We are a golf club design company and our team has as many combined years of experience as just about anyone in the industry. When it is pointed out that “all Maltby clubs rate high” so “it can’t be valid”, I chuckle a bit. The best performing models over the decades, the best sellers over any period of time in the marketplace, all had the highest MPF ratings for the time they were introduced and in the marketplace. Taking the fit and the shaft and all the other things out of the equation, what are/were the differences in iron head designs that seemed to make one successful and one not successful.Īnd, as a side note, history backs up the Ralph’s data 100%. Why some feel really solid and some do not. Ralph’s motivation was to understand why some irons are “clunkers” and some are not. No bias or malice towards particular brands, just measurements. This is one of the main reasons Ralph developed the MPF for irons, to give us a way to evaluate that mass we call an iron head and to determine if one particular design might provide a better opportunity for success for players, based on how its mass is distributed and where the center of gravity of that mass is located. Just because a company calls a club a “game improvement” club or a “tour” club does not automatically make it so. I can understand the confusion, but what needs to be understood is that all the MPF does is measure the mass and dimensional characteristics of the head and report them. The companies “game improvement” model actually rated lower than the “tour” model, so that confused the readers. It can be played, but the player better be a really consistent ball striker to get any benefit at all out of the club. On one particular brand, all three new models were in the Player Classic category, which generally is not a model we would recommend for players to play because the mass and dimensional characteristics of the designs provide no benefit to the player. Recently I read a post from someone questioning some MPF ratings on a major brands clubs. Why Are Some Major Brands Not Rated As High? It explains, in great detail, how MPF is determined and what it is, and what it is not. The only thing I can say to good folks like these is “READ RALPH’S BOOK”. Then there are others that will always find fault, usually because an iron they like does not fall into the category they believe it should or the category seems to go against what the manufacturer tells them. We see great numbers of positive comments about how the MPF is a great tool to help someone understand iron design in general and to help club makers and players alike choose an iron that will meet their needs and give them the best chance for success. One of the subjects that gets a lot of comments is the Maltby Playability Factor. That’s great to see, even if sometimes the comments are not accurate or come from a lack of understanding. Sometimes I see comments that are directly related to The Golfworks and our product. I generally do not participate, but like to read to get a feel for what passionate golfers are experiencing, thinking and talking about. It is obvious that people have strong opinions about players, equipment, courses and just about everything else golf. The cool thing is that it is easy to see there are a lot of passionate golfers still out there that like to talk golf equipment. I am constantly amazed at the number of people I see making comments on some of the golf forums out there on the internet. Why are some major brands not rated as high while Maltby clubs are rated high? How can Maltby compete with these major brands? Background Understanding the Malby Playability Factor (MPF) for Irons
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |