The Maltby Playability Factor (MPF) Book One - Irons

Why Read It?

This book is first and foremost about explaining the Maltby Playability Factor (MPF) regarding irons. Certain mass and dimensional qualities along with a mathematical computation determine this playability factor and rate each iron into one of six different categories. The golfer can then determine which category of playability will help the most, assuming of course the golfer uses an honest evaluation of ability. Sometimes, an expert outside source is best to do this such as a golf professional or a skilled club fitter.

My second Maltby Playability Factor book will focus on wedges.

To obtain the most benefit from the Maltby Playability Factor also requires a high level of understanding about many other factors concerning golf clubs. The playability factor alone is a major breakthrough in golf and is a great tool to fill in the missing link which often occurs between myth and marketing to get to a factual representation of a golf clubs performance. However, beyond playability factor, there are many more golf club attributes that affect how well a golf club will play that MPF does not take into account. MPF categorizes golf clubs using certain design properties that most influence the overall playability of a golf club and therefore are the biggest factors in explaining the key differences in playability between differing designs. As an example, MPF does not take into account design properties such as sole bounce, proper loft angle, proper lie angle, face grooves, sole width, offsets, face progressions, head weight, swingweight, club length and the golf shaft. Playability factor also does not take into account how different swings can bring the club head into impact on different planes, arcs and angles and how the ball is affected regarding launch angle, backspin and feel back to the golfer.

It was always a goal of this book to thoroughly explain MPF, make it a very easy to use and a useful tool to help golfers play better and try to answer all questions about its existence and validity. Another goal is to explain in some detail, all or most of the other factors that also affect playability. Concurrently, while developing the MPF, many new facts and more exacting explanations were developed to take golf club mechanics to a new level of understanding. Also, many new tools were developed to measure golf clubs more accurately or measure an attribute that was very difficult to measure before.

So, the scope of this book is specific and thorough in explaining MPF, but it is also quite broad because it encompasses most of the “other” factors that are required knowledge to gain a thorough understanding of golf club playability. The main thrust of all the research in this book is the MPF for irons and is very thorough. MPF for putters is also explained in detail and is quite advanced with a lot of new information. MPF for fairway metals is well along in research, development and testing and much new information is presented here and is enlightening. MPF for drivers has been a time consuming project and quite a bit of information is presented here to bring the reader up to date. Since driver MPF is not finished, but well along, it was a thought to leave it out until the next edition. The decision was made to include the information that is now available in this edition.

There is a single purpose for this book to exist and this purpose is the reason why I am sharing my research. Golf is a great game, but it has lacked standards that help consumers separate fact from fiction and most importantly from making a buying decision that is wrong for them. This is a major reason why almost as many people that enter golf, leave it. The reason given is that it is simply too hard of a game to learn. It is not important if this new frustrated golfer bought golf clubs because of promises in an ad, because this model is played on television by pros or his best friend told him these are the best clubs for him. What is important is that any golfer can select and play with golf clubs from a number of manufacturers that have playing characteristics that fit that golfer’s ability and will help him or her the most. This is the importance of the Maltby Playability Factor, to bring out the best golf in all of us.

Click here to get Ralph’s Insider Emails

Back to Article Discussions

Article Discussion

  • 7:56PM - Jun 23, 2008RE: The Maltby Playability Factor (MPF) Book One - Irons

    #11
    Report This

    Ralph:

    Thank you for the answer

    Julio

    Respond

    Quote

  • 10:31AM - Jun 23, 2008RE: The Maltby Playability Factor (MPF) Book One - Irons

    #10
    Report This

    Julio, you basically need to discard the user review stuff on distance in all the magazines. It is simply one or a few golfers (or even worse, the editors) opinions and as we know, everyone has one and it may not be ours. We need to hit the clubs and see how they work for us.

    The distance you hit an iron is made up of the club itself and you.

    First the club; the manufacturers have various lofts on their irons, say for example their 5 irons which range from 23 degrees to 27 degrees. Club lengths also can vary. The two main distance variables in irons are loft and club length. So, when you are hitting and/or comparing clubs, you really need to write down the specifications for these two variables as this may indicate why a certain club hit it like it did. There are other distance variables, but of lesser importance.

    Second the golfer; swing speed is the number one variable in distance. Next is proper trajectory to maximize distance with a given swing speed. There are others, but of lesser importance.

