MyGolfSpy Ball Lab is where we quantify the quality and consistency of the golf balls on the market to help you find the best ball for your money. Today, we’re taking a look at the Bridgestone Tour B XS. An overview of the equipment we use can be found here. To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls and our True Price metric, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.
The Tour B XS is Tiger’s golf ball. While we probably don’t need to say much more than that, Tiger is almost certainly the reason why the Tour B XS is now neck and neck with Bridgestone’s traditional bestseller (Tour B RX) at retail.
In this report, we’ll give you the rundown on what we learned about the 2020 Tour B XS and let you know how it stacks up against other golf balls on the market. Finally, we’ll give you the True Price – how much it costs to get a dozen good golf balls.
About the 2020 Bridgestone Tour B XS
The Tour B XS is the higher spinning of the Bridgestone’s two true Tour-level offerings. It’s a three-piece design with a 330-dimple, injection-molded TPU cover.
On full shots, Bridgestone classifies the Tour B XS as mid-launch and high spin and it should prove to be the highest spinning ball in the current Bridgestone lineup.
Tour B XS sold in the U.S. are made at the Bridgestone factory in Covington, GA.
2020 Bridgestone Tour B XS – Compression
On our gauge, the average compression of the 2020 Tour B XS is 86. Across the market as a whole, we’d classify that as medium-firm to firm.
By the standards of the true Tour category, it’s among the softest – arguably THE softest. You won’t find the Tour B XS in play every week but it is the softest ball that’s played on the PGA TOUR with any regularity.
2020 Bridgestone Tour B XS – Diameter & Weight
- 100% of the balls in our Tour B XS sample met our standard for roundness.
- None of the ball tested exceeded the USGA weight limit.
We also noted that the Tour B XS runs slightly large for the Tour ball category (if only because Bridgestone doesn’t push the limits like some of its competitors). None of the balls in our sample was in jeopardy of failing the USGA Ball Track Test.
2020 Bridgestone Tour B XS – Inspection
With three-pieces balls, off-center cores typically won’t be an issue. Problems will typically appear in the form of layer concentricity problems.
To that end, some measure of concentricity issues were visible in several balls within our sample. Significant issues were found in eight percent of the balls. Each of the balls we flagged showed some inconsistencies in cover thickness. However, the larger concern was an appreciable variation in mantle layer thickness.
Core Mixture
Core coloring was exceptionally consistent across all of the samples with barely discernible differences between balls.
Cover
Any issues with Tour B XS covers were minimal at worst. Our inspection yielded nothing of concern.
General Observations
As is typical of three-piece construction, the core is large and makes up the majority of the ball’s diameter. The injection molded TPU cover is soft and thin. Paired with a comparatively thick mantle layer, the Tour B XS appears capable of producing ample greenside spin.
Consistency
In this section we detail the consistency of the Bridgestone Tour B XS. It’s a measure of how similar the balls in our sample are to one another relative to all of the models we’ve tested to date.
Compression Consistency
- In general, the Tour B XS is solidly average with respect to compression consistency. That said, we identified a single ball in our sample set that was far enough below the median compression value that we flagged it as bad.
- When we look at the consistency across the three points measured on each ball, the Bridgestone Tour B XS is also within the average range.
Weight Consistency
- Consistency (of weight) across the sample set was also within the average range.
- We found no significant outliers within our sample.
Diameter Consistency
- The Tour B XS was again solidly within the average range with no red flags to speak of.
True Price
True Price is how we quantify the quality of a golf ball. It's a projection of what you'd have to spend to ensure you get 12 good balls.
The True Price will always be equal to or greater than the retail price. The greater the difference between the two, the more you should be concerned about the quality of the ball.
2020 Bridgestone Tour B XS Summary Report
To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls and our True Price metric, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.
Despite a single outlier for compression, our measurements of the Bridgestone Tour B XS place it solidly in the average range for compression, diameter and weight with no particular area being of significant concern.
Our visual inspection found a few balls with concentricity issues concerning enough that we flagged them as bad. Several others were less than perfect. While not among the absolutely most consistent balls in our database, overall the Tour B XS is comfortably within the average range.
Jakie
4 weeks agoI can’t wait until you start testing the direct to consumer balls. Then we will see how much better the quality and consistency is with a Titleist or Bridgestone.
The next evolution of this test I would think would be to compare a quality ball to a bad ball. Could you identify potential bad balls before you cut them open (float them and look for a heavy side?) and compare them against their perfect counterparts? I bet the standard deviation results for dispersion would be dramatically different.
