MPF from the man himself.

[Chunkitgood]

I came across this video featuring Maltby essentially saying what counts are distance of cog from hosel and height of cog (with a caveat that right shaft length and flex need to be fitted).

 

It raises a couple of questions (at least):

 

1.  Is cog the only thing that really matters in head design, and if so is all the tech just hype or at most packaging?

 

2. What is it that a golfer with a downward angle of attack does to make the possibly high static cog his club hit below the ball’s cog, or is he wrong in saying they do?

https://ralphmaltby.com/maltby-playability-factor-for-irons/

 

 

 

Edited January 26 by Chunkitgood

[hook_or_slice]

3 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

I came across this video featuring Maltby essentially saying what counts are distance of cog from hosel and height of cog (with a caveat that right shaft length and flex need to be fitted).

 

It raises a couple of questions (at least):

 

1.  Is cog the only thing that really matters in head design, and if so is all the tech just hype or at most packaging?

 

2. What is it that a golfer with a downward angle of attack does to make the possibly high static cog his club hit below the ball’s cog, or is he wrong in saying they do?

https://ralphmaltby.com/maltby-playability-factor-for-irons/

 

 

 

 

Ralph Maltby has a theory on what are the most important factors in iron design.

 

All of the golf club manufacturers also have their own ideas on what is important in iron design.

It's been a long time since Maltby's theory was created in the time of stiff heavy steel shafts and batata balls. 

My theory is a lot has been learned since then.

 

[PJE]

Deleted

Edited January 26 by PJE

[Red4282]

10 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

I came across this video featuring Maltby essentially saying what counts are distance of cog from hosel and height of cog (with a caveat that right shaft length and flex need to be fitted).

 

It raises a couple of questions (at least):

 

1.  Is cog the only thing that really matters in head design, and if so is all the tech just hype or at most packaging?

 

2. What is it that a golfer with a downward angle of attack does to make the possibly high static cog his club hit below the ball’s cog, or is he wrong in saying they do?

https://ralphmaltby.com/maltby-playability-factor-for-irons/

 

 

 

Mpf is a theory. They make very good points but there are other nuances as well. As to point number 2, a player either/or high AOA, or shaft lean, the cog of the club lowers because the axis is tilted, and these players tend to hit it higher on the face as well.

[J.Bex]

12 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

1.  Is cog the only thing that really matters in head design, and if so is all the tech just hype or at most packaging?

 

It's a big thing but definitely not the only thing.  I've posted a bunch of technical things regarding CGs, irons, and MPF data, but normally buried in threads.  I agree generally with low CG and bringing it away from the hosel, centering it on the face.  Definitely more to it though.  Here's one post on MPF and "tech" like springy faces:

 

You also have visual preferences, sole shaping, possible differences in rate of closure, tapping into or avoiding gear effect (Link), etc.  Things may or may not be addressed in designs.  We don't really know other than what's advertised. 

 

13 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

2. What is it that a golfer with a downward angle of attack does to make the possibly high static cog his club hit below the ball’s cog, or is he wrong in saying they do?

 

Here's my technical rebuttal to Maltby's physics statement / sentence that people run with as gospel.  It includes what changes with steeper AOA (more of a glancing blow, possibly more spin) and more shaft lean (less of a glancing blow, higher strike up the face due to delofting):

 

 

[Cwebb]

20 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

I came across this video featuring Maltby essentially saying what counts are distance of cog from hosel and height of cog (with a caveat that right shaft length and flex need to be fitted).

 

It raises a couple of questions (at least):

 

1.  Is cog the only thing that really matters in head design, and if so is all the tech just hype or at most packaging?

 

2. What is it that a golfer with a downward angle of attack does to make the possibly high static cog his club hit below the ball’s cog, or is he wrong in saying they do?

https://ralphmaltby.com/maltby-playability-factor-for-irons/

 

 

 

 

The more we hit down on a iron/wedge, the lower it tilts the force path of the COG, which makes it possible to get a very high COG under the center of the ball, even from a tight lie.

 

For most players, it isn't worth choosing that really high COG, because you have less room to work with for pure solid contact and have to pinch down on it very precisely.... making it generally more difficult to play, especially from normal to tight lies.

 

The opposite is a low COG that provides more room to work with vertically at impact for solid contact, which makes it easier to hit

[is1ander]

I think this is part of why pros play very thin-soled irons-- to get the CG behind or below the CG of the ball. Seems that sole width limit is between T100 and T150. Many pros play T100, don't see any pros playing T150 short irons. So I'm all for the triple set movement, lol.

Edited January 27 by is1ander

[J.Bex]

On 1/26/2025 at 6:21 PM, Cwebb said:

force path of the COG

 

For the past 2 years I’ve given my eng. analysis as a rebuttal to Maltby's “AVCOG force path driving at or below the ball CG" statement.  It’s usually met with crickets 🤐 lol.

I encourage anyone repeating his statement (sorry to single you out Cwebb, but you seem to be the Maltby authority here) to really digest my analysis or get with an engineer friend familiar with free body diagrams and the basic physics equations.  It’s a technical statement that's always mentioned in this forum, and to me it deserves a technical background check, as in my links below.  Other people can give a real technical rebuttal to me, and that’s perfectly fine because that’s how it should be.

It's just a weird nerdy golf forum disagreement, that I started lol, but as of now we have:

- Maltby and supporters with the sentence. 

It sounds legit and smart, coming from a golf equipment legendary guy that is exactly that.  There are anecdotes of using clubs above or below .84" AVCOG supporting said sentence.  Btw to really test differences due to AVCOG,  you’d have to have a controlled robot test isolating AVCOG as a variable (same RCOG, same offset, same strike, same everything other than AVCOG)… Or computer simulation. 

- joostin 🖐 with the only technical analysis around, and it doesn’t support said sentence.  Some may have anecdotes of using clubs above or below .84” AVCOG that have not supported the sentence.

Each time, however, I fully support Maltby’s intention of low CG, just not the statement which is the physics claim.  It’s kind of like how people like to claim “basic physics".  Ok.. show it please!  Here's mine.

 

https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1970413-maltby-ping-vcog-what’s-going-on-here/?do=findComment&comment=25673023

 

https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1970413-maltby-ping-vcog-what’s-going-on-here/?do=findComment&comment=25674939

 

 

Edited January 28 by joostin