Two PGA Wins in Three Weeks: What the Bridgestone TOUR B X Actually Tells Us About Modern Ball Technology
Chris Gotterup’s back-to-back wins with the new Bridgestone TOUR B X has the golf world buzzing, and I get why. Two victories with a ball that literally didn’t exist in retail form a month prior is exactly the kind of equipment story that makes headlines. But after spending the last decade testing balls on launch monitors and fitting hundreds of golfers, I’ve learned to separate genuine technological breakthroughs from perfectly-timed marketing momentum. The TOUR B X story is actually worth your attention—though maybe not for the reasons you think.
The Real Innovation: MOI and Spin-Axis Stability
Let’s start with what’s actually new here. Bridgestone’s VeloSurge redesign—the core and mantle integration at the heart of the updated TOUR B lineup—represents a meaningful engineering shift, not a marginal tweak.
“The denser mantle shifts mass outward which increases the ball’s moment of inertia. With a golf ball, higher MOI is less about mishits and more about spin-axis stability. In practical terms, that means less curvature when impact conditions are not ideal.”
This is the detail that separates actual performance from hype. Most golfers think MOI only matters for club heads, but in a golf ball, increased moment of inertia directly impacts spin-axis tilt at impact. I’ve watched this play out on TrackMan and GC Quad hundreds of times: when impact conditions are off-center or the club face isn’t perfectly square, balls with higher MOI maintain a more stable spin axis. Translation: tighter dispersion, especially for mid to high swing speed players.
For someone like Gotterup—swinging at 95+ mph—this matters. A lot. The difference between a ball that holds its spin axis under stress versus one that doesn’t becomes statistically significant over 72 holes.
The Speed Claims: Believable, But Context-Dependent
Bridgestone reported that Gotterup saw 2+ mph ball speed gains and roughly seven yards compared to the previous generation TOUR B. Here’s where I need to be direct: that’s real, but it’s also best-case-scenario data.
I’ve tested enough balls to know that speed gains are almost always dependent on three things: swing speed, angle of attack, and dynamic loft. A player like Gotterup, with a repeatable swing and optimal strike patterns, will absolutely see those gains. A 12-handicapper? Probably not. That’s not a knock on the ball—it’s just physics. If you’re not swinging hard enough or striking it consistently, the ball’s optimizations won’t reveal themselves in your data.
“(Any gains will always be player dependent.)”
Credit to the source material for that disclaimer. Too many manufacturers bury the fine print. This one’s right there.
The Four-Year Development Cycle: What It Actually Means
The VS Proto Project evaluated over 240 prototype variations before landing on four retail models. That’s not marketing theater—that’s legitimate R&D. I’ve been inside enough fitting centers and testing facilities to know what serious ball development looks like, and Bridgestone’s process here is credible.
Four years and 240+ variations tells me they weren’t chasing one-tenth of a yard on marketing claims. They were systematically testing variables: core compression, mantle thickness, cover material, dimple patterns—the whole matrix. When a manufacturer goes through that level of rigor, the resulting product usually has some meat on the bone.
The MindSet Factor: Where Psychology Meets Performance
One thing that jumped out at me was the MindSet visual system. Gotterup played a MindSet version of the TOUR B X that doesn’t change the ball’s construction—just how it looks.
“MindSet does not change the ball’s construction but it has gained real traction on the PGA Tour and with amateur players.”
Here’s where I’ll push back slightly on the narrative. Yes, visual alignment aids work. I’ve seen their impact in fitting sessions—better aim, better setup, more consistent strikes. But let’s be honest: two wins with a cosmetic feature isn’t evidence that the visual pattern itself creates better golf. Gotterup won because he’s an elite ball-striker playing a legitimately improved golf ball, and he had confidence in his setup. The MindSet probably helped with the latter, but it’s not the performance driver.
Who Should Actually Buy This?
After testing hundreds of balls and fitting players across every handicap range, here’s my practical take: the TOUR B X makes sense if you’re a mid to high swing speed player (85+ mph) who prioritizes consistency and doesn’t mind paying for premium construction. If you’re shooting in the 85-95 range and swinging at 80 mph, you’ll get better results focusing on fitting and swing fundamentals than ball technology.
For serious golfers—scratch to 5-handicap players—the performance story here is real. The MOI improvements and spin-axis stability data suggest meaningful gains in dispersion tightness, which compounds over 18 holes.
Bridgestone’s engineering here is legitimate. Two tour wins in three weeks is flashy marketing, sure, but the technology behind it isn’t smoke. I’ll be running comprehensive launch monitor testing across the full TOUR B lineup this year, and I’m genuinely curious to see how the MOI improvements translate across different swing speeds and impact conditions. If the data backs up the claims—and I suspect it will, at least for the intended audience—this becomes one of the more honest equipment releases we’ve seen in a while.
