Chart says MPF IS 90. Is that correct?
Definitely the correct MPF. It appears they concentrated hard on getting the look of what their perception of a modern Hogan blade should look like, but forgot about the design basics of the mass and dimensional characteristics that actually make a club playable. It has a long hosel, short blade length and extremely narrow sole. Actual vertical cg was high as well. I have not been able to check other models in the Hogan line. I would hope they would be more playable.
Britt Lindsey
Finally hit the range yesterday.They felt very solid and workable. At impact they are a little solid feel to them. It may be the nippon shafts as I have never hit those before. Using skycaddie as a reference the TS1 are 7-10 yards longer than the two sets I normally use. Lofts are 2 degrees stronger on average. Impact feel is similar to the fort worths. My Ballistic Irons are a little softer but once again different shafts. KBS 105.
180 +yard 6 iron which i havent seen in a few years. Looking forward to getting familiar with them. Very pleased with your product.
I would guess so. I purchased a Ft. Worth 5 iron off eBay to test last year and can tell you there isn’t any forgiveness with those clubs. They are pure butter knives. I found the musclebacks from most other manufacturers to seem far more forgiving. I didn’t see the MPF rating until after I tried the club and unscientifically believe that it is probably right. I didn’t really have difficulty hitting them but I just couldn’t really get them up in the air. I had purposely swing very steep (for me) to get up in the air.
They are super nice looking clubs but they aren’t forgiving in any way and they aren’t a cavity back. They’re so nice looking I bought one to test.
I have a set and play to a 5. I just ordered a set of TS 1 and looked at the mpf for both. Was very surprised however hopefully I can hit a little less club into the greens