Hi, the Wilson ratings seem odd. Can the midsize F5 irons really be more difficult to hit consistently from the sweet spot than V4, V6 and Staff Model? At 200 the F5 rating seems very low.
Britt Lindsey Answered question December 17, 2020
Hi, the Wilson ratings seem odd. Can the midsize F5 irons really be more difficult to hit consistently from the sweet spot than V4, V6 and Staff Model? At 200 the F5 rating seems very low.
I know the ratings can be hard to understand sometimes, but the MPF does not consider the marketing or what the manufacturer describes the playability to be. That is the beauty of the MPF. Takes the mass and dimensional characteristics and calculates the playability based on the actual measurements of the mass of the clubhead. No bias. How the mass is distributed plays a large roll in the playability. Horizontal cg, actual vertical cg, rearward cg and MOI all play a roll in the stability of the head and thus the playability. Just because a design is a “cavity back” or a “blade” does not tell us what the actual playability is. Those are visual descriptions, not an indicator of how the mass is actually distributed or how stable or forgiving (or not) the design may be.
Britt Lindsey
Relatively low c-dimension with a higher Vcog are putting the hurt on the Wilson’s MPF.
Compare to the deep red II from 2005, and it might make more sense.