Bridgestone BX vs BRX

[Dewdman42]

Bridgestone says the BX is for high swing speeds over 105 and the BRX is for lower swing speeds...  (note, mine is in the middle at 100mph).  Many of you on this forum say swing speed should have nothing to do with the decision.  So taking swing speed out of it...what would be the expected differences in golf ball performance with these two balls?  Why choose one over the other if swing speed is not the deciding factor?

[MattM97]

I've used the BRX and my driver CHS is like 118 right now. It performs fine. 

 

As for differences: 

 

BX - Firmer, spins a bit more, flies a but higher. 

BRX - Touch softer, spins less, flies a bit lower. 

 

Green side spin about equal in my experience, maybe a touch more with the BX. 

[Jeff58]

On 4/27/2024 at 12:40 PM, Dewdman42 said:

Many of you on this forum say swing speed should have nothing to do with the decision.

In general, Bridgestone is correct and the “test websites” do not create representative conditions to adequately describe ball behavior. Sorry if this is a bit complicated.

 

The main difference between balls with the same cover material is compression. The lower the compression, the higher the launch angle and the lower the spin rate, all else being equal. The result is that lower compression balls reach their apex sooner, and higher compression balls later in their trajectory. 
 

The problem tends to be that players with slower swing speeds tend to not create adequate launch angles to reach optimal height with high compression models. As well, spin=drag. Therefore, for many, the combination of high spin and low launch overwhelms the potential ball speed advantage of high compression models. For their models, Bridgestone is basically describing this crossover point.

 

In the case of @MattM97, we likely have a situation where his launch conditions are overwhelming the BRX’s intended flight characteristics. It should never have a lower trajectory than the BX. Perhaps the BRX’s low spin combined with a low launch is producing unusual results.

[Dewdman42]

Right...well...at 100mph I am just under their cutoff...so... That's why I'm asking for more specifics.  I sorta feel like I could go either way.

 

But anyway I have just ordered a bunch of both and will switch back and forth.  It's very close for me, but I just want to know what to look out for when comparing them.  I will keep an eye out on trajectory height.  I hit up on the ball pretty well right now and usually get 145ish ball speed, sometimes a bit higher.  I have a goal to reach 150, but..not sure it will happen at this point in life.  

 

So they both basically have similar outer layers, which I assume means they will feel and perform similarly around the green and perhaps shortest irons?  Its just that when I get smash factor with my driver, FW's and hybrids...perhaps the BRX would squish a bit compared to the BX...which I'm not sure what the outcome of that would be in terms of distance and spin...  Well, I will try to compare them closely for height, distance and spin.  I don't have  access to a launch monitor anymore.

 

 

 

 

[MattM97]

8 hours ago, Jeff58 said:

In general, Bridgestone is correct and the “test websites” do not create representative conditions to adequately describe ball behavior. Sorry if this is a bit complicated.

 

The main difference between balls with the same cover material is compression. The lower the compression, the higher the launch angle and the lower the spin rate, all else being equal. The result is that lower compression balls reach their apex sooner, and higher compression balls later in their trajectory. 
 

The problem tends to be that players with slower swing speeds tend to not create adequate launch angles to reach optimal height with high compression models. As well, spin=drag. Therefore, for many, the combination of high spin and low launch overwhelms the potential ball speed advantage of high compression models. For their models, Bridgestone is basically describing this crossover point.

 

In the case of @MattM97, we likely have a situation where his launch conditions are overwhelming the BRX’s intended flight characteristics. It should never have a lower trajectory than the BX. Perhaps the BRX’s low spin combined with a low launch is producing unusual results.

 

Could just be my sh*tty eyes and inconsistent swing honestly, I know there is a degree or two difference in both ball and definitely some less spin. To me height/launch isn't a factor because I'm hitting everything very high anyways so as long as the spin is there I'm fine. 

[North Butte]

The main thing the RX will do is make a softer sound at low clubhead speeds, which is a sound most weaker swinging golfers seem to strongly prefer. It will also spin somewhat less on full swing approach shots or at least it seemed to when I tried it. It was several generations ago but at the B330-RX seemed (for my game) distinctly lacking in stopping power on mid-irons compared to B330. I doubt that has changed much since.

