Requesting help from MPF experts

[Arlin964]

1 hour ago, gumpy said:

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. 

Funny you say that about off turf or off a tee. I’ve had i230s since they came out and have mostly enjoyed them. But I find it’s so much easier for me to get a good impact with them from a tee than from the tight turf I play on. That VCOG likely explains that. 
 

Probably 7 out of 10 shots from the fairway are at least a bit thin, or feel that way. It’s truly like I can’t get into the turf enough to get the sweet spot on the ball and I thought it was just because of the sole design. Could be that plus location of VCOG. 
 

What’s really odd is that with my irons, my strokes gained from the rough are better than from the fairway. I think this is starting to make sense though. 

[gumpy]

51 minutes ago, Arlin964 said:

Funny you say that about off turf or off a tee. I’ve had i230s since they came out and have mostly enjoyed them. But I find it’s so much easier for me to get a good impact with them from a tee than from the tight turf I play on. That VCOG likely explains that. 
 

Probably 7 out of 10 shots from the fairway are at least a bit thin, or feel that way. It’s truly like I can’t get into the turf enough to get the sweet spot on the ball and I thought it was just because of the sole design. Could be that plus location of VCOG. 
 

What’s really odd is that with my irons, my strokes gained from the rough are better than from the fairway. I think this is starting to make sense though. 

Yeah things are starting to make sense for me too. 
 

so is there an iron out there which traditional lofts, no hot spots, thin sole, heaps of moi and lower cg?

[Ger21]

4 hours ago, gumpy said:

Hey so Wardonation, you’re saying the v sole doesn’t work well for folk like us?

 

I'd call myself a picker, and in to out, and I can play any sole. I've played Srixon V soles with no issues.

[Ger21]

54 minutes ago, gumpy said:

so is there an iron out there which traditional lofts, no hot spots, thin sole, heaps of moi and lower cg?

TS4

[gumpy]

53 minutes ago, Ger21 said:

TS4

Low moi 😞

 

at the moment the srixon and apex cb look good. 
 

I’ll wait to see what the new t100s are like. 
 

maybe even the i240 if they’ve dropped the cog

Edited July 20 by gumpy

[Stuart_G]

 

19 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

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.

 

Never been to the forum so can't say - but what trials?   Where is the link to documented testing methodology and raw data for independent review?  What scientific journal was it published in?

 

I can't say if it's true or not, never really personally cared about it enough to put in the effort to find out.  But if memory serves, one the biggest criticism that I'm aware of made by others in the industry is that there never was any real scientific effort by Maltby to actually validate the importance or influence of those measured specs and the valued weighting of those specs in the final value.

 

Without that proper testing, all it really is, is an educated guess by someone with experience in head design.  But you could go to a different experienced head designer (like Tome Wishon) and they'll make a different guess - likely with some similarities but still slightly different biases.  His experience itself is all one is really leaning on to validate it.  And while that certainly does add some worth to it, it's just not enough to say things like how well it will work for "most golfers."    But if it's enough to satisfy you, nothing wrong with that.

 

 

19 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

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. 

 

Sorry, no.  Random postings by forum members (regardless of which forum you go to) would not be in any way statistically significant indicator of anything.  It doesn't matter how many there might be.  Way too much bias associated with public posting behavior.    At best all it could do is validate that it might be worth looking into in more detail - assuming you could find someone who was interested in investing the time and effort to do a proper study.

Edited July 20 by Stuart_G

[Wardonation]

14 hours ago, gumpy said:

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. 

v sole no bueno for us pickers... We belong in an area of 70 and eighties golf clubs. THos irons all had small soles with little bounce.

[PedronNiall]

16 hours ago, ChipNRun said:

 

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.

 

Yep, which is why the mention that no matter what the numbers and testing by others say about a head or a shaft everyone still needs to try before they go all in. That's a common refrain around here.

 

The other item that's come up in this thread and in others around MPF is that the measurements it draws from give easy data points for comparing preferred irons to others of interest or to search for those that might suit a player's tendencies. Nice having a fixed, objective reference to look at before deciding what makes it to the short list. 

[gumpy]

On 7/21/2025 at 1:08 AM, PedronNiall said:

 

Yep, which is why the mention that no matter what the numbers and testing by others say about a head or a shaft everyone still needs to try before they go all in. That's a common refrain around here.

 

The other item that's come up in this thread and in others around MPF is that the measurements it draws from give easy data points for comparing preferred irons to others of interest or to search for those that might suit a player's tendencies. Nice having a fixed, objective reference to look at before deciding what makes it to the short list. 

I 100% agree. What is confusing though is their classifications, they start using terms like game improvement etc and make it seem like it’s linked to forgiveness. Some of the classifications are quite dubious as well as pointed out in other threads. 

 

I am finding the raw data they provide very helpful, I have a few testing sessions coming up, I’ll try and marry up what I’m noticing in the real world with the measured data and see if there is a way forward there. 

[RSLP]

MPF is a great way to compare heads on paper, for those that like the system.  Works really well in the Maltby line up.  Mixed results when you look at other brands.  I am a fan of the MPF design philosophy.

 

1.  Ping's fitting cart is going to jam you up a little on the shaft options, the two CB options are mid launch and the blueprint uses the lower launch black vice the blue you play now.  If you love Ping ( I do, and my best player has been a lifelong Ping gal) best to fly to Scottsdale and do the factory fitting.  Fit with the Ping engineers on one day, and validate it 2nd Swing.  See Ping website"fitting experience".  Depending on where you live, you may be able to do this without a hotel stay.

 

2.  Call / email Golfworks with your current Ping specs and launch monitor numbers, and tell them what you would like to get to and they will have a few suggestions.  Order one or two test clubs, and have fun with the experiment.  

 

my bet:  TS4's w/ Kuro Kage R+ or S will be you GW's recommended club.