Jump to content

Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

- - - - -

MP 18 SC - More forgiving than the blade?


50 replies to this topic

#31 Z1ggy16

Z1ggy16

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,959 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 430110
  • Joined: 06/22/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 1988

Posted 06 November 2018 - 02:51 PM

 Cwebb, on 06 November 2018 - 02:47 PM, said:

 Z1ggy16, on 06 November 2018 - 12:29 PM, said:

Not exactly what you asked but I hit the SC's vs the 919 Forged and found the forged's to be much more forgiving in terms of flight and ball speed. The SC's felt and seemed to play much more like a true blade... just a touch bigger than the regular MP18.

Edit: And if I'm read this maltby table right... the "MPF" number would indicate that higher number =  easier to hit. If that's the case... the  SC's are be harder to hit than the 900 tours (135  vs 355). Heck... even the bladed MP-18 is 284! It's actually the lowest MPF on the whole list.. less than MP18 blades and also less than MP4 and 5 blades, which look to be fairly forgiving for blades.

Any design that has a sweet-spot (AVCOG) higher than .840" is penalized in the MPF.  A higher sweet-spot is simply "harder to find" on a consistent basis from normal to tighter lies (not an 'up' lie), for most players
Makes sense. Probably why I felt like I was hitting all the shots with the SC a little skinny. Only hit one that felt really good... rest were meh. I found myself wanting to hit the forged all night long though. Very easy to hit and only just a hint more offset and blade size than SC.

WITB
UNDER CONSTRUCTION

SW - MD4 54/12W S200
LW MD4 58/12X S200 (Glide 2.0 & SM7 in test)
P - TP Black Copper Juno
Chrome Soft X
Sun Mountain 4.5 Bag

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#32 TheBear95

TheBear95

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 390 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 196416
  • Joined: 08/04/2012
  • Location:Chicago
GolfWRX Likes : 240

Posted 06 November 2018 - 03:49 PM

I've been playing the SC since last fall. I would agree, they are not a forgiving club, very similar to blades. But, I think that's the point. Its a small half-cavity design, not really built for forgiveness. I see it as an option for guys that like blades, but want something with a slightly thicker top-line and sole. If you're looking for a more forgiving players club, then Mizuno has the MMC or the 919 Forged. I play the MMC in the 4 iron, and that's a very forgiving club for the size.

In terms of feel, I have played a bevy of forged irons from a variety of OEMs (including other Mizunos) and for me, the MP 18 SC is the best feeling iron I've played. And, it is the reason the irons have lasted over a year in the bag.
Ping G400 Max 10.5*
Ping G 14.5*
Ping G 19*
Mizuno MP 18 MMC (4-6)
Mizuno MP 18 SC (7-PW)
Scratch FIT 52*, 58*
Bettinardi Kuchar 2 Armlock

2

#33 Kenny Lee Puckett

Kenny Lee Puckett

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,637 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 379660
  • Joined: 06/08/2015
  • Location:Arizona USA
  • Handicap:0
GolfWRX Likes : 2944

Posted 06 November 2018 - 03:49 PM

 Cwebb, on 06 November 2018 - 02:47 PM, said:

 Z1ggy16, on 06 November 2018 - 12:29 PM, said:

Not exactly what you asked but I hit the SC's vs the 919 Forged and found the forged's to be much more forgiving in terms of flight and ball speed. The SC's felt and seemed to play much more like a true blade... just a touch bigger than the regular MP18.

Edit: And if I'm read this maltby table right... the "MPF" number would indicate that higher number =  easier to hit. If that's the case... the  SC's are be harder to hit than the 900 tours (135  vs 355). Heck... even the bladed MP-18 is 284! It's actually the lowest MPF on the whole list.. less than MP18 blades and also less than MP4 and 5 blades, which look to be fairly forgiving for blades.

Any design that has a sweet-spot (AVCOG) higher than .840" is penalized in the MPF.  A higher sweet-spot is simply "harder to find" on a consistent basis from normal to tighter lies (not an 'up' lie), for most players

Posted Image

"How do you measure your sweet-spot against other golfers?"