 

As others have noted, depending on the specific launch conditions, that lower iron shot spin may buy you a few yards or it may not. It certainly won't be more than a very few yards either way. Mostly, the "can't compress the ball" marketing bumpf is designed to capitalize on golfer preferences for impact sound, which golfers will interpret as "I am compressing this one better". It's been the core of Bridgestone's marketing strategy for well over a decade now so it must work.

 

Being used to (and preferring) firm golf balls myself, on the rare occasions I hit a few shots with a "low compression" ball it's always quite strange how it makes so little sound yet the ball flies normal distance. Subjectively, I can see how that is easily perceived as the ball performing better, even when the ball doesn't actually go any farther than a "high compression" ball of similar type. 

[twoputt]

Probably not what you want to hear, but I got to the point where I was kinda paralyzed trying to figure out the perfect ball for me.   Here's what I finally figured out - all the 'premium' balls perform well.  Differences between them do exist, but they're fairly minimal.   Pick a ball you like and stick with it.  

[North Butte]

2 minutes ago, twoputt said:

Probably not what you want to hear, but I got to the point where I was kinda paralyzed trying to figure out the perfect ball for me.   Here's what I finally figured out - all the 'premium' balls perform well.  Differences between them do exist, but they're fairly minimal.   Pick a ball you like and stick with it.  

For me it's been the same except I'd say "most 'premium balls perform well'..." rather than "all". And by "premium" I mean multipiece urethane cover balls, not premium-priced surlyn balls!

 

Playing a couple hundred rounds of golf a year and having lots of solo round time waiting behind slower groups I've done far more side-by-side comparisons than any rational golfer ought to do. There have definitely been a few standouts that do, for whatever reason, not perform so great for me. But I'm talking fewer than a handful out of probably a couple dozen different models I've tried over the last 5-10 years. And even when they don't work particularly well, it isn't like they're falling out of the sky or costing me strokes all over the place. Just that a few of them are notably shorter than usual or have a particularly annoyed habit of making well struck 8-iron shots bounce over the green into trouble once or twice a round. 

[grochol17]

10 hours ago, Jeff58 said:

In general, Bridgestone is correct and the “test websites” do not create representative conditions to adequately describe ball behavior. Sorry if this is a bit complicated.

 

The main difference between balls with the same cover material is compression. The lower the compression, the higher the launch angle and the lower the spin rate, all else being equal. The result is that lower compression balls reach their apex sooner, and higher compression balls later in their trajectory. 
 

The problem tends to be that players with slower swing speeds tend to not create adequate launch angles to reach optimal height with high compression models. As well, spin=drag. Therefore, for many, the combination of high spin and low launch overwhelms the potential ball speed advantage of high compression models. For their models, Bridgestone is basically describing this crossover point.

 

In the case of @MattM97, we likely have a situation where his launch conditions are overwhelming the BRX’s intended flight characteristics. It should never have a lower trajectory than the BX. Perhaps the BRX’s low spin combined with a low launch is producing unusual results.

 

Spin rate affects both lift and drag, so if the BX is spinning more then it will possibly fly higher than the BRX even if the BX launches lower.  The dimple pattern also plays a role in the aerodynamics, but I haven't seen Bridgestone make a big deal about the dimple pattern, so I don't know what, if anything, they do about that.  Titleist, for example, designed the dimple pattern of the AVX to fly lower than the Pro V1/1x, even though it is a much softer ball.

 

This is why many of us are saying to not go by swing speed.  Can it work out for some?  Of course some fraction of the population with a swing speed below 105 needs what the BRX offers, but at best that should be a starting point and you adjust from there.  This marketing tactic has made too many people think that there is absolutely no way an "X" type ball will work for them if they are slow swingers, which is definitely not the case (just take a look at how many LPGA players use the Pro V1X). 

