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 2022 Bridgestone Tour B RX. To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.
About the Bridgestone Tour B RX
While the TOUR B RX doesn’t get any love on the PGA TOUR, it has been Lexi Thompson’s ball of choice of late. Made famous by Matt Kuchar’s dad, Bridgestone classifies the TOUR B RX as for golfers with speeds below 105.
It’s no secret that we’re not fans of compression-based ball fitting but what you should take from that is that the RX trends to the soft side and with that comes a bit higher flight and lower spin than the “over 105” offerings.
Bridgestone Tour B RX Construction
Like everything else in the Bridgestone TOUR B lineup, the RX has three-piece construction. It offers a 338-dimple injection-molded urethane cover with REACTIV IQ technology. The Bridgestone TOUR B RX is produced at the company’s factory in Covington, Ga.
Compression
On our gauge, the 2022 Bridgestone TOUR B RX has an average compression of 79. That’s six points firmer than the previous model and puts it alongside balls like the OnCore Vero X1, Srixon Z-Star and Titleist Velocity (two-piece ionomer).
Across the market as a whole, it qualifies as a “medium feel” golf ball, though it’s definitely on the softer side among balls with urethane covers.
Diameter and Weight
I don’t recall any issues with Bridgestone balls as they relate to USGA regulations. As a rule, the company doesn’t flirt with the size limit the way some of its competitors do (Bridgestone TOUR B balls run slightly larger than other Tour offerings) and, save a single ball in our 2022 TOUR B XS sample, weight isn’t an issue, either.
In the case of the RX, all of the sample adhered to USGA rules for both weight and diameter.
Inspection
Centeredness and Concentricity
For the most part, Bridgestone does a good job with layer concentricity. I won’t say we never find any issues but they are few and far between.
In the case of the TOUR B RX, we found a single ball with a concentricity issue sufficient enough for us to flag the ball as bad.
Core Consistency
Core consistency and color were consistent throughout the sample. We found nothing of concern.
Cover
While we didn’t find anything significant enough to flag as bad, we noted that some balls had more of a texture to the cover than others. We also found a couple of balls (isolated to Box 2) where dimples at the poles were slightly raised.
Finally, we also noted a couple of balls where there were minor imperfections/indentations where the two halves of the cover come together.
While notable, nothing was so significant that we flagged any balls as bad.
Bridgestone TOUR B RX – Consistency
In this section, we detail the consistency of the 2022 Bridgestone TOUR B RX. Our consistency metrics provide a measure of how similar the balls in our sample were to one another relative to all of the models we’ve tested to date.
Weight Consistency
- Weight consistency for the Tour B RX falls within the average range.
- Box 3 was a tick heavier overall but not significantly.
- In terms of the market as a whole, we would consider the Bridgestone TOUR B RX to be of average weight.
Diameter Consistency
- Diameter consistency for the 2022 Bridgestone TOUR B RX falls within the Average range.
- The size of the balls falls within the Average range relative to the market as a whole.
Compression Consistency
- Compression consistency falls within the Poor range and is a significant reason for the below-average overall score.
- In many respects, it mirrors what we found when we tested the 2022 Bridgestone TOUR B XS.
- The spread of compression was similar across all three boxes but two balls (one in Box 1 and one in Box 2) were flagged for having compression values significantly lower than the sample median.
- The compression delta across the entire sample was 20 points. For the sake of comparison, that’s more of a spread than we’d expect to find between the TOUR B RX and a TOUR B X.
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 retail price and the True Price, the more you should be concerned about the quality of the ball.
Bridgestone TOUR B RX – Summary
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.
As we mentioned, the results largely mirror what we found when we tested the 2022 TOUR B XS. Significant defects were few, diameter and weight consistency were average, but compression across the sample was wildly inconsistent.
The Good
- Average diameter and weight consistency
- Only one bad ball not related to compression issues
The Bad
- Significantly inconsistent compression across the sample.
At the time of review, the 2022 Bridgestone TOUR B RX gets an overall grade of 59.
*We may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site.
Tim
1 month agoIs Bridgestone the new Callaway in terms of crappy ball manufacturing?
John J.
2 months agoWhat would be interesting is if they find a ball that is “out of spec”, if they could do some performance testing with it and one that was “in spec” to show how it impacts performance. I know they don’t have access to the robot all the time, but maybe Harry could go hit a few and report back.
MLJ
2 months agoI’m sure they have an indoor sim and they could hit balls themselves. But that would be too much work.
And answer yourself this. Do you HONESTLY think Tiger would associate with a ball mfg that had 20% variances in compression? I call [email protected] on this test. My guess is, Reactiv is screwing with their measurements. But again, that would require them to ask BStone a follow up.
