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 XS. 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 XS
It’s strange to think that we’ve been at this Ball Lab thing long enough to measure three generations of Bridgestone TOUR B Series.
With that should come some familiarity. Not much has changed in that the TOUR B XS remains “the Tiger Ball“. It’s not the softest in the TOUR B lineup but it is the softer of the two balls that Bridgestone bills as being for high swing-speed players.
It remains a three-piece offering with 330 dimples. The major point of differentiation between the new ball and the prior generation is the addition of the REACTIV IQ cover. As with other Bridgestone offerings, the bulk of product sold in the U.S. is manufactured at the company’s factory in Covington, Ga.
Compression
On our gauge, the Bridgestone TOUR B XS has an average compression of 84. Unsurprisingly, the closest comp in our database is the prior-gen TOUR B XS which also measured 84. That’s the same as the Maxfli Tour and just a touch softer than the 2021 Titleist Pro V1.
Diameter and Weight
With respect to the USGA rules for weight and diameter, none of the balls tested failed to meet the USGA’s minimum size requirement. We did find a single ball that was over the allowable limit for weight. Accordingly, that ball was flagged as bad.
With respect to the market as a whole, the size and weight of the TOUR B XS are both within the average range.
Inspection
Centeredness and Concentricity
When it comes to Bridgestone’s premium urethane offerings, we seldom find any concentricity issues. That proved to be true this time around as all of the balls passed our visual inspection.
Core Consistency
Core color was generally consistent. We found no significant deviation in color, no swirly patterns and no miscellaneous chunks of out-of-place material.
Cover
No cover defects were noted.
Bridgestone TOUR B XS – Consistency
In this section, we detail the consistency of the Bridgestone TOUR B XS. 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
- Despite the single ball over the USGA weight limit, the weight consistency of the Bridgestone TOUR B XS falls within the average range.
Diameter Consistency
- Diameter consistency for the Bridgestone TOUR B XS falls within the average range with no particularly noteworthy outliers.
- It’s worth mentioning that, as with the 2020 TOUR B Series, the largest diameter on any given ball was typically measured on the pole. This may be due to the injection-molding process.
Compression Consistency
- Compression consistency qualifies as poor.
- Box 1 trended a bit firmer while Box 3 was noticeably softer.
- Two balls were flagged as bad due to significant compression deviation.
- One for being 12 points firmer than the median compression value.
- The other for being nearly 10 points softer.
- The 20-point compression delta across the sample is cause for concern.
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 XS – 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.
A single weight hiccup and a compression distribution that’s significantly broader than what we’d expect from Bridgestone. That, in a nutshell, is the story of the 2022 TOUR B XS. As we evaluate the other three models in the TOUR B lineup, we should get a much better sense of whether this was an anomaly or indicative of a larger problem.
The Good
- Average weight and diameter consistency
- Soft-ish compression for a Tour ball should have broad appeal.
The Bad
- Three balls in the sample were flagged as bad.
- Compression consistency is not up to the Bridgestone standard.
Final Grade
The Bridgestone TOUR B XS gets an overall grade of 59.
*We may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site.
Rich
2 months agoIm very surprised by this result, bummed out really. Love Bridgestone.
Off subject a bit, but if you all are planning some Srixon tests, I noticed the XV Divide balls are made in Japan, and the regular XVs (on promotion) are from Taiwan. Bouncing them you can hear an audible difference
Steve Menninger
2 months agoI have played Bridgestone for several years and the BXS all this year.. I am a single digit hc and haven’t played a better ball for my game. I can’t agree with these findings.
Ryan
4 weeks agoHow can you disagree with factual findings?
Shawn
2 months agoI’m starting to see lots of older models of golf balls hit retail shelves. Sold as “premium value”. For example 2019 Bridgestone BXS and 2020 TP5. Wonder if this is truly old stock – or if these are repackaged 2022 balls that didn’t make the cut? Can’t see manufacturers or warehouses sitting on stock that’s this old.
TR1PTIK
2 months agoA lot of triggered Bridgestone fanboys in the comments after this one. It still amazes me that people don’t understand the reason for and significance of Ball Lab. Of course a 20-point spread in compression matters because compression plays a significant role in ball speed which can lead to variations in distance. Not something you want if you’re looking for more consistency in your game. Great work as always Tony!
Tim
2 months agowow…shocking…….i tried this ball and hated it…..i am NOT Tiger woods so im not shocked it didnt work for me but still, im blown away how bad this test was for the BXS…….
Chris Nickel
2 months agoJohn – It absolutely matters. And everyone that is involved in golf ball R&D, etc. understands that. Moreover, this is why we have two separate ball assessment platforms.