[Avidswampthing66]

On 4/29/2024 at 8:52 AM, grochol17 said:

 

Spin rate affects both lift and drag, so if the BX is spinning more then it will possibly fly higher than the BRX even if the BX launches lower.  The dimple pattern also plays a role in the aerodynamics, but I haven't seen Bridgestone make a big deal about the dimple pattern, so I don't know what, if anything, they do about that.  Titleist, for example, designed the dimple pattern of the AVX to fly lower than the Pro V1/1x, even though it is a much softer ball.

 

This is why many of us are saying to not go by swing speed.  Can it work out for some?  Of course some fraction of the population with a swing speed below 105 needs what the BRX offers, but at best that should be a starting point and you adjust from there.  This marketing tactic has made too many people think that there is absolutely no way an "X" type ball will work for them if they are slow swingers, which is definitely not the case (just take a look at how many LPGA players use the Pro V1X). 

And look at just how many LPGA players are playing soft compression balls.   You would be hard pressed to find one.  Not even a Chrome Soft is in play.  The SS ball compression myth has been exposed.  

[ShowMe]

My sweet spot is a ball with around an 80 compression.  Too much higher or lower than that, I lose distance on full swing shots - 10+ yards on drives and 5 yards on irons.  I swing my driver at 104 mph and my 7 iron at 87 mph both with a very aggressive downswing transition.  Ergo, I have found that the BRX and the AVX perform best for me, both with a compression of around 80.

[fred faldo]

On 4/29/2024 at 9:26 AM, North Butte said:

The main thing the RX will do is make a softer sound at low clubhead speeds, which is a sound most weaker swinging golfers seem to strongly prefer. It will also spin somewhat less on full swing approach shots or at least it seemed to when I tried it. It was several generations ago but at the B330-RX seemed (for my game) distinctly lacking in stopping power on mid-irons compared to B330. I doubt that has changed much since.

 

As others have noted, depending on the specific launch conditions, that lower iron shot spin may buy you a few yards or it may not. It certainly won't be more than a very few yards either way. Mostly, the "can't compress the ball" marketing bumpf is designed to capitalize on golfer preferences for impact sound, which golfers will interpret as "I am compressing this one better". It's been the core of Bridgestone's marketing strategy for well over a decade now so it must work.

 

Being used to (and preferring) firm golf balls myself, on the rare occasions I hit a few shots with a "low compression" ball it's always quite strange how it makes so little sound yet the ball flies normal distance. Subjectively, I can see how that is easily perceived as the ball performing better, even when the ball doesn't actually go any farther than a "high compression" ball of similar type. 

could not agree with this post more. I am the last person who should ever play the BX ball by the fitting guides but it is the ball (along with the left dash and ZX etc.) I prefer.  I am 67 years old play senior shafts in all clubs and probably am swinging in the the low 80s. I have always prefered the sound of firm golf balls and for the most part have gotten my best results from them. Have never spun the ball into greens very much but these type balls have always sopped better for me and flew higher for me on full shots then the balls that are always reccomended for me by all manufacturs fitting guides. I was first drawn to them strictly by the sound I guess from growing up playing hard balls as a kid (Top Flite, Pinnacles come to mind) I understand the attraction to the sound but never understood the results according to the marketing the companies use. I would tell anyone who would listen to play the ball you prefer for whatever the reason is unless it's a matter of price then you can expolre other offerings. My opinion is that premium balls can be played by anyone

[jjfcpa]

On 4/30/2024 at 8:18 PM, Avidswampthing66 said:

And look at just how many LPGA players are playing soft compression balls.   You would be hard pressed to find one.  Not even a Chrome Soft is in play.  The SS ball compression myth has been exposed.  

Not sure where you got that information, but I think most of them are playing ProV1 or ProV1x.

[Avidswampthing66]

4 hours ago, jjfcpa said:

Not sure where you got that information, but I think most of them are playing ProV1 or ProV1x.

It's not an exact science haha.  But, through years of LPGA witb and general player knowledge, I have never seen or heard of an LPGA player playing a soft compression ball.  You're right, they are mostly playing ProV1 or X.

