Bridgestone B330-RX - a revelation!

[misty_mountainhop]

I know there have been some threads a while back on these balls but, hey, we're a bit behind in getting them in the U.K.

Our Pro had some in stock today so I thought I'd try them out. What a fantastic ball; bit expensive but I think I've found my ball for the foreseeable future.

I have no idea on my SS (over 105 I suspect) with the driver but I average about 270-280ish (carry + roll).

The RX was long (similar to other premium balls) and certainly as long as anything I've hit recently. Trajectory was ideal for me; a bit lower than the E5+.

Great feel off the driver and irons and wonderful around the greens. Some people may find it a bit soft when chipping and off the putter but I found it pretty much perfect. Putting with the RX was especially good; I have a milled metal faced putter so some may find it a bit soft with inserts.

Where it really made a difference for me is with irons. It was definitely longer for me off the irons than the other premium balls to the extent that I was a 1/2 club less on many shots today. Not sure why this might be but I guess it could be to do with the lower compression core and being optimised for a lower SS. Whatever the reasons, it's the business.

Spin was very good and up there with other premium balls. Bit less than ProV1 on shorter shots but I sometimes find the V1 a bit much. Certainly enough I would think for the Summer on full approach shots.

The cover seems to be very shear-resistant. Struck a lot of short irons very well today and it stood up better than anything I've tried in the recent past. A few groove marks faintly visible but no shredding. I particularly like this as at ~$45/doz (~£32) they aren't cheap so it's nice to use the same ball for 2/3 rounds for a change.

I can't see this displacing the V1 (if only because the RX doesn't have the kudos of the V1) but I'm sure many amateur V1 users might find this a very good match. If Bridgestone drop the price $5-$10/doz then Titleist may find themselves with a real competitor for the Amateur $/£ for a change.

Anyway, had to post something as I found the RX such a fantastic ball for my game. Roll on Summer!

[nike_golf]

I have been a Bridgestone golf ball fan for some time now.....

I have hit the B330 and B330S and liked them both but never the RX....

I hit the E6 most of the time but when I play tourney's in the summer for money and all of that good stuff I go w/ the B330S.....

I find it soft, great around the green, and actually long off the tee........

The perfect ball.......

but maybe I'll have to give the RX a spin.....

[Dub]

Always great to hear about someone finding the right fit for them.

It makes a huge difference especially in your confidence.

Good luck with the RX.

[iacas]

I have no idea on my SS (over 105 I suspect) with the driver but I average about 270-280ish (carry + roll).

If your swing speed is over 105 MPH, then the RX isn't really built for you - you swing fast enough to hit the B-330 or B-330s.

That's not to say it isn't going to work, but the -RX is generally built for slower swingers, and 105 MPH isn't a "slower swing."

[misty_mountainhop]

If your swing speed is over 105 MPH, then the RX isn't really built for you - you swing fast enough to hit the B-330 or B-330s.

According to Bridgestone the RX is for driver SS of up to 105. I've tried the B330 and B330s and, although I like them both, I don't find either of them as good a fit for me as the RX seems to be.

Just because 105+ isn't supposed to fit the RX, doesn't mean in reality it isn't a good match. The main thing I noticed with the RX was how it married up with my irons; driver was good although not awesome but irons were exceptional for me. I'm guessing that the lower iron speeds are still giving me excellent compression and therefore distance. It's not just a distance thing though; feel, spin, distance all combine to make this a very good package for me.

[flopdarock]

i love bridgestones... they make quality balls

[iacas]

I'm guessing that the lower iron speeds are still giving me excellent compression and therefore distance.

A firmer ball will always go farther. You can't switch to a softer ball and get MORE distance. The only way you could get more yardage from a softer ball is if the lower launch angle and/or added spin gave you more distance. You won't get it through added ball speed - that'll always be lower with a softer ball.

All that said, again, I get that you like it, and congratulations on finding a ball you like.

[thr33]

I swing right around that range and when I got fitted for a ball by Bridgestone, they paired me with the B330S and not the RX as I thought they would. i haven't tried the ball yet, but I'm excited to try it out when the weather permits. Congratulations on finding a ball you like!

[misty_mountainhop]

A firmer ball will always go farther. You can't switch to a softer ball and get MORE distance. The only way you could get more yardage from a softer ball is if the lower launch angle and/or added spin gave you more distance. You won't get it through added ball speed - that'll always be lower with a softer ball.

Are you suggesting that the information from all the manufacturers is, somehow, wrong? I know they're trying to market their products but I'm not sure I believe they're that underhand.

If you hit several balls, identical in all respects except compression, with exactly the same swing (lets imagine Iron Byron), some are going to be too soft and some are going to be too hard to optimise distance. If a ball has too hard a compression for your swing (i.e. lower core elasticity) then it is going to leave the club with less velocity than one that's about right. This was certainly the case with the old 80/90/100 compression wound balls and I don't imagine it has changed much now. Whatever the reasons though, I think I'll be staying with the RX for a while.

[flap]

Santa bought me 2 dozen for Christmas but due to weather have not gotten to try them yet.Hopefully Tuesday or Wednesday and now i can not wait.Good report and Thanks for sharing your good fortune.

[iacas]

Are you suggesting that the information from all the manufacturers is, somehow, wrong?

No. I'm suggesting that your understanding of what they're saying to you is wrong.

If a ball has too hard a compression for your swing (i.e. lower core elasticity) then it is going to leave the club with less velocity than one that's about right.

That would be incorrect. A firmer ball* will leave the clubface faster than a softer ball. Any energy spent "smooshing" the golf ball is energy lost. Softer balls compress more, and thus, lose more energy.