Ball Lab is where we quantify the quality and consistency of a ball. Our other ball test is where we use a robot to help us assess performance. So, it’s really like looking at two different big-ass forests.
Stevegp
2 months agoTony, thanks again for your efforts and reporting the data. I appreciate it. I always look forward to reading the Ball Lab “results.”
I have been awaiting your findings on these latest Bridgestone balls. Like others, I am curious what outcomes the other Bridgestone Tour B models will reveal when tested, especially after seeing how the XS did.
I also would like to see you examine the Srixon Z-Star Diamond.
Frank Cacciola
2 months agoWhen will Snell MTB Black be tested why only MTBX
Nick
2 months agoI’m starting to see a lot of tests on YouTube where guys are floating the golf balls in salt water to test balance. Tests are interesting to say the least. Could this test be part of the future of the Ball Lab? It’s great that a ball is round and the appropriate weight and proper compression, but if it’s not balanced, well…..
Dave V
2 months agoIt took a while, but I’m finally coming to the understanding that the Ball Lab scores aren’t going to tell you which balls perform best. The score is an indicator of how much you can expect every ball of that make and model will perform compared to all of the other balls of that make and model. So if you don’t get along well with a ProV1, then it’s highly likely that all ProV1’s will perform poorly for you because it has a high Ball Lab score. If the ball gets a low score, like this one, then you can’t be confident that the performance will be the same from one ball to the next. It may be that it is the best ball for you, but every now and then you’ll get one that doesn’t carry as far, or doesn’t hold the green as well, or the flight has more shape, etc. You might write it off as having an off day, when it could actually be a bad ball. Bridgestone balls have always been “meh” for me. But I’ve never bought them. I’ve only played ones that I’ve found, which may be a sample of balls that are statistically inferior. It’s more likely that the bad ball ends up in the weeds..
Tony Covey
2 months agoThat’s a fair assessment. Our robot tests are how we quantify the performance aspects of a golf ball. Ball Lab seeks to quantify the quality and consistency aspects. There is a bit of overlap insomuch as I would argue that if the quality of a ball is inconsistent than the performance will be as well. When one balls in the box aren’t, in general terms, the same, I’m not sure how one can say that it’s the one that performs best for you.
Bill
2 months agoFor those questioning the low score of 59…I do agree that’s shocking to see based on the Bridgestone reputation. That said, other balls that had the same ratings of Poor/Average/Average for Compression/Diameter/Weight scored 48, 49 and 57…so maybe a 59 isn’t out of the question. Just my 2 cents…
Anthony H
2 months agoSorry Mike, but Jay stating that he’s played many brands of balls and loves this ball by is actually excellent data he has been able to personally gather, so by definition, the exact opposite of “anecdotal evidence”. It may not be valuable data in your eyes, but it is most definitely valuable data for him.
Bill M
2 months agoShame. I generally like tour bx and b xs, but if I cant trust that my 36 balls are all going to perform closely the same, I question whether it is worth the $50 purchase price. Prov1 benchmark is same price, bit delivers more consistent quality. Even Maxfli, if it is a good match for your game, at close to $30/dozen or better.
These companies need to up their game of they want to continue to gain consumer confidence and demand premium prices.
Adam
2 months agoMaybe I am just in denial because this is my go to ball and have played Bridgestone for 15+ years. But I have to agree with Jay. How do you arrive at the score of 59. I have noticed this on other balls as well that seemed to have just as good of a review as a ProV but then they get a score in the 70s. 59 for 3 “bad” balls wouldn’t 9/12 be 75%??? Just because there is a compression variance doesn’t mean that ball is bad, it’s a variance and does that variance really affect spin rates and distance and if so by how much? Are we talking 10-15 yards difference or just 1 or 2 yards? It would be even more interesting if you took the average golfer and hit the hardest and softest ball in the sample and see if they noticed a difference.
Steve (the real one, pithy and insufferable)
2 months agoWhat is this “9/12”? Tony tests three boxes obtained from different sources. Probably a typo on your part. Should be 3/36 bad balls. “Bad” in this case are outliers from median figures. Concerning was an obvious difference between two boxes. Consistency counts (take my golf swing – please). There are better balls.
DaveyD
2 months agoInteresting results given that the Tour balls are made in the USA, enabling tighter quality control. Having said that, Callaway was in the same, only worse, predicament
Any chance we can get the Wilson Triad golf ball tested? I’ve been hitting it for a few rounds and I am very pleased with it.m
Bennett Green
2 months agoHey Davey – Triad is next on the docket! Results coming same time next week.
DaveyD
2 months agoGreat! Looking forward to it.
