I can’t lie I was looking forward to buying the new Ping I 230 but iam glad I waited for the Mpf to be tested just 396 I was shocked all that technology packed in their but like the old saying goes theĀ  numbers don’t lie ,,Ts IM OR TS4 here I come!!!!!!!

jonbob Posted new comment May 2, 2023

The C dimension for the Ping i230 is 1.348, similar to Maltby MCC 1.353 and Maltby M-45 1.325, which are in the Super Game Improvement category. The difference is the VCOG. I’m an advocate of MPF, but not it’s disproportionate emphasis on VCOG. Don’t dismiss the i230 until you try it.

The VCOG is a critical part of the MPF and certainly what contributed to the i230 not getting a higher number. The basic AVCG on that club was .898″! That is not insignificant and certainly effects the playability in a negative way. Remember the cg of golf ball is .840. Maybe some will still want to play with it. That’s fine. But the numbers are the numbers and the effect the AVCG has on playability and feel is measurable for most players. With the C-dim and MOI that the i230 had, no reason it should not have had a higher number if there had been a better placement of the AVCG. I can’t imagine as to why the AVCG would be that high on purpose.
Britt Lindsey

Looking at the MPF numbers it seems like as far as the calculation for rating, heads are heavily penalized for the VCOG. Doesn’t technology and thin faces contribute to the manufacturer’s design of the club? And moving the COG higher?
I love the new Maltby offerings, and game the TS1s, but if VCOG was everything wouldn’t Maltby still designing clubs with as low a VCOG as possible like in the early 2000s, and other manufacturers too.

The KE4 Max is probably the most forgiving club i have ever hit, but the VCOG is creeping up there at .815.

I don’t know i guess people take the MPF numbers a little too as matter of fact. Personally I like to look at the C dimension, and how far the sweet spot is off the hosel, then the MOI, and the VCOG. It does seem silly for manufacturers to put so much weight in the hosels. Seems like it could be better utilized in other places. I think too often folks look at the MPF as definitive. The TS3 is 121 points higher MPF than the TS1 IM! The C dimension and MOI are nearly the same on those models.
I haven’t hit the i230’s but the i210s seemed really forgiving, and i don’t strike the center every swing, but i guess that is just anecdotal. Frankly I just don’t like the way they look. PS Newer Maltby irons are so pleasing to look down at address.