original Big Bertha irons from 1995 are rated at 1,111. There is a lot more to head design/performance than MOI/forgiveness.
 
JDax said:
So my Apex CF ‘19s are listed as a conventional iron...

Hmmmmmm....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm gaming the same irons. They are what I thought they are.
 
The MPF takes into account the physical dimensions of the club such as blade length, CG (vertical, horizontal) placement, MOI, and a bunch of other factors and based on that derives the MPF number. For what it is I think it's one good source among others, what I don't think it can or does take into account is some of the latest tech such as CupFace etc. which helps maintain ballspeed even on mishits. Likely also why e.g. the i500 got a low nr.
 
2019 Maltby Playability Ratings.

Wildcat4life said:
I'm gaming the same irons. They are what I thought they are.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that this rating system has caught up to
the “Players Distance” category of iron. Like the Apex CF ‘19 or Srixon Z585.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JDax said:
So my Apex CF ‘19s are listed as a conventional iron...

Hmmmmmm....
Click to expand...

And I'm good with that, cause rocking them on the course and how well they play for me isn't dictated by someone chart!

Rock on fellow Apex gamers!!! :banana:
 
F9s coming in at the ultra game improvement category based on this system, surprised their score was higher than Launcher HBs.
 
2019 Maltby Playability Ratings.

MPF rankings are right there with the Hot List rankings for me annually
 
Lots of people think the MPF data is useless, and I would pretty much agree with the rating part. The only way the rating is useful is if you know that the playing characteristics RM emphasizes are the ones that are best for your game. I like to refer to his ratings because of the raw data measurements. It gives me an initial basis of comparison between designs, especially when I can compare them to ones I've played before. For example, from experience I know that I play my best golf with irons that have a HCOG (C dimension) of the mid 1.3 to 1.5 range as I am not a heel-side striker. I also know that my game likes a lower VCOG, less than .8 for sure and in the lower .7s even better. The MOI numbers are interesting, I would expect a higher number to be more forgiving but I don't know how much of a difference that makes unless the numbers are really far apart. Basically, his overall rating severely punishes any design as the HCOG moves toward the heel, and even more severely punishes a higher VCOG. It also does not take into consideration other features that have a significant impact, like face design, sole design/interaction, etc. which is where a lot of modern tech lives now.

In a nutshell, I find the measurements he provides very useful to help me narrow down my choices but the rating is not something to rely on IMO.
 
TRA024 said:
The MPF takes into account the physical dimensions of the club such as blade length, CG (vertical, horizontal) placement, MOI, and a bunch of other factors and based on that derives the MPF number. For what it is I think it's one good source among others, what I don't think it can or does take into account is some of the latest tech such as CupFace etc. which helps maintain ballspeed even on mishits. Likely also why e.g. the i500 got a low nr.
Click to expand...

IOW it is a 20th century system trying to rate 21st century designs?
 
Someone told me with the MPF there's certain dimensions within the total MPF that are better for some people more than others. Just look at the Nike irons, the Vapor Fly's and pros are rated terribly but I had a set and they were very forgiving for me. RCOG is the size of the sweet spot and it works with the MOI. Makes it harder to shape shots but bigger sweet spot the closer it is to 1. VCOG closer to 1 is better for pickers. This is just what the guy at Edwin Watts told me
 
Jman said:
MPF rankings are right there with the Hot List rankings for me annually
Click to expand...
This one right here.

I dont like his formula.

However, I do like some of the measurements.
 
JohnSinVA said:
IOW it is a 20th century system trying to rate 21st century designs?
Click to expand...

I'm no technical expert but IMO it doesn't take into account advances in material technology. Other thing which it can't take into account is club delivery meaning how well a club suits a particular swing etc. But I don't think it's entirely useless either as some of the basic measurements for sure does come into how forgiving a club is. Especially if an iron you got along with in the past is listed it might still be worth while to check if a new club one is looking at falls within the same parameter range.
 
2019 Maltby Playability Ratings.

TRA024 said:
I'm no technical expert but IMO it doesn't take into account advances in material technology. Other thing which it can't take into account is club delivery meaning how well a club suits a particular swing etc. But I don't think it's entirely useless either as some of the basic measurements for sure does come into how forgiving a club is. Especially if an iron you got along with in the past is listed it might still be worth while to check if a new club one is looking at falls within the same parameter range.
Click to expand...

Fair point, but IME having the Wilson Staff D7 rated in the 500s and Ping i500s rated the same as 1960s blades makes the ratings numbers suspect at best, at least with regard to clubs from makes other than Maltby.
 
JohnSinVA said:
Fair point, but IME having the Wilson Staff D7 rated in the 500s and Ping i500s rated the same as 1960s blades makes the ratings numbers suspect at best, at least with regard to clubs from makes other than Maltby.
Click to expand...

Looking at the nrs the i500 gets a bad rating because the C-dimension is small (blade length) and VCOG high on the face (vertical CG). At least that's why based on my knowledge of the system. I would really use it as one reference point and at the end of the day nothing beats hitting as there are so many factors other than theory which impacts how one gets along with a club.
 
Jman said:
MPF rankings are right there with the Hot List rankings for me annually
Click to expand...

For not mattering? I’m very torn by them
 
Looking up those Tommy armour atomic irons.... 41* PW. WTH?? That is soooooo strong!!
 
The MPF measurements are for MASS PROPERTIES. It isn't intended to measure "face tech", etc...

If you review the individual measurements and understand for you and your swing what mass properties contribute to your success then it is a useful tool. If using the bottom line number only it is probably not that useful unless your needs coincide with Ralph Maltby's.

Dave
 
Last edited:
JohnSinVA said:
Fair point, but IME having the Wilson Staff D7 rated in the 500s and Ping i500s rated the same as 1960s blades makes the ratings numbers suspect at best, at least with regard to clubs from makes other than Maltby.
Click to expand...

Both of these irons have issues with vertical center of gravity measurement per how the scoring system works. D7 -- 0.862 which is above the center line of the golf ball. i500 -- 0.940 which is significantly above the center line of the ball. The i500 also has a CG that is too close to the heel per Maltby's scoring system.

Scores are per the CG measurements. i500 technology may make it much easier to hit than Maltby's scoring would indicate.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top