John J.
2 months agoI think these ball lab reviews are more about the manufacturer than they are about the ball itself. Seems like if one of the manufacturers balls does not test well, then you can pretty much assume that none of them will.
With that said, evaluating the construction of the ball without also including the performance seems to be unreliable.
And until a new performance test of the “new” releases of many of the balls, the old performance data seems to be questionable.
Dan
2 months agoI don’t understand the need to evaluate the performance of the ball? Their stated (often) goal of ball lab is to judge the consistency of the ball, not the performance. It’s probably MORE useful honestly. You are likely not to find the right ball for you from a robot test, but it’s nice to know if ball 7 is going to be close to ball 17 and ball 27 and not 20 percent softer. Even a ball that treats well for you is likely to not work well if the next ball is grossly off center or much different compression.
Jay
2 months agoHow does the variance in compression translate to performance factors like spin and distance? Debating what to do with the remainder of my 3-dozen box of these balls, but I’ll probably switch to Pro V1 or maybe AVX.
WBN
2 months agoI’ve been playing the B RX for the last few years and have no complaints. The only other ball I play is the Titleist AVX. Both balls fit my less than 105 mph swing speed. The rating of 59 seems awfully low. Thanks for the review.
Peejer
2 months agoHave to admit I was surprised by the quality of the Bridgestone Tour B RX ball. Always appreciate the Ball Reviews from MyGolfSpy!
Tag
2 months agoIs there a way to measure the consistency of how a ball rolls when putted?
MJL
2 months agoCan’t go to MGS without a Titleist add popping up. Keep cashing those click checks.
Chris Nickel
2 months agoThis might be a bad time to tell you, but those ads you’re seeing from Titleist are filling based on your browser history and/or other traceable components of your online behavior.
MJL
2 months agoSo you earn NO revenue from those clicks? And yes, I play Bridgestone, and no, don’t surf Titleist site. I play most all Callaways…. And have nothing but TaylorMade and Titleist adds pop on your site. Be that as it may, link performance with Ball Lab results and you may…. may have something. Or perhaps get input from MFG’s on ball lab results (Callaway didn’t run from results). Other than that, you labeling a bad/good score without correlating performance data is subjective analysis. And perhaps the way you are measuring compression for BStone balls is incongruent to their Reactiv cover. Do you honestly think Tiger would play a ball from a MFG that would vary this greatly? Doubt it
Mike
2 months agoI’ve never had a Titleist ad pop up on the MSG site. Tons of other pop-up ads but not Titleist.
With these ball tests, MGS just reports what they physically come across. I’m not sure what the direct correlation is to performance because you can’t put a ball back together & play it. A lot of personal preference goes into balls so naturally people get defensive if their favorite brand model is rated low. I really, really like these balls & will continue to play them regardless of this review because I feel they match my game really well. Doesn’t mean the test are bogus.
Russell
2 months agoAfter reading this I will be trying out some Maxfli tours.
Les
2 months agoGreat… just what I wanted to see after buying a dozen.
Chris Nickel
2 months agoBefore you buy….MyGolfSpy
Lou
2 months agoOnce again, a ball test without any performance statistics. I find it absolutely amazing how so many MGS readers seem to rely on purchasing balls based on The Ball Lab results for roundness and perfect covers, etc. and not performance. This is the opposite of what I thought mattered.
Ray
2 months agoIt all mattets
Tyson
2 months agoThey have a done what you are asking in another piece. Very large, very comprehensive. You just haven’t bothered to look…
Javier
2 months agoTony,
I’m curious if the react technology of this series really means anything. What I’m trying to say is, does the cover react differently to differing club conditions or speeds? The claim is that this material reacts differently with differing speeds. I know there are materials out which are soft and pliable when a slow acting force is applied, but as the force is applied faster the material acts differently, gets stiffer. I guess I’m wondering if the cover is that type of material.
Thanks,
Frozen Spy
Willie T
2 months agoSlightly surprised at the lower overall rating. Would love to see how the weighting of the data points figure into to the overall rating. While I enjoy the reviews, in my mind I always know that the ubiquitous Pro-V1 (which also seems to be the most lost ball on the course) is the standard to which all lesser balls are measured.
Harvard Ykema
2 months agoFor the wide range in compression, there could easily be a big difference in distance from ball to ball which when chipping could make you do a wrong assessment and adjustment and get worse results on a different ball. Also even dirt on a ball can effect ball flight so to have different dimples or imperfections at joint means you really can’t trust your swing or dispersion results. Bridgestone not for me