    The golf shaft is one of the more important fitting variables to help the golfer hit the ball with the most consistency and get the best feel. A proper fit shaft is necessary to achieve the best results from both of the categories that I listed above. So, while the shaft can and does affect distance, it is not one of the most important variables in overall distance. I would rather classify it as one of the most important variables in directional control, best trajectory and as I said, overall consistency.

    Respond

    Quote

  • 8:29PM - Jun 20, 2008RE: The Maltby Playability Factor (MPF) Book One - Irons

    #9
    Report This

    Ralph:

    On user’s review for clubs, there is always the distance cathegory. I find that some times is somekind subjective (different views by diffenet players), but I wonder if there is a technical reason, other than the obvious loft, for an iron head to give more distance than other ? Besides, is the shaft the main factor for an iron “distance”. I’m particularly curious about the Titleist 755, regular steel shafts I just put in my bag.

    Thanks, Julio

    Respond

    Quote

  • 7:30AM - Jun 9, 2008RE: The Maltby Playability Factor (MPF) Book One - Irons

    #8
    Report This

    silverfoxone, your lie angle calculation is correct.

    Respond

    Quote

  • 4:10PM - Jun 8, 2008RE: The Maltby Playability Factor (MPF) Book One - Irons

    #7
    Report This

    Ralph,

    Thanks for your reply.

    For your info, the Pings have slightly more offset in the longer irons but less in the mid and short irons although the differences are margial. The lofts are the same but the lie angles of the Titleists are more upright but this is mitigated by the fact that they are a 1/4 inch longer in length which equates to 0.5 degrees in lie angle adjustment (i think?).

    Anyway, perhaps as I said in my earlier post the Project X shaft is the main difference as it’s a lower spinning shaft than the AWT shaft.

    Apart from this they are very similar but more importantly both are much more forgiving than my Sriixon 1-302 irons!

    Best regards

    Respond

    Quote

  • 6:51AM - Jun 8, 2008RE: The Maltby Playability Factor (MPF) Book One - Irons

    #6
    Report This

    silverfoxone, the MPF numbers usually need to be over 150 to 200 points either up or down to make a differnce that every golfer should feel. In a number of previous posts on this subject I have stated that 200 to 400 points is a big difference when comparing one iron to another.

    The shafts in similar playability irons will make a difference along with any specification differences such as loft, lie angle, sole width, offset and bounce angle to name a few. Whether the head is cast of forged makes absolutely no difference at all and cannot be felt be any golfer (there is a difference in most golfers minds however).

    Respond

    Quote

  • 10:57AM - Jun 2, 2008RE: The Maltby Playability Factor (MPF) Book One - Irons

    #5
    Report This

    Hi,

    I was reading your MPF download for irons – very interesting!

    I have just been custom fitted for a set of AP2 Irons (1 deg upright) with Project X 5.5 shafts. Prior to this I used Ping I-10 (.75 deg upright) with AWT stiff shafts. I’m changing because when I tested the the AP2 Irons I also compared them to my Pings and found them to be slightly more forgiving with a better feel!

    Anyway, I was puzzled by the ratings as I noticed that the Ping I-10 Irons have a higher MPF than the AP2 Irons albeit only slightly.

    Do you think the reasons could be the Project X shaft, the difference in overall swing weight or because they differ as cast and forged heads?

    Thanks

    Respond

    Quote

  • 9:05PM - Jul 25, 2007RE: The Maltby Playability Factor (MPF) Book One - Irons

    #4
    Report This

    Ron, the #5 or #6 refers to which iron number was measured to calculate MPF.

    Respond

    Quote

  • 7:45PM - Jul 24, 2007RE: The Maltby Playability Factor (MPF) Book One - Irons

    #3
    Report This

    • Ron Karns

    • Ron Karns
    • Guest

    In looking over your MPF listing for the irons, I am puzzled by one thing. You refer to Wilson’s “Deep Red II #6” or the Maltby “M-45 #5”. To what do the #6 and #5 designations apply? Thanks for all the insights!!!!

    Respond

    Quote

  • 6:27PM - Mar 8, 2007RE: The Maltby Playability Factor (MPF) Book One - Irons

    #2
    Report This

    Victor, I noticed that you made a couple coments on this site in a 30 or 40 minute time. Thanks for spending some time and reading the articles and also the nice comments. You are correct, there are simply too many myths out there regarding equipment. I really need to do an article on the TV telecast comments (all networks) when they try to explain something technical about impact and ball flight. All I can say in the meantime is please take their comments as more entertainment than fact.

    Respond

    Quote

  • 1
  • 2

Post Comment