Requesting help from MPF experts

[gumpy]

Hi

I was hoping I could draw on some expertise from MPF experts. 
 

I currently game the i230. Overall they perform well but trackman optimiser has consistently told me I’m on the low side for trajectory and spin. Still playable but at the low end. 
 

I looked up MPF after stumbling upon the term and safe to say I’m a bit confused. Read through a few threads on it and I’m more confused. Proponents all say if you know how to use the info it’s good but no one really explained how to use the info. 
 

with my i230 I’m told I’m on the low spin low trajectory side. My misses are thin and sometimes toe. 
 

the i230 has a lower playability score than the blueprint s. The blueprint s also has a lower cog. Does this mean the blueprint s will be more playable for me? Also how does this make sense vs askgolfnut data and also what ping say?

 

id love to play the blueprint s over the i230 especially if its actually better for me. Just confused as to how this would be the case though. 
 

not here to start a fight I genuinely would like to learn. 

[ThinkingPlus]

Ping's design philosophy is based on maximizing MOI for the most part. That can lead to high vertical CG (Actual Vertical CG in the Maltby database). The Maltby MPF philosophy values lower vertical CG and longer C dimension (essentially distance horizontally from the hosel to the CG). MOI is weighted third in the algorithm that computes MPF.

 

In most cases it is far more useful to look at the individual AVCOG, C dimension, and MOI values to find what works best for each individual. The Blueprint S has a significantly lower AVCOG than the i230. Importantly, the Blueprint's AVCOG is lower than the midpoint of a golf ball whereas the i230 is substantially higher. Based on your description, you would likely find a lower AVCOG design better suited to your swing. To find out you really should try some low AVCOG irons and see how you strike them. 

[gumpy]

39 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Ping's design philosophy is based on maximizing MOI for the most part. That can lead to high vertical CG (Actual Vertical CG in the Maltby database). The Maltby MPF philosophy values lower vertical CG and longer C dimension (essentially distance horizontally from the hosel to the CG). MOI is weighted third in the algorithm that computes MPF.

 

In most cases it is far more useful to look at the individual AVCOG, C dimension, and MOI values to find what works best for each individual. The Blueprint S has a significantly lower AVCOG than the i230. Importantly, the Blueprint's AVCOG is lower than the midpoint of a golf ball whereas the i230 is substantially higher. Based on your description, you would likely find a lower AVCOG design better suited to your swing. To find out you really should try some low AVCOG irons and see how you strike them. 

Thank you ma’am

Edited July 19 by gumpy

[phizzy30]

13 minutes ago, gumpy said:

Thank you sir 

@ThinkingPlusis a lady, lol.  I don't know much about MPF, however if an iron has a lower VCOG, that means it's best for pickers and death for diggers.  This is why blades tend to suite those that have a steeper AoA and sweepers tend do better with player's CB.      

[B.Easy]

36 minutes ago, phizzy30 said:

@ThinkingPlusis a lady, lol.  I don't know much about MPF, however if an iron has a lower VCOG, that means it's best for pickers and death for diggers.  This is why blades tend to suite those that have a steeper AoA and sweepers tend do better with player's CB.      

 

I've found this to be true for myself and while conducting fittings.

 

If you have an AOA of +4 or greater with a leading edge and sole grind that prevents easy turf entry your dispersion will suffer.  In the same way, if you are shallow and less than +3 AOA a narrow sole and sharp leading edge can be catchy and cause lots of thins and fats. Dispersion usually suffers.  Over generalizing, but very common to see during fittings.

[phizzy30]

3 minutes ago, B.Easy said:

 

I've found this to be true for myself and while conducting fittings.

 

If you have an AOA of +4 or greater with a leading edge and sole grind that prevents easy turf entry your dispersion will suffer.  In the same way, if you are shallow and less than +3 AOA a narrow sole and sharp leading edge can be catchy and cause lots of thins and fats. Dispersion usually suffers.  Over generalizing, but very common to see during fittings.

I think you meant - AoA.  The rest of your post seems pretty accurate though.  

[B.Easy]

Just now, phizzy30 said:

I think you meant - AoA.  The rest of your post seems pretty accurate though.  

yes. thanks

[gumpy]

1 hour ago, B.Easy said:

 

I've found this to be true for myself and while conducting fittings.