The True Price of a dozen Kirkland balls might still be less than a dozen Pro V1s but if 30% of Kirklands are bad enough to be cause bad results from good swings, will it matter if I can get 12 perfect ones for less than a dozen Titleist if I have no way of identifying the good ones?
Steve
4 weeks agoIsn’t the true price for these more like $48.59? I used the same math for this as well as the Pro V1 article and our numbers match for the ProV1 but not these. Just like figuring this stuff out. BTW, with all the work you do measuring 3 dz balls and calculating, I totally see why one report a week is enough. Thanks for the hard work!
Terry
4 weeks agoGreat review as usual Tony! I play this ball (along with the Pro V1 and TP5) and am very pleased with it. For me, it’s the only I’ll likely stay with once the others have gone to their happy place… in the woods, ponds, or tall grass.
Rick Palmer
1 month agoTony
Thank you for the all the work in the ball lab. I have become a cutter because of your info and have been amazed at what I see. And no never sent you any as you seem to have recd plenty. The Bridgestone you just evaluates is the ball I play and found it much more to my liking the the chrome soft I was playing. Thank you again and look forward to the rest with great interest.
Doug Businger
1 month agoI really like the BXS but one in my dozen was very obviously defective and some others were less than perfect. Sent them to Bridgestone (at my expense) and so far they sent me 3 sleeves. One ball they sent me was as bad as the worst one I sent them. I’m not going to be able to buy them again Tiger’s must be screened. He would never use some of the ones I got.
Mike
1 month agoHow did you know one was defective and more importantly, how did you know some of the balls were “less than perfect.”?
Can I respectfully ask what index you are?
Doug Businger
1 month agoI could see and feel what I think was a seam Like I said it was obvious and I can’t imagine it wouldn’t affect ball flight. Some of the balls had what appeared to be pits or voids. I’ve never seen this with Srixons or ProVs. or any other brand for that matter.
Mike
1 month agoStill don’t get what a bad ball means. 1 yard difference? 2 yard difference? 15-yard difference?. I realize there’s no way to quantify that. I guess when the study is complete, then you can put a grid up, show the comparatives among the balls & let the readers decide for themselves. I’m not “married” to any single ball; given the many models that come out every year, I’m always looking for one that’ll give me some incremental advantage, whether off the tear on the green.
Weston Maughan
1 month agoGreat content and analysis! Actually love these deep dives. Just find it odd that articles titled “ball labs” are not located under the “LABS” tab. Keep it up!
WBN
1 month agoOne of the most extensive ball tests I’ve seen. Great information. Keep up the good work.
Robert Staples
1 month agoThanks for the review. I changed from using a pro v to the RX5 and wont go back!
Stevegp
1 month agoThanks again, Tony. I really enjoy the equipment reviews by MGS, but especially the ones on golf balls. They are interesting and informative. I look forward to reading all of them. I appreciate your efforts..
Tony
1 month agoReally surprised no one seems to be upset with spending top dollar for a product that is only 92% defect free. Can you imagine buying golf clubs that are only 92% defect free (12.88)….oh wait, did I just give MGS another project?
Raymond
1 month agoHey Tony, Is there any chance you could do some ball flight testing prior to the ball analysis? Would it be a good way to identify the effects, if any, from the inconsistencies uncovered in the MGS Ball Lab’s tests?
Bulldog
1 month agoAnother great reason to donate to MGS! Keep these reviews coming.
Stamos
1 month agoI’m curious about the quality control, within the same brand, of flagship balls like the ProV1 vs. economy balls like the Velocity. Do you have any insight into if quality control differs between them or if it is primarily construction?
Joshua
1 month agoI am curious about this as well. I wouldn’t expect the quality control to be exactly the same, but I would hope for a close standard for people who play balls such as e6 and Velocity that aspire to play the premium balls some day.
Daryl
1 month agoI second this. The flagships get more attention but economy balls are harder to screw up for build quality? The entire ball is nearly the core and there is only one thin layer.
Jeremy Ireland
1 month agoQUESTION: Those 8 bad balls (concentricity issues), did these perform differently?
kory
1 month agoYeah, after being cut in half balls usually perform about half as good as they used to
Paul
1 month agoIt’s not 8 bad balls, its 8% were bad balls. So for a dozen, that’s only .96 balls were “bad”. Irrelevant for most players.
Acemkr
1 month agoOnce you cut the ball in half to see if the mantle is good how do you put it back together to play it?