"By height"
https://www.youtube....eature=youtu.be  video on course practice 5/2016

Ping G LST: Ping Tour 80
Ping Anser 4wd: Accra S3-80 RT
PXG 0317 Hybrid: Fujikura 8D07HB

Ping S55 4-PW: Dynamic Gold Tour Issue
Ping Glide 2.0  50/54/58 SS: DG Tour Issue
Ping Anser F Ti-Pixel

Ping 703 Cord/Lamkin Players Cord/Pingman putter grip
Ping Sensor glove/Srixon 2017 Z-Star XV
Ping Hoofer 2016 bag

3

#34 Z1ggy16

Z1ggy16

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,959 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 430110
  • Joined: 06/22/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 1988

Posted 07 November 2018 - 10:42 AM

So I read more on the MPF... They suggest not even playing a club under 250MPF!! Crazy. The SCs are 135 and one of their tables says that 325 should be your starting point unless you're an extremely good ball striker.

lol @ the P730s - MPF of 15.
WITB
UNDER CONSTRUCTION

SW - MD4 54/12W S200
LW MD4 58/12X S200 (Glide 2.0 & SM7 in test)
P - TP Black Copper Juno
Chrome Soft X
Sun Mountain 4.5 Bag

4

#35 WidespreadPanic

WidespreadPanic

    Wizard in the Corner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,703 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 425856
  • Joined: 05/19/2016
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Handicap:1.1
GolfWRX Likes : 2542

Posted 07 November 2018 - 11:43 AM

The MPF ratings seem off to me. They have the MPH5 as harder to hit than the MP5, MP4, MP33 and a few other blades. I know for a fact that is not true.

Edited by WidespreadPanic, 07 November 2018 - 11:45 AM.

Taylormade M2 ('17) 10.5*
Cobra F7 15.5*
Taylormade M1 ('17) 19*
Mizuno MPH5 4i
Mizuno MP33 5-PW
Cleveland RTX 588 2.0 52**, 56**, 60**
Taylormade TP Red Ardmore 3
Taylormade TPx

5

#36 Ryan5508

Ryan5508

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 301455
  • Joined: 03/12/2014
  • Location:Grandville, MI
  • Ebay ID:Ryan5508
GolfWRX Likes : 137

Posted 07 November 2018 - 12:01 PM

MPF ratings are pointless.

I almost always hit the low rated clubs better overall. All my sets have dropped in MPF by hundreds of points each time I "upgrade".
Ping G400 Max - Kuro Kage XD 70g
Ping G400 3w - Tour 70
Ping G400 2h - Tour 80
Mizuno Mp18's PW - 3i - DG X100
Ping Glide 50, 56, 60
Evnroll ER2
Callaway RSX Milled #7

6

#37 Z1ggy16

Z1ggy16

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,959 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 430110
  • Joined: 06/22/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 1988

Posted 07 November 2018 - 01:26 PM

Makes sense for better players. A high "rated" clubs doesn't mean better... It just means it's easier to hit due to more MOI, better CG and "sweet spot" positioning, etc. It's simply a calc that compares club heads relative to one another. Doesn't factor your swing, shaft used and so forth.

Basically higher points I would equate to friendly for the average golfer. A low toe strike on a P730 is going to go nowhere compared to a low toe from an M4 iron. But... for many of us, the M4 would not be game-able because of spin issues, lack of feel, size, looks, and so on. As we become better strikers of the ball, this number becomes more and more meaningless.
WITB
UNDER CONSTRUCTION

SW - MD4 54/12W S200
LW MD4 58/12X S200 (Glide 2.0 & SM7 in test)
P - TP Black Copper Juno
Chrome Soft X
Sun Mountain 4.5 Bag

7

#38 Cwebb

Cwebb

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,409 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 21353
  • Joined: 11/04/2006
GolfWRX Likes : 1776

Posted 07 November 2018 - 01:45 PM

 Z1ggy16, on 07 November 2018 - 10:42 AM, said:

So I read more on the MPF... They suggest not even playing a club under 250MPF!! Crazy. The SCs are 135 and one of their tables says that 325 should be your starting point unless you're an extremely good ball striker.

lol @ the P730s - MPF of 15.

Set their final "scores" and ratings aside and simply look at the raw data with an understanding of what each category means.

At the top of the list is understanding Actual Vertical COG and it's relationship to how easy to hit a head design is, in the vertical aspect of impact

8

#39 Chuck905

Chuck905

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 937 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 400908
  • Joined: 10/27/2015
  • Location:Niagara Falls
  • Handicap:7
GolfWRX Likes : 295

Posted 07 November 2018 - 10:38 PM

They are pointless at times and I takeaway no value from Maltbys opinion.