 

If you have an AOA of +4 or greater with a leading edge and sole grind that prevents easy turf entry your dispersion will suffer.  In the same way, if you are shallow and less than +3 AOA a narrow sole and sharp leading edge can be catchy and cause lots of thins and fats. Dispersion usually suffers.  Over generalizing, but very common to see during fittings.

Oh really, so I’m a bit of a picker of the ball, AoA -2 ish with irons and near zero with the 5 iron. I’m better off with the fatter sole of the i230 vs a thin sole like the Apex CB? I thought the opposite would be true. I feel like the i230 is slow through the turf.

Edited July 19 by gumpy

[golferdude54]

2 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Ping's design philosophy is based on maximizing MOI for the most part. That can lead to high vertical CG (Actual Vertical CG in the Maltby database). The Maltby MPF philosophy values lower vertical CG and longer C dimension (essentially distance horizontally from the hosel to the CG). MOI is weighted third in the algorithm that computes MPF.

 

In most cases it is far more useful to look at the individual AVCOG, C dimension, and MOI values to find what works best for each individual. The Blueprint S has a significantly lower AVCOG than the i230. Importantly, the Blueprint's AVCOG is lower than the midpoint of a golf ball whereas the i230 is substantially higher. Based on your description, you would likely find a lower AVCOG design better suited to your swing. To find out you really should try some low AVCOG irons and see how you strike them. 

A ThinkingPlus adjusted MPF chart would be awesome. It doesn’t make sense now for a 2006 OEM iron model to have the highest MPF score out of any OEM irons up to 2025 with MPF grading as it is.

[B.Easy]

11 minutes ago, gumpy said:

Oh really, so I’m a bit of a picker of the ball, AoA -2 ish with irons and near zero with the 5 iron. I’m better off with the fatter sole of the i230 vs a thin sole like the Apex CB? I thought the opposite would be true. I feel like the i230 is slow through the turf.

 

I said "can be catchy and cause fats/thins."  There is no way to know what's best for you without being there.  Is your iron spin being measured indoors or outdoors on grass?  Indoors is almost always going to give inaccurate spin numbers on the low side. 

 

-2 is adding loft at impact.  Is that what you mean? 

 

i230 definitely has a wide'ish sole and can be very catchy/slow on certain turf.  Are yours standard or power spec'd? 

 

A shallow and very in to out swing with a thin toe strike is going to give low launch/spin numbers regardless of what irons you play.

 

 

[gumpy]

7 minutes ago, B.Easy said:

 

I said "can be catchy and cause fats/thins."  There is no way to know what's best for you without being there.  Is your iron spin being measured indoors or outdoors on grass?  Indoors is almost always going to give inaccurate spin numbers on the low side. 

 

-2 is adding loft at impact.  Is that what you mean? 

 

i230 definitely has a wide'ish sole and can be very catchy/slow on certain turf.  Are yours standard or power spec'd? 

 

A shallow and very in to out swing with a thin toe strike is going to give low launch/spin numbers regardless of what irons you play.

 

 

Unfortunately for trackman data I only get indoors and I’ve heard spin can be inaccurate. 

 

-2 i mean I’m hitting down on my 7 iron by about 2 degrees so I’m on the shallower side. 

 

I’m standard spec. 

 

I’m not overly in and out generally come in 2-3 degrees in to out. My 7 iron spin is 5200 ish so the ball still stops but my 5 iron etc doesn’t… 

 

Appreciate your thoughts. 

 

For me my last set of irons were MP57s from 18 years ago. The i230s are so much more forgiving but the flush shots don’t feel as flush as the MP57s, I’m trying to understand why and hoping data from the MPF could help explain to me what I’m chasing. 

[phizzy30]

2 hours ago, gumpy said:

Unfortunately for trackman data I only get indoors and I’ve heard spin can be inaccurate. 

 

-2 i mean I’m hitting down on my 7 iron by about 2 degrees so I’m on the shallower side. 

 

I’m standard spec. 

