The differences in playability can be slight, or large, depending on the designs you are comparing. Ralph always said and I agree that most players can not tell the difference in 100 MPF points. So you can have a model that is in the SGI category at say 720 points, and another in the GI category at 650 points that are both highly playable. I think it would take a lot of shots and data collection to see a noticeable difference in performance. Clubs in the high range of one category compared to clubs in the low range of another category and within that 100 point variance, especially in the higher playability categories, will most likely have similar playability. That being said, we have tried to develop our “blades” or traditional profile models to have the mass and dimensional characteristics that provide the highest playability possible for the category. We have been able, with the MMB-17, TE, TS1 and others to get them into the SGI category while maintaining the profile and look we want. We won’t know exactly what the TS4 will be until we get the final samples, but it’s looking like high GI or low SGI. Generally, the key factors that determine the category are the actual vertical cg, the horizontal cg, the rearward cg and the MOI. Slight variations in these factors can move the number up, or down. Where most other manufacturers miss having a higher playability blade in the blade length, the hosel length and how those factors affect the vertical and horizontal cg location. There a lot of nice looking blades out there that have long hosels and short blade lengths, which drive the cg higher and in towards the heel and NOT in the center of the face. Even if they can get the cg in the center of the face, with shorter blade lengths the horizontal cg is too short for the head to be as stable as it should be, in our opinion and based on our analysis.
Thanks for the question and he support.