For somebody like me, itís about the right sized blade, thin sole, little offset and a traditional sweet spot toward the heel.

Somebody mentioned about shaft, and I agree it plays a pivotal role with the correct iron head.

 Z1ggy16, on 07 November 2018 - 01:26 PM, said:

Makes sense for better players. A high "rated" clubs doesn't mean better... It just means it's easier to hit due to more MOI, better CG and "sweet spot" positioning, etc. It's simply a calc that compares club heads relative to one another. Doesn't factor your swing, shaft used and so forth.

Basically higher points I would equate to friendly for the average golfer. A low toe strike on a P730 is going to go nowhere compared to a low toe from an M4 iron. But... for many of us, the M4 would not be game-able because of spin issues, lack of feel, size, looks, and so on. As we become better strikers of the ball, this number becomes more and more meaningless.

Epic SZ 10*, Tensei White 75
Epic SZ Strong 3 Wood, 13.5*
U45 17*, Recoil 110
3-PW Mizuno MP18 Blades
Mizuno T7s 54-8 SW and 58-12 LW
Odyssey RX9

9

#40 dmeeksDC

dmeeksDC

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,753 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 431476
  • Joined: 07/04/2016
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Handicap:8
  • Ebay ID:dmeeks2010
GolfWRX Likes : 706

Posted 08 November 2018 - 09:58 AM

 Cwebb, on 07 November 2018 - 01:45 PM, said:

 Z1ggy16, on 07 November 2018 - 10:42 AM, said:

So I read more on the MPF... They suggest not even playing a club under 250MPF!! Crazy. The SCs are 135 and one of their tables says that 325 should be your starting point unless you're an extremely good ball striker.

lol @ the P730s - MPF of 15.

Set their final "scores" and ratings aside and simply look at the raw data with an understanding of what each category means.

At the top of the list is understanding Actual Vertical COG and it's relationship to how easy to hit a head design is, in the vertical aspect of impact

+1 This is correct. People attach too many conspiracy theories to these ratings. Forget the ďMPF score,Ē pretend it is not there. The specific measurements used to derive the ratings are real and very definitely have an impact. The ones that will matter ďmost to most golfersĒ are a vertical center of gravity that is below the COG of the golf ball (.840) and a C dimension that gets the horizontal COG more to the middle of the face (and to a lesser extent but still meaningful, a RCOG that is a bit deeper, away from the face.)

Some more skilled players definitely like the classic heel-sided sweet spot but for most players the lower and more centered COG will offer more margin for error. If your swing is entirely repeatable and consistent, and you have great shaft lean at impact every time, may not be a big deal for those players and a high COG will not matter, but that is not most people. Some pros even want that higher COG for a certain ball flight. But in every case those players are getting the COG of the club at or below the COG of the golf ball at impact. That is where solid contact occurs and it is not opinion.

The overall MPF rating definitely favors longer heel to toe length blades, which I donít like, so a more compact head will get penalized in the final MPF number. So I pretty much ignore that. I also donít worry about MOI. Whatever it is, it is. For whatever reason, high MOI does not seem to be a big difference maker for me. I like compact heads and am generally around the center on impact, so I donít worry about twisting. My misses are more up and down on the face.

I have hit numerous Mizuno heads well despite low MPF scores and I know why. For others who love compact heads, you should skip the rating and look deeper. That is why I donít ignore the vertical COG. I want it low to get more solid contact, more often. If I want to bring flight down, easy enough with shaft choice or loft adjustments. Maltbyís individual COG measurements on these clubs are not his opinion. Itís physics and useful. Iíve looked up every club I have loved and hated. The trend was easy to spot. The ones with a low vertical COG were my favorites. And my all-time favorite iron I have played, the TaylorMade RAC LT 2, also had the lowest vertical COG of any club Iíve played (under .700), along with a C Dimension around 1.2. Perfect design IMO.

Edited by dmeeksDC, 08 November 2018 - 09:59 AM.