 

I’m not overly in and out generally come in 2-3 degrees in to out. My 7 iron spin is 5200 ish so the ball still stops but my 5 iron etc doesn’t… 

 

Appreciate your thoughts. 

 

For me my last set of irons were MP57s from 18 years ago. The i230s are so much more forgiving but the flush shots don’t feel as flush as the MP57s, I’m trying to understand why and hoping data from the MPF could help explain to me what I’m chasing. 

When you say don't feel as flush, it could simply be because the MP-57's are forged whereas the i230's aren't.  Or are we talking about something else?  

[gumpy]

20 minutes ago, phizzy30 said:

When you say don't feel as flush, it could simply be because the MP-57's are forged whereas the i230's aren't.  Or are we talking about something else?  

The feeling of absolutely nutting the shot with a nice small divot, i230s just don’t feel as pure. I don’t think it’s a forged vs cast thing but could be wrong. 

[Stuart_G]

10 hours ago, gumpy said:

Overall they perform well but trackman optimiser has consistently told me I’m on the low side for trajectory and spin. 

 

Before you go too far, for realistic expectations, it's important to realize that:

 

1) trajectory and spin in irons really comes more from your swing than the equipment and there is only so much the equipment can do to go against your natural tendencies.

 

2) Launch and spin in irons can NOT be optimized - there is no ideal or optimal set of numbers that you should target.  It's really about balancing out carry distance and stopping power.  And the "best" numbers can vary quite a bit for different individuals playing different course conditions.

 

10 hours ago, gumpy said:

My misses are thin and sometimes toe. 

 

Not to confuse things even more - but delivery issues (face impact location and also including dynamic loft) are usually more related to a core problem with the fit of the playing length, shaft weight and/or swing weight (when just looking at equipment influences, not mechanics).

 

In the case of irons, if the "miss" is roughly similar throughout the set, you can discount playing length as the problem.

 

You might want to go through this tutorial to double check the fit of the shaft weight and head weight.   Yes it's title says driver, but if you ignore the parts about playing length - the methodology for testing and checking shaft weight and head weight works for any club (except putter).

 

Those specs should be fit first an dialed in before considering what head (or loft) might be the best to get your desired flight.

 

 

Edited July 19 by Stuart_G

[NRJyzr]

6 hours ago, golferdude54 said:

A ThinkingPlus adjusted MPF chart would be awesome. It doesn’t make sense now for a 2006 OEM iron model to have the highest MPF score out of any OEM irons up to 2025 with MPF grading as it is.

 

It makes perfect sense when you look at how MPF score is calculated.  

 

The first important thing to know is that MPF score is *not* a rating of forgiveness.

 

The second important thing to know is how it's calculated.  The MPF score is nearly entirely the C Dimension minus Actual VCOG.  There are minor adjustments for MOI and penalties for having a CG above 0.840", the centerline of a golf ball.

 

That's it.  <shrug>

 

The true value in MPF is the data behind it.  The CG location, in all three dimensions, as well as the MOI.

 

Adding a side note...  Ralph Maltby doesn't believe MOI is as important in irons as others do.  The success stories in the fairly long Maltby thread here on WRX suggest he may be on to something.  Emphasis on "may."

 

Edited July 19 by NRJyzr

[Stuart_G]

1 hour ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Adding a side note...  Ralph Maltby doesn't believe MOI is as important in irons as others do.  The success stories in the fairly long Maltby thread here on WRX suggest he may be on to something.  Emphasis on "may."

 

 

I can't say I've paid much attention to it, but I wouldn't expect that to really be statistically significant to be an indication of anything.

 

Of all my time reading posts here in the forums - my first impression what they are telling us about what's important in a iron head fitting - would be that the subjective influences actually tend to be more important than the objective ones for a good percentage of individuals.   The "human factor" is famous for throwing a monkey wrench into the various scientific analyses that I've read about and can easily come back to bite you when studies try to ignore it.    

 

But as I said, that's just an impression.  Not any type of valid scientific conclusion.

[B.Easy]

2 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Before you go too far, for realistic expectations, it's important to realize that:

 

1) trajectory and spin in irons really comes more from your swing than the equipment and there is only so much the equipment can do to go against your natural tendencies.

