I understand the Maltby Playability Factor and completely agree the sweet spot should be where I am trying to hit the ball. I play TS1 irons and usually feel I flush them even though I know I am not. I believe the forgiveness factor is real and delivers benefit.

My Golf Spy just released their Players Distance Iron evaluation.  The Mizuno MP20 HMB was rated 4th in forgiveness (MPF 478), the Cobra King Forged Tec was 3rd in forgiveness (MPF 507) and the Mizuno JPX 921 Hot Metal Pro was 10th in forgiveness (MPF 604). The Callaway Apex 21 was the champion of Forgiveness but the MPF is 481.

I understand that a difference of 100 in MPF is not enough notice.  So here is my question. One one hand we have an objective measured forgiveness factor in the MPF. On the other hand we have data collected from various golfers of various skill and the dispersion of their shots determining forgiveness.  I am not disparaging either method. What I have trouble with is reconciling the two methods. I just don’t see how any ranking of forgiveness, much less declaring a forgiveness champion can result from club heads so close in MPF.  I guess I also don’t understand why the Mizuno JPX 921 Hot Metal Pro didn’t move the needle on forgiveness over the Callaway.

Please do not misread what I am saying. When I look for clubs, the MPF factor is a key determinant for me. I also believe My Golf Spy does their absolute best in trying to find the truth. I just am trying to understand the truth about forgiveness. How much of a factor is it within 150 MPF points. I am guessing the measured shot produced differences in these clubs may have been statistically significant but not practically significant. The results would not be repeatable given same golfers on different days or different golfers within the same day of testing. In other words, the ranking was a random occurrence on that day, and no true difference actually exists. I am just guessing, maybe Britt could weigh in.

Answered question