Same's true of bouncing a basketball. Get a really firm one. It'll bounce to (let's say) 80% of the height from which you drop it. One with less air will go to 70%. One with even less to 60%. Here's where a softer ball can be more "optimal" for you: if a ball gets so hard you can't put enough backspin on it to lift it enough (and thus to keep it airborne), it may travel shorter overall (but the ball speed off the clubface will still be higher). Heck, you could make a golf ball like a pool ball and it'd leave the club with even more speed, but it'd fall out of the sky because it had a chance to go anywhere due to the lack of spin. * Excluding range balls, because those aren't made to be played and often have wholly different aerodynamics and cores made to dissipate energy on purpose rather than conserve it and translate it into ball speed.

[misty_mountainhop]

No. I'm suggesting that your understanding of what they're saying to you is wrong.

Hmm. Sure I've heard Titleist, for example, talk about the relative requirements to get the most out of the ProV1 v.s. the ProV1x. Other ball manufacturers are much the same. Still, I'm getting older so it may be you're right

.

That would be incorrect. A firmer ball* will leave the clubface faster than a softer ball. Any energy spent "smooshing" the golf ball is energy lost. Softer balls compress more, and thus, lose more energy.

But surely the elasticity of the object must be important as well? If I drop a ball bearing with what must be a compression of pretty much infinity (on a golf ball scale) it isn't going to bounce much is it? If you could make a ball bearing with dimples etc etc the same as a golf ball, it isn't going to come off a club head as fast as a ProV1. Is it? Wish I could remember more physics!

Anyway, I'm still going with the 330-RX .

[iacas]

Hmm. Sure I've heard Titleist, for example, talk about the relative requirements to get the most out of the ProV1 v.s. the ProV1x.

Equal parts a misconception and a spin issue. You need to listen to

Episode 106 .

But surely the elasticity of the object must be important as well? If I drop a ball bearing with what must be a compression of pretty much infinity (on a golf ball scale) it isn't going to bounce much is it?

Have you ever dropped ball bearings on a really firm surface? They bounce quite a bit... All golf balls compress, though, so let's limit the discussion to reality. Still, I'm tempted to think that a golf ball that didn't deform at all might have a higher ball speed...

Anyway, soft balls are less elastic. They have less resistance to becoming mis-shapen and thus less "urge" to get back to round.

[gobluemich]

A firmer ball will always go farther. You can't switch to a softer ball and get MORE distance. The only way you could get more yardage from a softer ball is if the lower launch angle and/or added spin gave you more distance. You won't get it through added ball speed - that'll always be lower with a softer ball.

A firmer ball will only go further to a certain point and then you wont be able to compress the ball enough and the lack of compression will affect the amount of time the ball stays on the face of the club and will then in turn affect the amount of energy transferred from the club to the ball. Too hard of ball will decrease distance just like too soft of ball will decrease distance.

You need the ball to be in contact with the face of the club to transfer energy and compressing the ball allows for more time which will allow for more energy transfer. Up until a certain point when the ball has deformed to much and has used to much energy deforming. But I'm not saying any ball made is too hard. I don't know if they make balls that are actually to hard where they don't compress enough. Or what the swing speed would have to get down too where a softer ball would go further. In the sports science episode here when they did the cold vs. warm balls the warm ball which would be softer went farther then the cold, harder ball. It starts around 4:00.

[iacas]

A firmer ball will only go further to a certain point and then you wont be able to compress the ball enough and the lack of compression will affect the amount of time the ball stays on the face of the club and will then in turn affect the amount of energy transferred from the club to the ball.

That's not true for a reasonable range of swing speeds. This guy's talking about a swing that's around 105 MPH.

Or what the swing speed would have to get down too where a softer ball would go further.

I don't think you can reach such a point in a vacuum. Again, spin starts to matter once you drop below a certain point (90 MPH with a driver, perhaps? - I don't know).

In the sports science episode here when they did the cold vs. warm balls the warm ball which would be softer went farther then the cold, harder ball.

That's measuring something else entirely. It's not a pure firmness/softness thing.

[walfice]

Can I clear something up here. Am I right in making a generalization that balls designed for distance (ie srixon ad333) have a lower (softer) compression and firmer cover, and premium balls (ie pro v1) have a higher (harder) compression and softer cover?

[gobluemich]

I don't think you can reach such a point in a vacuum. Again, spin starts to matter once you drop below a certain point (90 MPH with a driver, perhaps? - I don't know).

I have no clue where it would make a difference and actually how hard the ball would have to be. When there talking a soft and hard ball there really isn't that much difference between to two. It's not like you can squeeze the soft ball in your hands. And then it's not like a hard ball is a solid piece of steel. That's why you can hit almost any ball hard or soft and they will go pretty close to the same distance. It's not like one is 10% farther than another even if one is the hardest and the other is the softest.

And at 105 I don't think any ball made would be to hard. Maybe at 50

[iacas]

Am I right in making a generalization that balls designed for distance (ie srixon ad333) have a lower (softer) compression and firmer cover, and premium balls (ie pro v1) have a higher (harder) compression and softer cover?

Not necessarily. Generally that's true but it's more due to the materials used. Surlyn and so on are still used for some of the mid-level balls while urethane (softer than surlyn) is used on some of the more premium balls.

The differences in the core aren't often as different as you might think, from what I understand. The NXT Tour, for example, is almost a premium ball except for the cover, which is a little firmer and thus more durable.

It's not like you can squeeze the soft ball in your hands.

No, but there is a difference, and it's noticeable off of just about every club if you play a fair amount.

That's why you can hit almost any ball hard or soft and they will go pretty close to the same distance. It's not like one is 10% farther than another even if one is the hardest and the other is the softest.

No, but it's generally 2-6% IIRC. 2% isn't much, but 6% is 16+ yards off a 275-yard drive.