 

2) Launch and spin in irons can NOT be optimized - there is no ideal or optimal set of numbers that you should target.  It's really about balancing out carry distance and stopping power.  And the "best" numbers can vary quite a bit for different individuals playing different course conditions.

 

 

Not to confuse things even more - but delivery issues (face impact location and also including dynamic loft) are usually more related to a core problem with the fit of the playing length, shaft weight and/or swing weight.

 

In the case of irons, if the "miss" is roughly similar throughout the set, you can discount playing length as the problem.

 

You might want to go through this tutorial to double check the fit of the shaft weight and head weight.   Yes it's title says driver, but if you ignore the parts about playing length - the methodology for testing and checking shaft weight and head weight works for any club (except putter).

 

Those specs should be fit first an dialed in before considering what head (or loft) might be the best to get your desired flight.

 

 

 

@gumpy  Stuart_G always says it better than myself!  Most folks do not have access to real fitters with grass ranges and a GC4, so being able to self diagnose is a huge help.  Howard's thread on DIY fitting makes it straight forward.

[NRJyzr]

8 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

I can't say I've paid much attention to it, but I wouldn't expect that to really be statistically significant to be an indication of anything.

 

Of all my time reading posts here in the forums - my first impression what they are telling us about what's important in a iron head fitting - would be that the subjective influences actually tend to be more important than the objective ones for a good percentage of individuals.   The "human factor" is famous for throwing a monkey wrench into the various scientific analyses that I've read about and can easily come back to bite you when studies try to ignore it.    

 

But as I said, that's just an impression.  Not any type of valid scientific conclusion.

 

What you describe is exactly why I hedged that comment as I did.  The Legend of Conclusions Based On Anecdotal Observations being what it is.  😉

 

[Wardonation]

11 hours ago, gumpy said:

Hi

I was hoping I could draw on some expertise from MPF experts. 
 

I currently game the i230. Overall they perform well but trackman optimiser has consistently told me I’m on the low side for trajectory and spin. Still playable but at the low end. 
 

I looked up MPF after stumbling upon the term and safe to say I’m a bit confused. Read through a few threads on it and I’m more confused. Proponents all say if you know how to use the info it’s good but no one really explained how to use the info. 
 

with my i230 I’m told I’m on the low spin low trajectory side. My misses are thin and sometimes toe. 
 

the i230 has a lower playability score than the blueprint s. The blueprint s also has a lower cog. Does this mean the blueprint s will be more playable for me? Also how does this make sense vs askgolfnut data and also what ping say?

 

id love to play the blueprint s over the i230 especially if its actually better for me. Just confused as to how this would be the case though. 
 

not here to start a fight I genuinely would like to learn. 

I am a picker and in to out. For myself "low bounce" is most important, then sole width (thinner side). Srixon V sole is horrible the irons you have would be as well. I play King Tours but the sole is to thick for me but not horrible.  I would look at the current Callaway Cb's, Foreward Golf low bounce to name a few. You might also try the Titleist 100's,,

[PedronNiall]

14 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

I can't say I've paid much attention to it, but I wouldn't expect that to really be statistically significant to be an indication of anything.

 

Of all my time reading posts here in the forums - my first impression what they are telling us about what's important in a iron head fitting - would be that the subjective influences actually tend to be more important than the objective ones for a good percentage of individuals.   The "human factor" is famous for throwing a monkey wrench into the various scientific analyses that I've read about and can easily come back to bite you when studies try to ignore it.    

 

But as I said, that's just an impression.  Not any type of valid scientific conclusion.

 

All the time in multiple sections of this forum what do we do? We mention objective facts about equipment, the swing, playing conditions, and so on, and their expected effects based on data points from trials, observation, and simulation, advanced math, and the knowns of physics. That's all Maltby does with MPF: takes a set of measurements, makes observations on the outcomes of various alignments of them, and draws conclusions from them.

 

All MPF says is that for most golfers we would expect irons that have this MPF rating--which is based on a combination of observed, repeatable measurements--to produce better results/be more forgiving than those with a lower rating  based on the same measurements and to produce less optimal results than those with a higher rating.  

