MPF Iron Ratings for 2008 (Updated)

MPF Ratings for 2007

Updated March 19th, More MPF Iron Ratings for 2008
The original addendum to the Maltby Playability Factor for irons book, which included 30 new irons for the 2008 supplement, has now been further updated to include 20 more 2008 irons. New listings have been added for Callaway, Cobra, Titleist, Nicklaus and MacGregor.

Download the 2008 MPF Ratings (4MB)

Back to Article Discussions

Article Discussion

  • 12:48PM - Aug 7, 2008RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2008 (Updated)

    #22
    Report This

    Christopher, MPF is measured the same way on all irons whether women’s, junior’s, senior’s and men’s. The ladies have different requirements in some of the other specifications such as sole width, bounce, shaft flex, lengths and lofts. As far as MPF is concerned, most all women should only look at “Ultra Game Improvement” irons, which will usually have very low vertical centers of gravity and longer “C” dimensions.

    Respond

    Quote

  • 10:29PM - Aug 5, 2008RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2008 (Updated)

    #21
    Report This

    Hi Ralph – A quick question regarding MPF for Irons – The MPF scale is designed to rate the ease and playability of clubs based on a weighted scale that takes into account the attributes of the club (I think). As stated in your article on Women’s irons, the women’s clubs have a different criteria as to what makes them more “playable” for women. Do the MPF ratings for ladies clubs work on a different set of weighted variables (or even weigh things like the “C” and the rear/vert COG differently) – or does MPF weigh all clubs exactly the same regardless of expected use? If so, have you ever tinkered with adjusting the weighted scale to rate how all the heads you’ve rated play for jane doe average golfer? Sorry to be so wordy, and thanks, Chris

    Respond

    Quote

  • 2:45PM - Apr 7, 2008RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2008 (Updated)

    #20
    Report This

    carlsenga, the only specification I do not like in both the Ping ISI, ISIK, Ping Zing and Ping Zing 2 is that the actual vertical center of gravity is not very low in the clubhead. They still have the properties to be very forgiving, but they perform best if the golfer hits down on the ball rather than hitting it with a sweeping motion. For this reason, all of the clubs you mentioned will be easier to hit.

    I personally switched from the Maltby True Forged (MTF) irons to the Gliders and had no problem. As soon as I can play again here in Ohio, I am going to try the Hybrid ST’s as a set. During our original testing, we did not have a complete set, but the results were more than excellent. If you are going conventional in shape, I recommend the KE4’s over the KE4V’s as a personal choice only, but both are great.

    Respond

    Quote

  • 10:49AM - Apr 7, 2008RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2008 (Updated)

    #19
    Report This

    Thanks for your help. What would you reccommend for a new set of clubs konwing I have the Ping ISI, and am looking for something that I can improve forgivability. How would the CER 851 UM compare to what I have or the KEV-4 #5’s. The other thing that I wanted to ask is, would there be a big learning curve if I were to switch to something like the Glider or the Hybrid ST if I have been hitting more of a blade iron? Any help ont his would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks, carlsenga

    Respond

    Quote

  • 9:02AM - Apr 7, 2008RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2008 (Updated)

    #18
    Report This

    carlsenga, I have measured every Ping club ever made. The ISI is 805 points and in the Super Game Improvement category.

    Respond

    Quote

  • 7:09PM - Apr 6, 2008RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2008 (Updated)

    #17
    Report This

    Hi Ralph, Love the site. I know that this might be a bit aging of the clubs that I have but I absolutely love them. Do you have a MPF rating for PING ISI Green Dot? I know that you might not, but if you were to throw a dart at their rating that would be great. I am looking into purchasing a new set of clubs this year, and want to see where my clubs rank and determine the clubs I will get. After talking to many people at Golf Galaxy I am going to get a set from your line, just want to see what you have to say.

    Thanks, carlsenga

    Respond

    Quote

  • 12:22PM - Apr 6, 2008RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2008 (Updated)

    #16
    Report This

    M45, The Nike CCi Forged is 365 points and in the Classic playability category. The cg is .163” rearward of face center or well back into the heel. The vertical cg isn’t bad at .747” but the “C”ension is only 1.046”.

    Respond

    Quote

  • 5:32PM - Apr 4, 2008RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2008 (Updated)

    #15
    Report This

    • M45

    • M45
    • User
    • 1 Comment

    Ralph, have you calculated the MPF for the Nike CCi Forged heads?

    Respond

    Quote

  • 10:42PM - Apr 3, 2008RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2008 (Updated)

    #14
    Report This

    Ralph, this is very interesting because the other two Maltby forged cavity back irons **** and MTF) each have a basic CoG around 0.78” but both have an actual CoG of about 0.68”. The new MPC has a basic CoG of 0.755” but only an actual CoG of 0.748”.

    This still seems quite odd. I would think that with a wider sole, undercut cavity, and a bit more offset that the actual CoG of the MPC irons would be closer to that of the MTF and MCC irons, especially since the basic CoG is lower to start with in the MPC.

    That’s why I thought the catalog’s actual CoG number would be more accurate for the MPC.

    Respond

    Quote

  • 1:14PM - Apr 3, 2008RE: MPF Iron Ratings for 2008 (Updated)

    #13
    Report This

    1putt1, the catalog must be wrong, typo or something. I just checked the actual club on my MPF wall of heads and it is indeed .748”.

    The basic VCOG is the balance point on the face and the center of gravity passes through it somewhere on that plane. The somewhere is determined by the rearward center of gravity location. If the rearward cg is quite close to the face, the actual vertical center of gravity will calculate higher than the basic vertical center of gravity. Look through all the different irons and you will find some of these situations. Mostly, the rearward center of gravity is far enough back so that the actual VCOG is lower than the basic VCOG. I actually did a chart in my MPF book to show this because at first glance many people would come up with your same conclusion that there must be something wrong. The actual VCOG is a simple trigonometry calculation that uses the location of the basic VCOG, the rearward cg and the actual measured loft of the clubhead. Look at the rearward cg of the MacGregor iron and you will see that it is a smaller number.

    This is a very astute question, because you are the first person ever to notice this. You may need to get a copy of the MPF Book for Irons and really get into this stuff.

    Respond

    Quote

Post Comment