[size=3]Ping G400 9 degrees, Ping Tour stiff shaft, 65 grams
Callaway XHot2 Pro 5 wood, 17 degrees, Aldila Tour Blue stiff shaft
Titleist 915F fairway, 21 degrees, Diamana Blue 70 stiff
Srixon 565 4 iron, Nippon 980GH stiff shaft
Adams CMB irons, 5-PW, KBS C Taper regular shafts (110g)
Titleist Vokey SM7 50 degree, F grind, Dynamic Gold S200 shaft
Callaway Mack Daddy 2 54-degree wedge, S grind, DG wedge shaft
Ben Hogan TK wedge, 59 degree, KBS black wedge shaft
TaylorMade TP Chaska putter, sliver, 34 inches

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#41 Cwebb

Cwebb

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,409 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 21353
  • Joined: 11/04/2006
GolfWRX Likes : 1776

Posted 08 November 2018 - 11:30 AM

 dmeeksDC, on 08 November 2018 - 09:58 AM, said:

The overall MPF rating definitely favors longer heel to toe length blades, which I don't like, so a more compact head will get penalized in the final MPF number. So I pretty much ignore that. I also don't worry about MOI. Whatever it is, it is. For whatever reason, high MOI does not seem to be a big difference maker for me. I like compact heads and am generally around the center on impact, so I don't worry about twisting. My misses are more up and down on the face.


The reason the MPF rewards a long "C-dimension"...aka horizontal COG, is because it gives more horizontal "room to work with" for relatively solid contact....

Since impact "inside" (heel-side) of the COG will twist the head less vs impact outside (toe-side) of it,.....a longer C-dimension gives more room between the edge of the hosel and the sweet-spot....

Some of the blades with really short COG's, require almost flirting with a shank in order to get pure contact.  On the other hand, designs with the longest COG's, allow contact inside the sweet-spot while still being a good half inch away from the edge of the hosel.

Combine this with a lower COG and we end up with more room to work with in both directions for decent contact,.....which benefits most players (not all players) and makes them easier to hit or "more playable"

Edited by Cwebb, 08 November 2018 - 11:33 AM.


11

#42 swing thoughts

swing thoughts

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 349485
  • Joined: 11/21/2014
  • Location:austin, tx
  • Handicap:2.7
GolfWRX Likes : 141

Posted 08 November 2018 - 12:43 PM

 dmeeksDC, on 08 November 2018 - 09:58 AM, said:

 Cwebb, on 07 November 2018 - 01:45 PM, said:

 Z1ggy16, on 07 November 2018 - 10:42 AM, said:

So I read more on the MPF... They suggest not even playing a club under 250MPF!! Crazy. The SCs are 135 and one of their tables says that 325 should be your starting point unless you're an extremely good ball striker.

lol @ the P730s - MPF of 15.

Set their final "scores" and ratings aside and simply look at the raw data with an understanding of what each category means.

At the top of the list is understanding Actual Vertical COG and it's relationship to how easy to hit a head design is, in the vertical aspect of impact

+1 This is correct. People attach too many conspiracy theories to these ratings. Forget the "MPF score," pretend it is not there. The specific measurements used to derive the ratings are real and very definitely have an impact. The ones that will matter "most to most golfers" are a vertical center of gravity that is below the COG of the golf ball (.840) and a C dimension that gets the horizontal COG more to the middle of the face (and to a lesser extent but still meaningful, a RCOG that is a bit deeper, away from the face.)

Some more skilled players definitely like the classic heel-sided sweet spot but for most players the lower and more centered COG will offer more margin for error. If your swing is entirely repeatable and consistent, and you have great shaft lean at impact every time, may not be a big deal for those players and a high COG will not matter, but that is not most people. Some pros even want that higher COG for a certain ball flight. But in every case those players are getting the COG of the club at or below the COG of the golf ball at impact. That is where solid contact occurs and it is not opinion.

The overall MPF rating definitely favors longer heel to toe length blades, which I don't like, so a more compact head will get penalized in the final MPF number. So I pretty much ignore that. I also don't worry about MOI. Whatever it is, it is. For whatever reason, high MOI does not seem to be a big difference maker for me. I like compact heads and am generally around the center on impact, so I don't worry about twisting. My misses are more up and down on the face.