[jeepjrn]

On 5/9/2024 at 3:49 PM, fred faldo said:

could not agree with this post more. I am the last person who should ever play the BX ball by the fitting guides but it is the ball (along with the left dash and ZX etc.) I prefer.  I am 67 years old play senior shafts in all clubs and probably am swinging in the the low 80s. I have always prefered the sound of firm golf balls and for the most part have gotten my best results from them. Have never spun the ball into greens very much but these type balls have always sopped better for me and flew higher for me on full shots then the balls that are always reccomended for me by all manufacturs fitting guides. I was first drawn to them strictly by the sound I guess from growing up playing hard balls as a kid (Top Flite, Pinnacles come to mind) I understand the attraction to the sound but never understood the results according to the marketing the companies use. I would tell anyone who would listen to play the ball you prefer for whatever the reason is unless it's a matter of price then you can expolre other offerings. My opinion is that premium balls can be played by anyone

I couldn’t agree more as I’m in a similar mold. I’m 71 and my driver swing speed in the lower 80’s. However I’ve found the  balls I’m totally not recommended to be playing by marketing descriptions are truly the best for my game. I find the Tour BX, and Tour BXS are longer and fly higher than the R version siblings and I have better control with short game spin <100 yds. My advice, don’t let swing speed be the deciding factor when choosing a golf ball. 

[caniac6]

My swing speed is definitely in the RX range, but I recently played the X, and liked it. I didn’t see a whole lot of difference.

[hammergolf]

The compression/swing speed myth was busted years ago. I’m a 90mph guy with the driver. For me when I did test BX vs the RX I was 1/2 club shorter off the irons and around 10yds shorter off the longer club. However, the higher launch, lower spin the RX would give could help some players to gain distance even though it would have less ball speed. The only true way to determine what’s better for you is to test them side by side.

Edited May 18 by hammergolf

[j.a.]

I have used ProV1, ProV1x and Chrome Soft but after someone commented here about the B RX, I got a box and I haven’t stopped using it. It feels like the perfect fit to me who has a swing that will never get a speed ticket.

 

But now, I’m tempted to try the BX after reading some of the comments. Luckily there is a place near my office that sells the 2022 edition almost at 45% discount.

[Highlander 24]

10 hours ago, j.a. said:

I have used ProV1, ProV1x and Chrome Soft but after someone commented here about the B RX, I got a box and I haven’t stopped using it. It feels like the perfect fit to me who has a swing that will never get a speed ticket.

 

But now, I’m tempted to try the BX after reading some of the comments. Luckily there is a place near my office that sells the 2022 edition almost at 45% discount.

The 2022 edition is a great ball but the 2024 edition has a bit more greenside spin.

[fred faldo]

On 11/9/2024 at 7:55 AM, jeepjrn said:

I couldn’t agree more as I’m in a similar mold. I’m 71 and my driver swing speed in the lower 80’s. However I’ve found the  balls I’m totally not recommended to be playing by marketing descriptions are truly the best for my game. I find the Tour BX, and Tour BXS are longer and fly higher than the R version siblings and I have better control with short game spin <100 yds. My advice, don’t let swing speed be the deciding factor when choosing a golf ball. 

Wanted to ask you how did the distance compare for you between the BX and BXS? look foward to hearing your thoughts

[jjfcpa]

I’ve compared more than my share of golf balls and while the firmer balls do seem to travel a bit further, the trade off in “feel” is worth giving up a few yards and playing a more softer feeling ball.  I’m just not sure how much the firmness of the ball really affects your score.  If it does, I haven’t seen it, and for that reason, I’ll stick with the ball that feels the best to me.  Currently, that’s the Chrome Soft or Vice Pro Air.

[HandsomeMatt]

I'm with you at 100 mph driver. I played both off and on, RX is longer off irons and wedges and a bit shorter off driver for me, BX launches much lower but seems to have more ball speed , runs out more. I will say  the newer gen BX  dont feel as firm as they used to. I dont play either regularly though, the covers get detroyed easily.