Asking for a friend
Andi
1 month agoTell your friend they get glued together after the test and go back to retail…
saveva
1 month agoBest part about Bridgestone golf balls is that they are not excluded from discount codes.
Randy
1 month agoLove the reviews and the following comments. It makes for great discussions. Since compression numbers have changed I look forward to your next all ball review too so we can compare compressions using the new calibration method. For those not willing to pay for a premium ball is there thought to doing a 2nd tier ball review?
Paulo
1 month agoTp5 review next. Second tier balls already included by looks of it
Daryl
1 month agoGreat write-up as always Tony! I will be super curious to see how domestic two piece balls do for us tight-wads. Strictly in terms of manufacturing consistency since they don’t get as much attention as the premium balls but yet are simpler to make. And they don’t have multiple layers to screw up or cores to off-center… I understand the performance differences thanks to MGS.
Brandon Mathis
1 month agoThe ball lab is probably the best thing put out by MGS in a long time. I can not wait for the Snell MTB & MTB-X along with hopefully the new vice balls. When are those coming?
Javier
1 month agoTony,
I’m curious how would you test this ball differently, rather this line, being that Bridgestone has the react cover that is supposed to react differently with different swing speeds. Would the speed of compression change the ball compression. Just curious, great review and thanks for doing the work that has been sorely needed in the golf industry forever. 👍
Lor
1 month agoI need at least 5 of these reviews a week….. Only one is just a tease….. Keep’em coming, great stuff!!!
Jay B
1 month agoThese are great and I don’t mean to sound ungrateful, but any chance we could get these results more than just once per week? Very excited to see the results for many of the DTC brands.
golfinnut
1 month agoI thought I heard somewhere that Tiger preferred a more softer ball …. not so clicky. Medium firm to firm I would think is too hard for him. But what do I know. 😉
Jimmy
1 month agoIt’s medium to firm on their scale of ALL golf balls on the market. The article says it’s softest ball of any ball widely played on the PGA Tour. Almost all the balls on tour are in the 95-110 compression range.
Heather D
1 month agowait, what? The 2019 compression was 102.9, and the 2020 is 86???
Brock
1 month agoI think it was mentioned that different equipment was used this year vs last year in one of the previous reviews comments section.
Loz
1 month agoYeah they haven’t given a reason as to why compression is so different this year round..
David H
1 month agoI switched to this ball in mid-July After a lot of personal testing and it has been fantastic. I have found it to be an awesome blend of power and control through the bag. I have total confidence in my yardages and the ball is fantastic on and around the green.
Stephen Nakada
1 month agoNice info; TP5?
Tony Covey
1 month agoNext up in the queue.
Paulo
1 month agoYellow pro v ?
Andrew Han
1 month agoCan’t wait for this one, because its going to be the first reported 4+ layer ball. Waiting on ProV1x as well.
ryebread
1 month agoTony: We’d love to see the Srixon XV. I would argue it’s the best performing ball for the money on the market.
JP
1 month agoLove the way this format/lab is developing, super interesting info! Is there any opportunity for adding visuals of some of the issues/imperfections that are mentioned in testing, either within the format or a companion piece/forum section?
Would be super interesting to actually see the differences between “good” and “bad” balls, especially in categories like core concentricity!
Thanks !
Berniez40
1 month agoGreat Job—I love ball lab. I think the true compression rating you are using is most informative. So many differnt ways to measure it and tweak the results to look better if you are a ball maker. AND—-Thanks again for reminding us that higher compression means more distance 99% of the time, I totally agree that “Consistency of Compression” during manufacture is an actual metric that the average golfer absolutely needs to take into account. when judging distance metrics as well as overall ball flight.
JP
1 month agoHey Tony,
Love the way this format/lab is developing, super interesting info! Is there any opportunity for adding visuals of some of the issues/imperfections that are mentioned in testing, either within the format or a companion piece/forum section?
Would be super interesting to actually see the differences between “good” and “bad” balls, especially in categories like core concentricity!
Thanks !
JP
1 month agoHey Tony,
Love the way this format/lab is developing, super interesting! Is there any possibility of adding actual visuals of some of the imperfections you mention, either in the format or a forum companion maybe? Would be really curious to see actualy images of what the difference between a “good” and “bad” ball are, especially in the core concentricity category!
thanks!
Ralph Finaldi
1 month agoMy analytical brain is now asking: What golf balls are you using when testing, rating and recommending by honoring “Most Wanted” status for golf clubs (drivers, irons, etc.)?