I have hit numerous Mizuno heads well despite low MPF scores and I know why. For others who love compact heads, you should skip the rating and look deeper. That is why I don't ignore the vertical COG. I want it low to get more solid contact, more often. If I want to bring flight down, easy enough with shaft choice or loft adjustments. Maltby's individual COG measurements on these clubs are not his opinion. It's physics and useful. I've looked up every club I have loved and hated. The trend was easy to spot. The ones with a low vertical COG were my favorites. And my all-time favorite iron I have played, the TaylorMade RAC LT 2, also had the lowest vertical COG of any club I've played (under .700), along with a C Dimension around 1.2. Perfect design IMO.
This makes perfect sense. I was looking at some other irons, and two that have the reputation of being as forgiving as they come, the i25 and G30, have two of the highest VCOG out there. I know there are other factors, but just wanted to throw that out there. I had the i25 4 iron in the bag for a while, and sure enough, about one in four (off the deck) was a towering 200-210-yard monster, the rest were low bullets. Of course that's probably the case for most four irons for me.
Ping G SL Tec 9* XS
Callaway XR 15*  R

Cobra Bio Cell Fairway 18.5  S
Titleist 816 H1 21* S
Nike Vapor Pro  4-9  S <or> Mizuno MP 69 4-9

Vokey SM6 48* 10  S
Taylormade Tour Preferred EF 52* 10  S
Taylormade Tour Preferred EF 58* ATV  S

Odyssey Versa #7 35"
Taylormade Daddy Long Legs 38"
Scotty Futura X5 38"
Callaway Bobby Jones blade 35"

12

#43 Cwebb

Cwebb

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,409 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 21353
  • Joined: 11/04/2006
GolfWRX Likes : 1776

Posted 08 November 2018 - 01:09 PM

 swing thoughts, on 08 November 2018 - 12:43 PM, said:


This makes perfect sense. I was looking at some other irons, and two that have the reputation of being as forgiving as they come, the i25 and G30, have two of the highest VCOG out there. I know there are other factors, but just wanted to throw that out there. I had the i25 4 iron in the bag for a while, and sure enough, about one in four (off the deck) was a towering 200-210-yard monster, the rest were low bullets. Of course that's probably the case for most four irons for me.

Keep in mind that there can be a difference between "forgiving" vs easy to hit pure in the vertical aspect of contact.  Those Pings you mentioned are "forgiving" because you can hit them off center and they "resist twisting".  They also have a long face horizontally and a COG far out from the hosel....

However, the sweet-spot is where it is.....and if it's high and above the center of the ball height, it's harder to find for most players.  If we want a head that is easy to hit and forgiving, why not locate something that has both characteristics?  They are available, when you know what details to highlight.

One of the main reasons many players don't consider larger irons to be really "playable"....is because with their large/tall face heights, the sweet-spots tend to also be higher.  Making them more difficult to be precise with in the vertical aspect of contact...especially from normal to tighter lies

13

#44 dmeeksDC

dmeeksDC

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,753 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 431476
  • Joined: 07/04/2016
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Handicap:8
  • Ebay ID:dmeeks2010
GolfWRX Likes : 706

Posted 08 November 2018 - 01:25 PM

 Cwebb, on 08 November 2018 - 01:09 PM, said:

 swing thoughts, on 08 November 2018 - 12:43 PM, said:


This makes perfect sense. I was looking at some other irons, and two that have the reputation of being as forgiving as they come, the i25 and G30, have two of the highest VCOG out there. I know there are other factors, but just wanted to throw that out there. I had the i25 4 iron in the bag for a while, and sure enough, about one in four (off the deck) was a towering 200-210-yard monster, the rest were low bullets. Of course that's probably the case for most four irons for me.

Keep in mind that there can be a difference between "forgiving" vs easy to hit pure in the vertical aspect of contact.  Those Pings you mentioned are "forgiving" because you can hit them off center and they "resist twisting".  They also have a long face horizontally and a COG far out from the hosel....

However, the sweet-spot is where it is.....and if it's high and above the center of the ball height, it's harder to find for most players.  If we want a head that is easy to hit and forgiving, why not locate something that has both characteristics?  They are available, when you know what details to highlight.

One of the main reasons many players don't consider larger irons to be really "playable"....is because with their large/tall face heights, the sweet-spots tend to also be higher.  Making them more difficult to be precise with in the vertical aspect of contact...especially from normal to tighter lies

I actually own Ping i200ís and hit them well. They are excellent irons. On good swings they are as good as any club. And even on mediocre off-center hits. But if I flip at all with them and come in high, I will hit it thin easier than I will with an MP59. A thin shot on the i200 still goes a pretty good distance, but I can tell it wasnít solid. And I remember the first time I hit an MP59 that I noticed it was not difficult to hit it solid. There are not huge differences but I did notice it.

