MGS Mailbag: The Truth About Iron Lofts

We’re back with another edition of the MGS Mailbag!

As always, thanks to everyone who took the time to send in questions. The response to this series has been fantastic and I appreciate how much thought goes into your submissions.

This month’s questions are particularly equipment-heavy which means we’re getting into some of the finer details of how golf clubs and balls perform.

We’ve got questions about our golf ball testing methodology, ball durability tests, whether changing grip size can improve iron performance and how loft differences factor into our iron testing.

As a reminder, you can send questions about anything related to golf. Equipment, professional golf, our testing process or whatever else is on your mind. Nothing is off limits so shoot me an email at [email protected].

Let’s get into it.

“Looking at your reply to a question over launch monitors versus reality, I was reminded of MGS’s own comments on PING’s approach. PING, when discussing their system, is quoted as saying that using a robot with the ability to track full 3D ballistic flight is immensely important when evaluating golf ball performance. Only capturing a ball’s initial launch conditions isn’t enough to discern differences in ball performance. I know MGS uses photometric launch monitors as a default. Maybe it should at least compare to radar-based full-shot tracking in advance of the 2027 ball testing.” — Mike Humphrey

Mike, this is a great question and I think you’ll be happy with the answer.

We use Foresight GCQuad and Trackman simultaneously during our golf ball testing. Without either system, we couldn’t successfully execute the test.

Each serves a different purpose.

GCQuad helps us establish our desired launch conditions and dial in the robot. Although a robot strikes the ball with remarkable consistency, small changes can occur over the course of testing.

And we’re talking about a lot of shots.

Our testing team and onsite engineers use GCQuad to monitor the robot and ensure club delivery remains consistent throughout the process.

Trackman, meanwhile, serves as our downrange data collector. The majority of the published data from our golf ball testing comes from Trackman.

In other words, we’re not relying exclusively on initial launch conditions to determine how golf balls perform. We’re using radar-based tracking to measure their flight.

This is something we’ve detailed in our published testing methodology including the 2026 MyGolfSpy Golf Ball Test.

We definitely agree with your skepticism about total distance.

As we discussed in our previous mailbag, rollout is inherently dependent on assumptions about ground conditions. That’s why carry distance is generally a more useful comparison, particularly when evaluating irons and wedges.

Ultimately, GCQuad and Trackman complement each other during our ball testing. One helps us maintain consistency at impact while the other captures what happens downrange.

“How come you don’t test golf ball durability during Ball Lab or ball testing? Plunking down more than $50 for a dozen balls that work best means little if I have to replace a ball every nine holes. It could be as simple as what a ball looks like after one round of golf. Ten bunker shots, 10 full wedge shots, etc.” — Alex Choi

Alex, you’re making a fair point.

Durability is absolutely something we discuss internally and it’s an important consideration when evaluating golf balls.

A ball that performs exceptionally well but becomes noticeably damaged after a handful of wedge shots presents a different value proposition than one that maintains its condition over multiple rounds.

The challenge is developing a repeatable testing process.

We would need to account for variables such as wedge groove condition, swing speed, strike location and the type of shot being played. Testing every golf ball under identical conditions would require additional time and resources.

And our existing testing process is already extensive.

Our 2026 Golf Ball Test involved 48 models and more than 80 hours of testing. Adding a meaningful durability component—done correctly without cutting corners—would increase that workload considerably.

There’s also an important distinction between Ball Lab and performance testing.

Ball Lab evaluates manufacturing consistency and physical defects in new golf balls. That includes measurements such as compression, weight and diameter, along with inspections for significant defects.

It doesn’t tell us how well a ball’s cover will withstand repeated impacts.

We’ve previously explored the effects of damaged golf balls including scuff testing. That work reinforced the importance of distinguishing minor cosmetic damage from actual cover damage.

As we grow and have additional testing bandwidth, incorporating durability into Ball Lab is certainly a possibility.

For now, I’d still prioritize finding a ball that performs well for your game at a price you’re comfortable paying.

But your larger point stands. Durability contributes to the true cost of playing a particular golf ball and it’s an area worth exploring further.