JP
1 month agoHey Tony,
Again, love seeing how this format/lab is developing super interesting. Do you think there could be an off-shoot in the forums or somewhere we could get actual visuals of some of the imperfections you talk about? Especially in the core concentricity testing, would be really curious to see the differences between good and bad balls!
thanks !
bob
1 month agoApologies if this is a repost: How can the compression be 86 on this test but the Bridgestone B XS was listed at 102.9 on your 2019 Ball Test? An 86 puts this ball in the Chrome Soft and Titleist Tour Soft zone. Was a different measurement device used for this test or was the 2019 ball test based on manufacturer info? 86 seems really soft and way off what 2019 data reflected.
Zooter9
1 month agoTony: It would be educational if you could provide a photo of a ball cut in half that has been found to have a significant variation in the mantle or cover thickness. Similar to the photo you show in the core mixture section. Thanks. Really like this analysis of current golf balls!
bob
1 month agoWondering about compression numbers provided here versus the famous 2019 Ball Test you conducted. The 2019 ball test showed Bridgestone B XS at 102.9 on compression and your ball lab specs list it now at 86. An 86 seems very low compression compared to what your 2019 Ball Test showed across the board for all premium or Tour Level balls. Were the 2019 compression numbers based on a different measurement device or manufacturer info?
Tony Covey
1 month agoWe’ve discussed this a bit in other Ball Lab posts. The first thing to consider is that this is a different model. More importantly, we used a different compression gauge during the ball test. It uses a different scale, which then gets converted to the Atti scale we use. It’s fine for basic comparisons (this one is firmer than that one) but in general, values were higher than what we get on the Atti gauge.
With the tools we’re using for Ball Lab measurements we’re typically within a few compression points of the manufacturer stated compression.
Bob
1 month agoFunny, I Googled ‘Atti scale’ to learn a bit more about what your post was referring to. Atti according to the first page of results is ‘Attitudes Towards Transgendered Individuals’. Your new scale is either very woke and progressive (and possibly not measuring the proper golf ball properties) or an entirely different sort of scale.
Cody
1 month agoInteresting. I thought this ball would score better. I am wondering what ball will come in better than average..
Tony Covey
1 month agoBy definition, the majority of the balls we test are going to fall somewhere in the average range (which is why we also distinguish with high-average and low-average when appropriate). The first several models are among the most popular (and reputable) on the market, so it’s not particularly surprising that we’re not seeing anything terrible.
Mark M
1 month agoThanks Tony!! I had no idea the XS was that soft 😮
Great info in these ball reports – keep ’em coming!
TR1PTIK
1 month agoAnother good report. I’d be curious to know how much larger the XS measures…
Lou
1 month agoI continue to ask why no statistics that the majority of golfers want like “How far does it go compared to others in its class?” Most truly amateur (with normal handicaps) golfers are looking for long 1st, spin 2nd and whatever else a ball has 3rd through 10th. I don’t care if it’s Tiger’s ball or Joe Six Pack’s ball as long as it gives me Distance and control. I don’t learn that from MGS. I learn how heavy the ball is and how round and if it’s painted well. What, really, does that have to do with my game or the game of other weekend golfers?
Tony Covey
1 month agoAfter our ball test last year, I’ve come to believe that any discussion around performance is meaningless until you understand the quality and consistency of the product being tested.
Distance isn’t that hard to sort out. It’s strongly correlated to compression – especially within categories (a high compression tour ball is going to be faster (and typically longer) than a low compression tour ball). The same is true in the ionomer space. If, however, manufacturing tolerances are such that the compression range can vary significantly (and we’ve some pretty wide deltas in our testing so far), then that distance value is almost meaningless because the deviation in compression tells us it can not be reliably or consistently achieved.
Having said that, we do plan to do more performance testing…likely early next year.
Mike
1 month ago“A high compression tour ball is going to be faster (and typically longer) than a low compression tour ball”. Are we talking about at the tour swing speed (110 MPH+) or the average amateur (low 90’s)?
Tony Covey
1 month agoA high compression ball is going to be faster at every swing speed. Anything else is marketing in the face of physics.
That’s not to say clubhead speed is an irrelevant factor.
First – there is a point at which higher swing speed players will overcompress a ball leading to an exponentially greater decline in ball speed. So as far as swing speed is concerned, it’s not about finding a ball soft enough that you can compress the core, it’s about finding a ball firm enough that you don’t over compress the core.