None of this means a particular club is not any good or wonít work for you. A great golf swing works with any club. It is just information that helps you test things out, see which of these data points could be meaningful in your game. The rating is about probabilities, but you may not fit neatly into the categories that comprise it. You still may find something that helps you and for many golfers, the vertical COG is a good place to start.
[size=3]Ping G400 9 degrees, Ping Tour stiff shaft, 65 grams
Callaway XHot2 Pro 5 wood, 17 degrees, Aldila Tour Blue stiff shaft
Titleist 915F fairway, 21 degrees, Diamana Blue 70 stiff
Srixon 565 4 iron, Nippon 980GH stiff shaft
Adams CMB irons, 5-PW, KBS C Taper regular shafts (110g)
Titleist Vokey SM7 50 degree, F grind, Dynamic Gold S200 shaft
Callaway Mack Daddy 2 54-degree wedge, S grind, DG wedge shaft
Ben Hogan TK wedge, 59 degree, KBS black wedge shaft
TaylorMade TP Chaska putter, sliver, 34 inches

14

#45 Cwebb

Cwebb

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,409 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 21353
  • Joined: 11/04/2006
GolfWRX Likes : 1776

Posted 08 November 2018 - 02:13 PM

 dmeeksDC, on 08 November 2018 - 01:25 PM, said:


None of this means a particular club is not any good or won't work for you. A great golf swing works with any club. It is just information that helps you test things out, see which of these data points could be meaningful in your game. The rating is about probabilities, but you may not fit neatly into the categories that comprise it. You still may find something that helps you and for many golfers, the vertical COG is a good place to start.

Very true.  It's another set of detailed data that is available for us to take advantage of.  Similar to figuring out what type of shaft bend profile works for us....and then looking at the measurement data to pin point options that fit


15

#46 icandy

icandy

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 193 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 219083
  • Joined: 01/02/2013
  • Location:Australia
  • Ebay ID:next_mod
GolfWRX Likes : 30

Posted 08 November 2018 - 04:19 PM

I'm a mid handicapper, previous played JPX 900 Forged but wanted something with tighter dispersion and not as strong lofts.
When I got fitted, I was planning to stay with game improvement irons but they fitter wanted me to try the MP18 SCs. I tried them out with the KBS Tour soft step I used to play and every shot was in close proximity each other. I was sold. Since receiving them and playing on the course, I have been impressed with the forgiveness. There have been a few shots i've hit off the toe and I have found them still on the green or very close. With my JPX 900 Forged, the toe strikes usually ended up way off the green.
Titleist 917 D2 10.5 Diamana S+
Titleist TS2 18 Accra FX200F M4

Titleist 816H1 23 Diamana S+
Mizuno MP18 HI FLI 4i
Mizuno MP18 SC 5i - PW KBS Tour SS
Mizuno T7 52, 56, 60 - Nippon Modus 3 Wedge 115

16

#47 Chuck905

Chuck905

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 937 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 400908
  • Joined: 10/27/2015
  • Location:Niagara Falls
  • Handicap:7
GolfWRX Likes : 295

Posted 09 November 2018 - 09:52 PM

Was at GT today and was hitting the SC; they are very easy to hit. I did pay attention to the sole and head dimensions, the are definitely pronounce in size and sole width that would assist.
Epic SZ 10*, Tensei White 75
Epic SZ Strong 3 Wood, 13.5*
U45 17*, Recoil 110
3-PW Mizuno MP18 Blades
Mizuno T7s 54-8 SW and 58-12 LW
Odyssey RX9

17

#48 swing thoughts

swing thoughts

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 349485
  • Joined: 11/21/2014
  • Location:austin, tx
  • Handicap:2.7
GolfWRX Likes : 141

Posted 12 November 2018 - 03:26 PM

Thanks for all the input. I went ahead and bought an SC/MB combo set I liked off ebay. Looking forward to see if my course results are as good as the fitting was!!

Edited by swing thoughts, 12 November 2018 - 03:27 PM.