“I recently purchased a set of 2020 XXIO X Black irons and had the shafts shortened by half an inch. The only grips available were midsize SuperStroke grips, which I’d never used before. To my surprise, these irons are performing better than two other sets I purchased through custom fittings. I’m seeing better dispersion and more consistent strike locations. How much of this improvement could be attributed to changing grip size? I don’t have particularly large hands, and I’d love to see MGS test the impact of grip size on performance.” — John Fatte

John, first of all, congratulations on finding a set of irons that works so well for you!

In your case, we have multiple variables to consider.

The first is swingweight.

When you shortened your irons by half an inch, you changed their swingweight. All else being equal, shortening a club by that amount typically reduces swingweight by approximately three points.

The second variable is grip size.

Midsize grips are generally heavier than standard grips although the exact difference depends on the model. That additional weight can further reduce the measured swingweight.

It’s important to recognize that a lower swingweight reading caused by a heavier grip doesn’t necessarily mean the clubhead itself has become lighter.

Nevertheless, these changes can influence how the club feels during the swing.

Grip size can also affect hand comfort, grip pressure and potentially how consistently a golfer delivers the clubface.

We recently explored some of these questions in Can A Midsize Grip Cause A Slice?. One takeaway is that golfers shouldn’t automatically assume their hand measurements dictate one particular grip size.

There’s another interesting company worth investigating called Foreward Golf.

Its fitting philosophy involves evaluating eight variables, including swingweight and grip size, with an emphasis on improving centeredness of contact.

That sounds particularly relevant to what you’re experiencing.

Of course, we also have to acknowledge that you’re comparing entirely different iron models. Head design, shaft characteristics and other specifications could be contributing to your improved performance.

To isolate grip size, we’d need to test the same club with different grips while controlling the other variables.

The good news? Grip-size testing is already on our radar.

Your experience is a great example of why it could be worthwhile.

“The last time I was fitted, there were meaningful differences in standard lofts between manufacturers and club categories. There could be as much as a five-degree loft difference between 7-irons in different categories. Why don’t you call out loft when comparing club performance? Even a two- or three-degree difference seems like a relevant data point.” — Dennis Milosky

Dennis, you’re absolutely correct that loft differences can significantly influence iron performance.

It’s something we consider when organizing our testing.

We divide irons into four categories: player’s irons, player’s distance irons, game-improvement irons and super game-improvement irons.

Manufacturers submit their irons for testing and identify the category in which they belong. Most of those submissions make sense. Occasionally, however, we encounter models that don’t fit neatly into their assigned category.

The player’s distance and game-improvement categories are particularly susceptible to this because there’s considerable overlap between the two.

Within each category, loft differences are typically smaller than they would be if we compared every iron on the market. Most models are within one or two degrees of their competitors although exceptions certainly exist.

And you’re right that even those relatively small differences can influence performance.

Loft affects launch angle, backspin, carry distance, peak height and descent angle. Those variables help determine whether an iron produces a useful trajectory or simply generates impressive distance numbers.

For additional context, our 2025 Iron Loft Chart found that the average player’s 7-iron had 33 degrees of loft compared to just 27 degrees for the average super game-improvement 7-iron.

That’s a six-degree difference!

However, loft alone doesn’t determine performance. Modern iron designs incorporate differences in center of gravity, face construction and other technologies that can influence launch and spin.

This is also one reason we place greater emphasis on accuracy than distance in our testing.

For 2026, accuracy accounts for 50 percent of our overall iron score while distance and forgiveness each account for 25 percent.

As we explained in our breakdown of the most accurate irons of 2026, we use Strokes Gained to evaluate accuracy rather than simply rewarding the iron that produces the longest shots.

An iron that flies farther isn’t necessarily helping you play better golf.

Your suggestion about making loft specifications more visible is a good one, though. It’s useful context when interpreting the results, particularly when comparing clubs near the boundaries of different categories.

At the end of the day, we want golfers to understand not just which irons perform well but why they’re performing that way.

---

That’s all for this month’s mailbag!

Thanks again to Mike, Alex, John and Dennis for sending in their questions. I appreciate the opportunity to explain more about our testing process, especially when readers challenge us to consider ways it could improve.

As always, keep the questions coming. You can reach me at [email protected]. 

Send me anything related to professional golf, equipment, MyGolfSpy testing or the game in general. I’ll be back in November with another batch!