MPF Iron Ratings for 2007

MPF Ratings for 2007

As an addendum to the Maltby Playability Factor for irons book, Ralph has updated ratings for all new irons. Click on the link below to download and view the latest iron MPF ratings.

Click to download 2007 MPF Ratings
Download the 2007 MPF Ratings (5.8MB)

Back to Article Discussions

Article Discussion

  • 1:17PM - Aug 7, 2008RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2007

    #136
    Report This

    Antony, I have always been against this rule change as completely unneccessary. If anyone thinks for one minute that tour pros are now going to score higher because of the new groove rules, they are mistaken. The tour players will adapt to anything you put in their hands and they will make it work by using their super high skill levels which you and I will never achieve. The tour players do not get hurt by the USGA limiting modern technology, it’s you and I. Also, last time I looked, myself and everyone I play with is no threat to obsoleting our golf course. It still plays too long for me.

    Respond

    Quote

  • 9:47PM - Aug 6, 2008RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2007

    #135
    Report This

    Ralph, what are thoughts or opinion about the new rule for grooves published by the USGA and the R&A?.. how this will affect the mortals scoring?. But first let me tell you my opinion… they are not considering us, I mean the mortal players-

    Respond

    Quote

  • 12:09PM - Dec 12, 2007RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2007

    #134
    Report This

    FMooregolf, great approach! As you know, by the way you teach, the face angle and path are the primary determining factors in not only shaping the shot, hitting it in the right direction, but also in hitting the ball more solid. Couple this with utilizing MPF to get the right iron head design into the golfers hands based on his/her ability and golfer’s have a far greater chance of success in playing better golf. Finally, getting the golfer into the lauch monitor and fitting them properly to the correct shaft and the other important fitting variables and sucess is guaranteed. Almost sounds to simple, but this is really how to play better golf.

    Respond

    Quote

  • 8:53AM - Dec 12, 2007RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2007

    #133
    Report This

    Thanks Ralph,

    I read the article and found it very interesting and I agree on your assertion that draw weighted irons just don’t help produce a better ball striking and flight. I find that through lessons on swing path and square clubface at impact that my students improve ball striking. I’m using your MPF ratings more and more to give customers some concrete information on the “forgiveness” of different irons. Some of the results like the r7 Draw iron have been rather surprising!

    Respond

    Quote

  • 7:19AM - Dec 12, 2007RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2007

    #132
    Report This

    FMooregolf, please read the article on this site “The Maltby Reporter 1:1”. This article compares a number of the new irons for 2007 and even has a drawing of the TaylorMade R7 Draw iron compared to the Ping Rapture. Basically, so-called draw technology in an iron is made-up marketing technology. Why not simply buy a 1953 Spalding Synchro-Dyned iron (also old Macgregor and Wilson irons) and you get the exact same thing, a horizontal center of gravity located back into the heel. The manufacturers attempt to prove out draw technology by using mechanical golfing machines (robots) which is far from real world golfers hitting shots.

    Respond

    Quote

  • 5:16PM - Dec 11, 2007RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2007

    #131
    Report This

    Ralph,

    I was checking your MPF rating for the Taylor Made r7 Draw and it seems very low. Taylor Made qualifies that iron as their most forgiving game improvement iron, but you seem to disagree.

    Can you elaborate?

    Fred Moore, PGA Golf Galaxy 068

    Respond

    Quote

  • 3:32PM - Dec 10, 2007RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2007

    #130
    Report This

    Jim, first of all, the new Ping I-10’s are 645 points and in the Game Improvement category. Any MPF change over 300 points is a fairly significant and noticeable difference in hitting the ball. I prefer the X-18 Pro Series from Callaway and the KE4 Tour’s. Obviously you need to hit and compare the clubs you want to try. Being a low handicap, keep in mind that the shaft is going to be very important in the final result. If you can, hit the ball you normally play when hitting on a launch monitor. Trajectory is going to be a deciding factor. I really prefer to see the lower handicap players hitting it higher with the low spin balls. The Callaway has the lowest center of gravity of the 3 irons you mentioned, with the KE4 in the middle and the TaylorMade 320’s the highest. The TaylorMades are still quite low however and do play well, so I am assuming you are probably playing a Dynamic steel or Dynamic Gold steel shaft (or a stiffer Rifle). I have not measured the Bridgestones yet for MPF. Let me know when you finally make your decision or how you are coming along with your testing.

    Respond

    Quote

  • 10:49AM - Dec 10, 2007RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2007

    #129
    Report This

    Ralph -

    Now that we have 6 inches of snow on the ground, I’m planning my 2008 set of irons. I currently play TM 320’s (MPF 607) and am quite happy with them. But after reading your book, I’m interested in experimenting with a super game improvement or ultra game improvement set. There aren’t too many choices, that still retain a traditional low offset look. But I’ve narrowed it down to I5’s (707), BH-5’s (821), KE4 Tours (884), or X-18 PS (982).

    I’m also interested in the new i10’s and B’stone GCMids, but don’t know the MPF on those models. Have either of them been measured yet?

    I’m a 3.0 handicap and a good ball striker. So I can hit about any iron well, which poses a problem when testing the above clubs. They all feel fine to me and when hitting into a simulator I really don’t see much difference. How much can I expect the differing MPF’s to translate into performance differences out on the course?

    Thanks for any insight you can provide.

    Jim

    Respond

    Quote

  • 4:51PM - Nov 26, 2007RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2007

    #128
    Report This

    Jack, I just pulled the #5 iron head off the wall and checked it again and the Actual Rearward Center of Gravity measurement of .651” is correct. Steel is heavy and it does not take much to significantly change the distribution of mass within the head. I also have guessed many times, trying to use logic and have been fooled many times. It measures what it measures.

    Respond

    Quote

  • 8:25AM - Nov 26, 2007RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2007

    #127
    Report This

    Ralph,

    I have a set of Wilson Staff Fat Shaft Robert Mendralla signature irons. I checked out their MPF specs in your 2007 Addendum book and am puzzled by the RCOG value. It seems too high to me seeing as how these clubs have a fairly narrow sole, thin top line, minimal offset, and shallow cavity. Thanks.

    Respond

    Quote

Post Comment