[ShowMe]

On 11/9/2024 at 12:46 PM, hammergolf said:

The compression/swing speed myth was busted years ago. I’m a 90mph guy with the driver. For me when I did test BX vs the RX I was 1/2 club shooter off the irons and around 10yds shorter off the longer club. However, the higher launch, lower spin the RX would give could help some players to gain distance even though it would have less ball speed. The only true way to determine what’s better for you is to test them side by side.

I had the exact opposite experience.  I swing at 104mph.  The BX is 10 yards shorter off the tee and 5 yards shorter with full swing irons than the BRX for me.  Go figure.

[hammergolf]

2 hours ago, ShowMe said:

I had the exact opposite experience.  I swing at 104mph.  The BX is 10 yards shorter off the tee and 5 yards shorter with full swing irons than the BRX for me.  Go figure.

I’ve seen that with a few guys who are higher speed/high spin guys since the RX tends to launch higher and spin less. 

[chippa13]

Interesting, I've always found the RX to launch and fly lower than the BX.

[Highlander 24]

I play the RX in the spring and fall and the BX in the summer. I like the softer ball in the cooler weather. 

[buckI]

I used to play the B330S which was amazing.   Did not care for the first couple iterations after that.   100 mph but some guys can benefit from spin and recently played a BXS and really liked it.   Tried BX earlier and did not care for it.   The BXS was out there with my usual Pro V1X ball and great green side spin.

[Retrop1]

Just found this post and I have recently been down a rabbit hole and done A LOT of research into it. Coming off the Prov1x not spinning enough I tried the BXS and BX. I am slightly under 105 and I can tell you they are both better for me than the Titleist. I could play either one honestly, but like the feel/sound of the BXS better. I believe that initial launch is one thing, and down range aerodynamics is another. You can get really nice numbers in a lab, but how it flies on the course is more important. Just buy a sleeve of each and go grab an afternoon solo 9 and try them out. You will know which one is right.

Edited April 20 by Retrop1

[Forged5]

Great thread!

Going through this as I'm at the age that Ive lost swing speed. Turning 65.

Still single handicap (5), just had to move up a tee box, but Im a low spin player. 

Played the older Tour BRXS. Now play the BRX. It's great in the wind, longer, or perceived to be longer, by as much as a full club off the driver. Wedges. pitches, chips putting are all fine.

 

Where I'm losing is spin/green control on 7 irons and hybrid. 

Would love higher launch and more spin. Thinking of trying a sleeve of...

 

New B RXS

B XS

Callaway Tour X

 

Any input is greatly appreciated!

FORE!

[hammergolf]

1 hour ago, Forged5 said:

Great thread!

Going through this as I'm at the age that Ive lost swing speed. Turning 65.

Still single handicap (5), just had to move up a tee box, but Im a low spin player. 

Played the older Tour BRXS. Now play the BRX. It's great in the wind, longer, or perceived to be longer, by as much as a full club off the driver. Wedges. pitches, chips putting are all fine.

 

Where I'm losing is spin/green control on 7 irons and hybrid. 

Would love higher launch and more spin. Thinking of trying a sleeve of...

 

New B RXS

B XS

Callaway Tour X

 

Any input is greatly appreciated!

FORE!

I have a very similar game and golf ball needs as you. Here are three best golf balls I’ve found that give me my best distance, wind performance, peak height, more iron spin, and high spin inside 50yds and around the green:

 

Tour BX   Just a GREAT all around ball that flat out performs in every category. It goes as far as anything I’ve tried, has a nice higher trajectory, and spins great off the irons and around the greens. The best wind ball I’ve ever played. This is my gamer and what I’ve played for the last 3 years.

Callaway CT X   Another GREAT all around ball. A touch shorter off the tee (5-7yds) off the tee vs Tour BX, however even better off the irons. More peak height, more spin, and spins a ton around the greens. 

 

Mizuno Pro X   This ball is a sleeper and may end up being my gamer. It basically performs the same as the Tour BX but has a softer feel. 

Edited June 1 by hammergolf