First, understand that if you like a club and have had success, that’s great. We, myself included, have had irons I have played over the years that I liked that do not have a high playability number. That being said, the King Cobra II Oversize is not a good design. So many things wrong we actually talk about it in every advanced school as a perfect example of how not to design an iron for playability. The C-Dimension is almost as low as you can find and that is because the cg is approx. 1/4″ towards the heel of the club. Basic vertical is well above the .840 threshold. This is because when they designed the head they put the “wing” they licensed from another company (Palmer) on the back of the hosel and took all the weight out of the toe to accommodate it, shifting the cg well into the heel, and high on the face. Nothing good about that, in our opinion and experience. The club saw success in the market when it came out, but quickly ended up at discounters because it simply was not playable for most people. Might have been talked up by players being paid to talk them up, or even by some that were not, when they first came out. The fact is, it died in the market very quickly. We have found that poor designs have the shortest life cycles in the market. Higher playabilty designs and sequels of those designs that maintain the design features that enhance playablity stay around much longer.
Again, if you like them, that is all that matters. What I think does not matter. You can’t understand the Maltby Playability Factor unless you read what it is. I would encourage you to do so if you want to understand how playability is calculated. The facts are, the mass and dimensional characteristics of that model are not designed to deliver stability, forgiveness or a solid feel (unless you hit the ball on the heel side of center).