 

It would be errant to dismiss MPF and even more so so dismiss what what amount to hundreds of thousands if not millions of real world strike trials in the threads on Maltby irons and others where trials between different irons that we can obtain the MPF rating and fixed measurements for are available. If you really want to you can dive in and see what irons people are reporting their results with across various sections on this board and get some pretty decent evidence as to how valid MPF is. In fact, if it's spurious it should be relatively easy to spot issues without even going too deep.

 

The other thing we do all over the forum is remind people that whatever the data says about averages or even about 99.9% of cases, they still need to test for themselves. Certainly people shouldn't use MPF or anything else as the sole decider for what they buy without doing any testing, but it shouldn't be dismissed as spurious simply because it hasn't been evaluated for statistical significance, especially when this forum has so many who hit so much equipment and who are happy to tell the good and bad of their findings. If MPF weren't a useful tool in the toolbox of equipment selection then it would have likely been outed by now. 

 

If for some reason in the future analysis shows it's invalid then that will be what the data says, but as of now I don't know of evidence pointing that way. 

[CTgamer]

As many have said, I’ve found the MPF data super helpful but not for the MPF score itself…in my experience:

 

-C dim and MOI have to match up with a golfer’s release pattern and timing. Too high and the head resists closing coming into impact and my hands have to compensate unnaturally. Too low and the face flips over too quickly and/or is too unstable on mishits. 
 

-Actual vcog has to match up with AoA - generally higher for steeper attack angles, and lower for shallower ones. 
 

-From there, I’ll take as much ball speed retention and spin consistency across the face as I can get.

But the data points that Maltby is measuring aren’t a case where “more is always better.” You need to find the matchups that work for your swing - it’s why golfers consistently find they’ll hit a certain iron better that, “on paper”, maybe isn’t a good fit for their game. Not every plus handicap needs a blade and not every 20 handicap needs a game improvement iron

[golferdude54]

1500 MPF score with zero offset… Dang, that would be nice.

[phizzy30]

3 hours ago, Wardonation said:

I am a picker and in to out. For myself "low bounce" is most important, then sole width (thinner side). Srixon V sole is horrible the irons you have would be as well. I play King Tours but the sole is to thick for me but not horrible.  I would look at the current Callaway Cb's, Foreward Golf low bounce to name a few. You might also try the Titleist 100's,,

Opposite of you.  I'm a digger in to out and I do better with higher bounce.  I had Miura tour low bounce wedge and had to switch it out for something with higher bounce last year.  Way better turf interaction now especially around the green.  

[Red4282]

Believed or not Im more on Maltbys ratings side than not-meaning I do think MOI in irons is generally overrated or over emphasized. One factor that does need to be accounted for is new face tech that acts as moi on mishits, and thats where something like askgolfnuts heatmaps come in. But if you are just looking at MPF, @ThinkingPlus nailed it. If you know what your tendencies are,  especially with strike, data like Vcog, and Cdim are very useful. 

[CTgamer]

4 hours ago, CTgamer said:

As many have said, I’ve found the MPF data super helpful but not for the MPF score itself…in my experience:

 

-C dim and MOI have to match up with a golfer’s release pattern and timing. Too high and the head resists closing coming into impact and my hands have to compensate unnaturally. Too low and the face flips over too quickly and/or is too unstable on mishits. 
 

-Actual vcog has to match up with AoA - generally higher for steeper attack angles, and lower for shallower ones. 
 

-From there, I’ll take as much ball speed retention and spin consistency across the face as I can get.

But the data points that Maltby is measuring aren’t a case where “more is always better.” You need to find the matchups that work for your swing - it’s why golfers consistently find they’ll hit a certain iron better that, “on paper”, maybe isn’t a good fit for their game. Not every plus handicap needs a blade and not every 20 handicap needs a game improvement iron

As a side note, I suspect higher MOI club heads is part of why the “bowed wrist, side bend, rotate” boyz became popular - if it’s harder to turn the club head over, then build a swing with minimal face rotation…perhaps musings for a different thread 

[gumpy]

Before I specifically start responding to a few people I’d just like to say thanks to all those that contributed here. I’m happy with literally everything in my bag except the irons so I really needed to go down this rabbit hole and solve it. 