Marcus
2 months agoWhy such a low score if there was such a small percentage of anomaly golf balls and you state that is consistent? Genuine curiosity as the XS and X have been my preferred balls of the last 2 years.
Tony Covey
2 months agoThe score is made up of two parts. Part 1 is the bad ball percentage. It’s basically a measure of the quality of the balls in isolation. That part of the score is what it is, insomuch as it doesn’t give consideration nor does it draw a comparison to other golf balls on the market.
Balls can be “bad” for a number of reasons. Off the top of my head those include:
Over the weight limit (above 1.62 oz with a little bit of wiggle room)
Under the diameter limit (fails the USGA Track test)
Ball isn’t round – we have a generous standard that compares the average of our seam measurement to the pole measurement
Compression differs significantly from the median of the sample
The diameter differs significantly from the median of the sample
Obvious and significant physical defect (cut covers, off-center cores, lack of layer concentricity)
One quick note – a ball can only be bad once, so even if it’s underweight and has a major concentricity defect, it’s still just 1 bad ball.
The bad ball% is typically an area where the TOUR B Series does pretty well, so while 3 bad balls isn’t the worst we’ve ever seen in testing, it is surprising to see from a TOUR B series.
The second part of the scoring is a measure of consistency as it relates to the market as a whole. It’s a general consistency grade which I suppose is a simple answer to the question “How consistent is the diameter/weight/compression/ of the Bridgestone TOUR B XS relative to every other ball model measured in ball lab.
With the TOUR B series (we’ve now measured 3 generations) Bridgestone has typically been within the average range. Of the 3 metric, compression has the greatest impact on the overall score because it has 2 sub-metrics. We look at the average compression of each ball (the compression value we public is the average of this number across the sample). The second piece is the average compression delta across the 3-points measured on each golf ball. In most cases, we don’t find a ton of deviation in the 3-point delta, but every now and again things can get weird.
We assign a point values based on the quality rating. Those values are combined across the metrics scored to make up the second portion of the score. Because of the compression delta (big standard deviation within the sample) the B XS fell into the poor range for compression. That’s a big hit (zero points), which as you can imagine had a significant impact on the overall score.
I’ve said it before – creating a point system for golf ball quality is a challenging and unusual tasks. Everyone has an opinion on the “right” way to do it.
There’s an argument to be made that bad ball % should account for a higher percentage of the score, but it’s also hard for me to wrap my head around minimizing general inconsistency across the sample. When a ball is inconsistent, it’s kinda of like having several different balls in a single box.
Both things are bad in different ways.
This is simply how we do it – it’s what we settled on. For anyone who believes the weighting should be different – we provide the bad ball score in isolation as well as the quality ratings for each consistency metrics, so by all means, feel free to apply your own weighting. Lots of ways to consider it, for sure.
Alan
2 months agoDo you expect similar results for the Tour B RXS? Are they produced at the same plant?
ChristianR
2 months agoI’ve played both RX and RXS and coming from low quality (as per BallLab test) Srixon Q-Star Tour they’re way better. I’m now trying Srixon Z-Star because I was looking for the softer feel off the face.
Anyway the real question is how a ball with a low score really affect the game of a mid level amateur…
Jay
2 months agoThis is such B’s. You are saying these are just a tad better then the Wilson duo that’s ridiculous. After playing every ball and brand you can think of this is my go to ball and it’s a great great ball. Don’t be afraid to buy these
mike
2 months agoYour anecdotal evidence is B.S.
Anthony H
2 months agoI agree with Jay 100%. I was just custom fitted for my irons at TruSpec Golf in Atlanta (which is an incredible experience by the way) and part of his fitting was asking me what ball I used currently. He simply asked me to give this Bridgestone Tour B RXS a try to see how it performed vs the Left dash ProV1x I usually play. At least for me, The Tour B RXS performs way better and is also my go to ball now. I also like the Encore Vero X1 ball but the Bridgestone seems to be a little better for me.
Stid
2 months ago“This is BS. This is the ball I play and I think it’s great. This hurts my feelings.”
Wrong. This is data. Science doesn’t give a crap about your feelings. Objective truth exists whether you like/believe it or not.
Bill M
2 months agoAnd I think you all keep forgetting the basic fact that quality control does not mean the design characteristics are bad. I really like the B-X, B-XS, for different reasons, but in general they feel good, putt nicely, XS lets me play aggressive aroynd the greens, and X is hot off the driver, in a launch window that I like. But I can get similar qualities from another ball on the market, which scores better for manufacturing consistency.
That is what this is supposed to be. Not a test of design characteristics (speed, spin, trajectory). This is a manufacturing consistency test, quality control. Bridgestone needs to tighten up their tolerances to reach the best in class mark.