Ping G SL Tec 9* XS
Callaway XR 15*  R

Cobra Bio Cell Fairway 18.5  S
Titleist 816 H1 21* S
Nike Vapor Pro  4-9  S <or> Mizuno MP 69 4-9

Vokey SM6 48* 10  S
Taylormade Tour Preferred EF 52* 10  S
Taylormade Tour Preferred EF 58* ATV  S

Odyssey Versa #7 35"
Taylormade Daddy Long Legs 38"
Scotty Futura X5 38"
Callaway Bobby Jones blade 35"

18

#49 JonnyKrasnodar

JonnyKrasnodar

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,623 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 440224
  • Joined: 09/11/2016
  • Location:UK
GolfWRX Likes : 948

Posted 12 November 2018 - 03:39 PM

Great news! I'm pretty sure you'll enjoy them for what it's worth.

Before opting for the 900s I tested the MP18s and  SC18s over 6 weeks at the beginning of the year. The SCs felt just as good as the MP18s, very similar distances and both look incredible down by the ball. On course the results were similar, both very playable in all conditions.

Where did you split into the MBs?




19

#50 B_of_H

B_of_H

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 246729
  • Joined: 04/22/2013
GolfWRX Likes : 50

Posted 12 November 2018 - 04:26 PM

I hit hundreds of balls over the last 3 weeks with the sc and mb (and 919t).  I ended up ordering the mp 18's in 7-pw, the sc in 5-6 and an mmc 4 iron (which gaps better to my 2 iron).  i hit the mb's the most accurate and consistent actually but the sc's went a tad higher for me (like 3-5 feet) and I could definitely feel a difference vs the blade on slight mishits (maybe they lost 2 yards instead of 3 on the blade but again...i'm not sure).  the sc feels thicker to me (feel at contact) and the sole is noticeably wider.  the sc's are forgiving in my book but then again i'm used to blades and minimal players cavity type irons.  i'm not sure why anyone who is halfway decent at striking the ball would need a more forgiving club than the sc's.  at some point that stuff is just marketing garbage imo.  perhaps the 919t are a little more forgiving on toe misses than the sc due to the weight distribution but I didn't notice much difference there as I found both clubs very forgiving.

Titleist 910D3 9.5* Aldila RIP 80x 44"
Titleist 910F2 15* Aldila RIP 80x 41.5"
P790 UDI 18* (all irons KBS tour 130x)
Mizuno MP18 (7-Pw), SC (5-6), MMC (4)
Vokey sm7 50*, sm6 55*, TVD-M 60*
1994 Scotty Cameron by Titleist Newport 35"

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

20

#51 JonnyKrasnodar

JonnyKrasnodar

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,623 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 440224
  • Joined: 09/11/2016
  • Location:UK
GolfWRX Likes : 948

Posted 12 November 2018 - 05:18 PM

 B_of_H, on 12 November 2018 - 04:26 PM, said:

I hit hundreds of balls over the last 3 weeks with the sc and mb (and 919t).  I ended up ordering the mp 18's in 7-pw, the sc in 5-6 and an mmc 4 iron (which gaps better to my 2 iron).  i hit the mb's the most accurate and consistent actually but the sc's went a tad higher for me (like 3-5 feet) and I could definitely feel a difference vs the blade on slight mishits (maybe they lost 2 yards instead of 3 on the blade but again...i'm not sure).  the sc feels thicker to me (feel at contact) and the sole is noticeably wider.  the sc's are forgiving in my book but then again i'm used to blades and minimal players cavity type irons.  i'm not sure why anyone who is halfway decent at striking the ball would need a more forgiving club than the sc's.  at some point that stuff is just marketing garbage imo.  perhaps the 919t are a little more forgiving on toe misses than the sc due to the weight distribution but I didn't notice much difference there as I found both clubs very forgiving.

I tried all 3, albeit the 900s and not the 919s (February/March I did my testing) and found they were fairly evenly matched across the board.

I'm not hitting the middle 100% of the time by any stretch but the rounds I played on course showed that I was dropping a few shots with the MP18s. I mentioned in another thread that while they felt fantastic and gave consistent numbers, I felt as though I was maxing out all the time to get the same results. Maybe placebo effect given I've not played true blades for any length of time but just my feels.

Use the Fli-Hi 2 and 3 irons depending on the course and conditions as well, but happy with the performance of the 900s over the course of this season.

Always interested to know where and why people go with the combo set, same with the TM 770/750/630 range and Titleist CB/MBs.



21



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

GolfWRX Sponsors