[gumpy]

7 hours ago, Wardonation said:

I am a picker and in to out. For myself "low bounce" is most important, then sole width (thinner side). Srixon V sole is horrible the irons you have would be as well. I play King Tours but the sole is to thick for me but not horrible.  I would look at the current Callaway Cb's, Foreward Golf low bounce to name a few. You might also try the Titleist 100's,,

Hey so Wardonation, you’re saying the v sole doesn’t work well for folk like us? Unfortunately I’m unable to test on grass so these sort of things are a leap of faith for me =(. 

 

Yeah I’ve been zeroing in on the callaway CBs, I’m glad you mentioned them. 

[gumpy]

11 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Before you go too far, for realistic expectations, it's important to realize that:

 

1) trajectory and spin in irons really comes more from your swing than the equipment and there is only so much the equipment can do to go against your natural tendencies.

 

2) Launch and spin in irons can NOT be optimized - there is no ideal or optimal set of numbers that you should target.  It's really about balancing out carry distance and stopping power.  And the "best" numbers can vary quite a bit for different individuals playing different course conditions.

 

 

Not to confuse things even more - but delivery issues (face impact location and also including dynamic loft) are usually more related to a core problem with the fit of the playing length, shaft weight and/or swing weight (when just looking at equipment influences, not mechanics).

 

In the case of irons, if the "miss" is roughly similar throughout the set, you can discount playing length as the problem.

 

You might want to go through this tutorial to double check the fit of the shaft weight and head weight.   Yes it's title says driver, but if you ignore the parts about playing length - the methodology for testing and checking shaft weight and head weight works for any club (except putter).

 

Those specs should be fit first an dialed in before considering what head (or loft) might be the best to get your desired flight.

 

 

Hey Stuart G thanks for your thoughts.

 

on your comment for optimised launch and spin isn’t it true that for a given strike condition (that is personal to me) there is a range of values that would be considered “ideal”? And there for if possible some small tweaks could get me closer to the optimal range which balances distance but also stopping power? I think the trackman optimiser is trying to do that show that. I have tweak things like changing to the pro v1x etc to try and fine tune things but I can’t shake the fact that my irons feel terrible and i could be because I’m consistently hitting it under the sweet spot. 

 

I’ll definitely work through the DIY fitting, should be a fun process. 

[ChipNRun]

 

18 hours ago, gumpy said:

Hi

I was hoping I could draw on some expertise from MPF experts. 
 

I currently game the i230. Overall they perform well but trackman optimiser has consistently told me I’m on the low side for trajectory and spin. Still playable but at the low end. 
 

...with my i230 I’m told I’m on the low spin low trajectory side. My misses are thin and sometimes toe. 

 

I played the Callaway X20 Tours from roughly 2011 through 2018. Had them reshafted from PX 5.0 Rifle Flighted (~115 grams) to NS Pro 8950GH R-flex (about 100 grams). But, I ended up with a tendency toward toe hits - turned out the fitter didn't give me +  1/4" extra length on new shafts.

 

The solution: I started lining up my shots on the second quadrant of the clubface, rather than dead center.

 

This turned into more center strikes.In you case, check out shaft length as one factor in your ball flight. Also, a lower VCOG would improve the lift you get from the clubface. A CB type head might be what you need, as others have suggested.

 

7 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

... That's all Maltby does with MPF: takes a set of measurements, makes observations on the outcomes of various alignments of them, and draws conclusions from them.

 

All MPF says is that for most golfers we would expect irons that have this MPF rating--which is based on a combination of observed, repeatable measurements--to produce better results/be more forgiving than those with a lower rating  based on the same measurements and to produce less optimal results than those with a higher rating. 

 

 

Overall, the MPF is a good starting point when evaluating new clubs, or considering new ones. There can be exceptions, however.

 

Circa 2015, Ben Hogan golf clubs came back into production, with much commotion over the idea that they would make irons in one-degree loft increments from 22* to 46* - you could select the loft mix you wanted. Fitters told me that the PTx irons - a more forgiving offering than the Ft. Worth 15 blades - were the irons I needed. But, I didn't get very good launch despite trying a couple of different shafts. Two years later on a cold January day I came across some used PTx sets in a local golf shop. One stiff, the other regular flex. I tried both, and had the same problems from my original encounter.

