Maltby Playability Factor, anyone know about this/interested in this?

[Alex1975]

Hi All,

A comment that someone made yesterday in another post made me look this up.

It seems to be classification or scoring system for every golf club produced that then get categorised into 5 different categories.



Classic
Conventional
Game Improvement
Super Game Improvement
Ultra Game Improvement


http://www.ralphmaltby.com/


This is all very interesting to me and while it is not an indutry standad of any sort, I feel that a scale is better than no scale for the consumer.

 

[USER1999]

I find some of his classifications a bit odd.

My old Macgregor 1025M muscle back blades were down as Super game improvement. Well, they didn't improve my game much!

 

[One Planer]

Bad link Al'?

Don't know if it's the same company but Gamola do a series of wood, iron and wedge heads made by Maltby.

Coincidence?

 

[GreiginFife]

Bad link Al'?

Don't know if it's the same company but Gamola do a series of wood, iron and wedge heads made by Maltby.

Coincidence?

Same company I think, logo looks familiar.

 

[Alex1975]

Bad link Al'?

Don't know if it's the same company but Gamola do a series of wood, iron and wedge heads made by Maltby.

Coincidence?

Fixed and ye its the same people as far as I can tell.

 

[Alex1975]

I find some of his classifications a bit odd.

My old Macgregor 1025M muscle back blades were down as Super game improvement. Well, they didn't improve my game much!

Ye I started looking at the classifications last night, It seems that it is largely based on MOI but that the figure is subject to a minus figure if the MOI is not on such an such access. Not to technical I know but it was late.

I found the actual score more interesting than the category as you can see the lines between the categories.


Interesting to note that a set of Adams clubs had the highest base MOI from anything else in 2011.

 

[RGDave]

Can I come out from behind the sofa?


I'm not only a follower of Ralph and the mpf, but also a member of the forum and even get some stuff from him you can't get on his site.

We're hardly on twitter, but I've enjoyed following it all.

Ralph is in it for many reasons, some of which is to promote not only his mad science but also his club designs and components.

There are lots of measurements/assessments on the mpf, including one or two extremely unusual results.

 

[Alex1975]

Can I come out from behind the sofa?


I'm not only a follower of Ralph and the mpf, but also a member of the forum and even get some stuff from him you can't get on his site.

We're hardly on twitter, but I've enjoyed following it all.

Ralph is in it for many reasons, some of which is to promote not only his mad science but also his club designs and components.

There are lots of measurements/assessments on the mpf, including one or two extremely unusual results.

Yep, it was a comment that you made that made me start digging about MPF. I am intrigued, you commented that the R11 was for a "very good player" I am not that and play JPX Pro that have an even lower score than the R11, something like 498. I dont want a shovel that launches the ball high in the air and has no feel for short shots so at what point does that side meet the Ralph Maltby way of thinking?

BTW thanks for making me seek this out, I think I will spend hours looking though this stuff.... GEEK!!!

 

[DCB]

Alex, have a look here at some of our previous discussions.

 

[Alex1975]

Alex, have a look here at some of our previous discussions.

Thanks DCB, seems I am rather late to this party. I shall have a good read though your link when I am not at work.

 

[RGDave]

I am intrigued, you commented that the R11 was for a "very good player" I am not that and play JPX Pro that have an even lower score than the R11, something like 498.

The "very good player" quote was actually taken from the forum.

A lot of folk who read around the threads and general site information and the charts are probably convinced RM is only ever recommending high mpf stuff. That's not strictly true.

Some of his "players" designs come out with a decent mpf but are neither low COG or particularly high on some of the MOI.

Take Mizuno MX-200. They barely get above 400 on the mpf. I don't personally think it's random coincidence that Mizuno wanted to design a club for decent club players without going mad on the perimeter weighting and high launch and all that, and then they get low mpf.

Nowt wrong with clubs in the conventional category, just don't play them if you are a novice or have difficulty getting the ball in the air.

All my sets (over the years) are listed in a very narrow margin on the complete, all time mpf chart. Nothing under 500, nothing over 700.

I bought some X-18s (which are over 1,000 ) a few years back to see what would happen.

I've enjoyed the journey, it must be said. If I was playing better t.b.h. I'd probably go straight back to my Mizunos, rated at 503.

 

[Alex1975]

Thanks buddy, could I trouble you for a link to the charts, I have not really found my way round the forum/web site yet.