Irons - A better way to express suitability for golfers?

[Deleted member 23344]

I have retained the irons in my main set for a while now, but I like swapping the irons in my reserve set and trying others ... I buy second hand sets on eBay, try them for a while and then sell them again for around the same price. Before buying a set, I check on websites like Golfbidder, and review sites, to see whether they might be suitable for me, a 20 handicap golfer.

Most reviews use the "four blob" scale; i.e. handicaps 0 to 7, 8 to 14 etc. However, does this really work? I am a 20 handicapper because my short drives and poor putting cost me several shots a round ... but my iron play is not too bad. Also, one reason why some makes/models of iron are considered appropriate for low handicappers only is because of the difficulty of hitting the long irons ... but I use hybrids up to 6 and only use irons from 7 upwards, thus avoiding this issue to some extent.

Given this, is there a potentially better way of expressing the suitability of particular irons for golfers ... or does the universal understanding of the handicap system mean it's the only practical method? Thoughts?

 

[Crow]

Have a look at this site, covers the big manufacturers and goes back quite a few years.

https://www.golfworks.com/iron-head-mpf-ratings/a/870/

This is useful for background too.

http://ralphmaltby.com/understanding-the-malby-playability-factor-mpf-for-irons/

 

[Foxholer]

... I buy second hand sets on eBay, try them for a while and then sell them again for around the same price...

Most reviews use the "four blob" scale; i.e. handicaps 0 to 7, 8 to 14 etc. However, does this really work? I am a 20 handicapper because my short drives and poor putting cost me several shots a round ... but my iron play is not too bad....

Given this, is there a potentially better way of expressing the suitability of particular irons for golfers ... or does the universal understanding of the handicap system mean it's the only practical method? Thoughts?

Unless you have only been buying similar style 'appropriate' sets, then you should already have found out the attributes of the various head styles. I'd suggest you try a set or more of 'not appropriate' ones - maybe even blades! I saw little point using blades until I went huning for a 'ball-striking practice set' and found a set of TP-9s pretty cheap in the original American Golf shop in Warrington. After 3 shots with the 7-iron, I was hooked on the feel!!

I'd also suggest you practice with longer irons than you use in your 'playing' set in any case! Using the 5 should help you improve your ball-striking, which should unconsciously transfer the improvement to your shorter iron results.

 

[Deleted member 23344]

Have a look at this site, covers the big manufacturers and goes back quite a few years.

https://www.golfworks.com/iron-head-mpf-ratings/a/870/

This is useful for background too.

http://ralphmaltby.com/understanding-the-malby-playability-factor-mpf-for-irons/

Thanks for this ... what a stonking site!! It explains why I'm having trouble hitting the Taylormade R11 irons I bought!

 

[SXRORY]

Have a look at this site, covers the big manufacturers and goes back quite a few years.

https://www.golfworks.com/iron-head-mpf-ratings/a/870/

This is useful for background too.

http://ralphmaltby.com/understanding-the-malby-playability-factor-mpf-for-irons/

My Nike vapor pro combos score badly on this as player classic, Lower than the vapor pros???? Only suitable for tour pros?

I find them just as easy as my Ap2's 712 where, and there conventional rating.

Not too sure about this rating thing

 

[Crow]

Maybe you're a good iron striker.

 

[xreyuk]

It all depends on the player. You could have a 20 handicapper who strikes irons out the middle every time, but isn't straight, can't chip and is crap at putting.

He could probably get away with using 'low handicapper' irons because he's a good ball striker.

 

[SXRORY]

Maybe you're a good iron striker.

I can hit a ball off 9 but I'm not going to massage my ego too much. Love a toe strike.


All the vapor stuff comes out as player classic even the vapor speed which are the high handicap clubs

I would not use it as the be all and end all. I think is a lot of what we get on with is to do with what's nice on the eye and feel which In Turn brings confidence. Which you cant measure.

Think he references this club range in the column.

 

[Capella]

My Nike vapor pro combos score badly on this as player classic, Lower than the vapor pros???? Only suitable for tour pros?

I find them just as easy as my Ap2's 712 where, and there conventional rating.

Not too sure about this rating thing

Yeah, I looked my irons up out of interest as well. The MacGregor m455 V-Mass are rated as "Classic" even though they are as forgiving as you can imagine, while for example a Tommy Amour blade is listed as "Game Improvemnt". I don't really trust those ratings. I mean, the numbers are probably correct, but I don't think they translate into playability in the way the Maltby-System suggests.

 

[Deleted member 23344]

Yes, there are some strange ratings on the Maltby site. I once had a set of Taylormade Burner 2009 irons which were easy to play and which are universally seen as a game improvement iron (golfbidder has them rated as for 28 handicappers), but they are rated on the Maltby site as "classic"; i.e. for 0 to 5 handicappers only!