 

Fast forward to 2018, when I got some quality time with grumpy's  Ping brand at an outdoor demo day. The liked the looks of the new i210 model. Hot List rated it as Player's iron with a helpful cavity back, and Maltby gave is rather stern MPF = 338, in the Classic category (hard to hit) due to higher VCOG. Clearly too much club for my game at the time.

 

BUT, I located i210 demos with the AWT 2.0 R-flex (about 97 grams), and somehow started hitting really decent shots. The shocker: I hit several 4i shots off the deck 😁 that had pretty good trajectory and distance. But, I decided instead to get TE Exotics CB Pro Tungstens which were going out of production and had been cut to half price at a local shop. (Note: the Tungstens had shafts about 1/4" longer than my X20 Tours that needed the "2nd quadrant lineup" to get center strikes.)

 

So, the MPF system gets generally good marks for helping one sort through potential irons to try out. But, until you actually hit the new model, you can't tell for show how the ball will fly.
 

[gumpy]

14 minutes ago, ChipNRun said:

 

 

I played the Callaway X20 Tours from roughly 2011 through 2018. Had them reshafted from PX 5.0 Rifle Flighted (~115 grams) to NS Pro 8950GH R-flex (about 100 grams). But, I ended up with a tendency toward toe hits - turned out the fitter didn't give me +  1/4" extra length on new shafts.

 

The solution: I started lining up my shots on the second quadrant of the clubface, rather than dead center.

 

This turned into more center strikes.In you case, check out shaft length as one factor in your ball flight. Also, a lower VCOG would improve the lift you get from the clubface. A CB type head might be what you need, as others have suggested.

 

 

Overall, the MPF is a good starting point when evaluating new clubs, or considering new ones. There can be exceptions, however.

 

Circa 2015, Ben Hogan golf clubs came back into production, with much commotion over the idea that they would make irons in one-degree loft increments from 22* to 46* - you could select the loft mix you wanted. Fitters told me that the PTx irons - a more forgiving offering than the Ft. Worth 15 blades - were the irons I needed. But, I didn't get very good launch despite trying a couple of different shafts. Two years later on a cold January day I came across some used PTx sets in a local golf shop. One stiff, the other regular flex. I tried both, and had the same problems from my original encounter.

 

Fast forward to 2018, when I got some quality time with grumpy's  Ping brand at an outdoor demo day. The liked the looks of the new i210 model. Hot List rated it as Player's iron with a helpful cavity back, and Maltby gave is rather stern MPF = 338, in the Classic category (hard to hit) due to higher VCOG. Clearly too much club for my game at the time.

 

BUT, I located i210 demos with the AWT 2.0 R-flex (about 97 grams), and somehow started hitting really decent shots. The shocker: I hit several 4i shots off the deck 😁 that had pretty good trajectory and distance. But, I decided instead to get TE Exotics CB Pro Tungstens which were going out of production and had been cut to half price at a local shop. (Note: the Tungstens had shafts about 1/4" longer than my X20 Tours that needed the "2nd quadrant lineup" to get center strikes.)

 

So, the MPF system gets generally good marks for helping one sort through potential irons to try out. But, until you actually hit the new model, you can't tell for show how the ball will fly.
 

Yeah i was coming back from a 15 year hiatus and just needed a nice set of clubs to get back into things. Out of the irons i tested I went for the i230s simply because they were the most forgiving not taking too much stock in to the trajectory / spin etc because at the time my swing was in a terrible state. 8 months on with the swing stabilising well all my other clubs feel great but the i230s just feel terrible for me my launch conditions are not optimal. I just need to get this fixed. Wish i knew about the COG measurements before I would have just gotten the blueprint s to begin with… 

 

the thing is though it’s not like i play badly with the i230s… they still work very well but certain things are making so much more sense now. The difference in my shot with and without a tee for my 5 iron is absurd, we’re talking like 15 yards carry distance difference…. If that’s due to high vcog that makes a tonne of sense. Thankfully 6 iron down though still on the low side my shots are functional. 

Edited July 19 by gumpy