There is also a point at which the speed lost to compression can be compensated for with higher launch and lower spin. For higher swing speed players, a soft compression ball is almost never a good idea. Painting with broad strokes, it’s +/- 80MPH swing speed (depending on quality of contact) where it’s reasonable to say that speed difference between high and low compression is so negligible that it won’t have any impact on speed. In those cases, low compression (soft) balls can work, provided the golfer can deliver the club in such a way as to provide high enough launch to support the lower spin without sacrificing descent angle and the ability to hold greens.
RobGnarly
1 month agoLou Lou Lou. I think you’re missing the point with these tests. They are designed to show us how well theses balls are manufactured. If the roundness of a ball seems like useless information to you that is fine. As a weekend golfer your focus should be on your swing and not so much the equipment. But for the competitive golfer whose already spent 20 years working on their swing the equipment we use can be the difference of making a cut or not. So the details to scratch golfers like myself matter more than you can imagine.
Phil
1 month agoHi Tony
Your comment about a ball being “over-crunched” by excessive swing speeds and consequently losing speed and distance, brings up a question that most amateur golfers would find informative.
The opposite situation is : Can a ball be “under-crunched” by swing speeds lower than that necessary to crunch the ball for optimum effect? If this is so, then amateurs would be well served to know what compression ball to use for swing speeds of 70, 80, 90 mph, and so forth. We will then know what compression ball to buy, and avoid the high compression ones.. what say you?
WYBob
1 month agoGood information but why did you change the format of the way the information is presented between the Pro V1 and the Tour B XS? It is visually no longer apples to apples and makes comparing the results a little more difficult. I’m not saying which is better, only that you should have a consistent template for how the information is presented. That said, the “True Price” is a great tool for us consumers to determine what a dozen of a given ball really costs us in comparison to other balls in the category.
Tony Covey
1 month agoThe information is exactly the same. We tweaked the presentation a bit to try and alleviate some of the confusion between what we call our quality metrics (balls that are bad under our definitions) and our consistency metrics (the similarity between balls in the sample).
Ball Lab is very much a work in progress and we’ll continue to make small tweaks as we go in response to reader feedback.
ajvandermolen
1 month agoGreat overview of ball quality, yet more informative for manufacturers than golfers perhaps….. When do you test medium-priced balls like the Srixon AD333 (you call them Q Star) ?
GTR 23
1 month agoBridgestone also has a second ball manufacturing site outside the US in Japan. This is likely where all he balls on tour are made. Allegedly the 2 molds don’t match perfectly and the balls, while still conforming, are slightly smaller from the other manufacturing facility.
TJ
1 month agoThat’s incorrect. They have a facility in Japan but that is by and large to produce golf balls for the Asian market. They also have facilities in China for their inexpensive Laddie and e6 golf balls.
Generally, the only time you will see Japan made balls in the US will be if they are having a production issue or availability issue with a certain model.
The quality of both factories is on par.
dski93
1 month agoCan you help me find the seam on my XS ? pretty tough
Carolyn
1 month agoDidn’t Bridgestone come out as a seamless ball under the Precept name years ago…
Tony Covey
1 month agoThere’s really no such thing as a seamless ball. “Seamless” has typically been used to describe a staggered dimple pattern that ofuscates the seam and provides more consistent aerodynamic performance.
In that respect, you can say that Bridgestone and to an extent Titleist and Srixon are seamless designs, while many others – especially those coming out of Asian factories have clearly visible seams.
Tony Covey
1 month agoIt’s probably fair to say that finding the seam on Bridgestone balls is my least favorite thing in ball lab. I took a photo to help you find it. Between the two green dots you’ll see a small gap between the dimples. I call it the bowtie pattern and it you can find it at several points along the seam of the ball.
https://mygolfspy-wp-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2020/09/Tour-BX-1.jpg
Max
1 month agoOh my lord. Talk about going blind. Reminds me of the summer I worked in an electroplating factory and for a week I had to manyally sort 1400 pounds of lock nuts because 2 bins got mixed. The only difference was some of the nuts had 6 dots on the fused washers and some had 10 dots. It was excruciating
Greg
1 month agoI’ve noticed on my ZStar XVs after about 27 holes or so, the seam starts to appear. At first I thought it was a crack, but it’s almost more like a permanent dirt line (maybe the paint coming off?). No noticeable performance changes, but aesthetically it’s not my favorite.
Cory O
1 month agoI like the way you’re displaying the consistency now. Should generate a lot less confusion than the old way.