After many years of trustworthy service on light conditions my black Pure Hammer has recently passed away and leaves a painful gap in my arsenal. I have already tried several balls before as an alternative, but they all turned out to be much too aggressive for my style (PAP 45" over, 7/8", slow speed at ~15 mph, lower revs). More about the specific ball and its setup  in my review from 2006: https://www.ballreviews.com/hammer-138/pure-hammer/msg514123/#msg514123

I have been working with my trusted ball driller and he suggested a Raw Solid Black, which - on the paper - sounds like a very good option to me. However, any opinions esp. how the coverstocks might compare, and how ell the black Raw copes with lighter/worn conditions? The Pure Hammer had a rather special urethane/reactive resin shell with a very smooth reaction to dry boards, yet with more overall power than a pure urethane piece.

Thanks a lot in advance.

Quote from: dizzyfugu on January 28, 2022, 04:02:13 AM

After many years of trustworthy service on light conditions my black Pure Hammer has recently passed away and leaves a painful gap in my arsenal. I have already tried several balls before as an alternative, but they all turned out to be much too aggressive for my style (PAP 45" over, 7/8", slow speed at ~15 mph, lower revs). More about the specific ball and its setup  in my review from 2006: https://www.ballreviews.com/hammer-138/pure-hammer/msg514123/#msg514123

I have been working with my trusted ball driller and he suggested a Raw Solid Black, which - on the paper - sounds like a very good option to me. However, any opinions esp. how the coverstocks might compare, and how ell the black Raw copes with lighter/worn conditions? The Pure Hammer had a rather special urethane/reactive resin shell with a very smooth reaction to dry boards, yet with more overall power than a pure urethane piece.

Thanks a lot in advance.

Doing some research, I found that the RG and diff numbers of the Pure Hammer were 2.50 and .034 (found on 123bowl.com).  The diff on the Raw Hammer Solid is virtually the same at .033 but the RG is slightly higher at 2.54 which would be good since the cover would obviously be a little stronger.  Unless you went with a new urethane like a Double Cross, which might be an option with your slower ball speed, the Raw Hammer Solid may be a closest choice to replace your Pure Hammer.  Plus, the Raw Hammer will take to surface changes very easily if the need calls for it.

If he could find it, would the re-release of the Burgundy be another good option? I'm just spitballing here because of how the Burgundy was supposed to not-be-urethane-but-act-like-urethane..

Outside of that, I'd also recommend the Raw Hammer Solid. It's smooth, very predictable, and works amazing for slower ball speeds. I moved my son up to that from his Destiny Hybrid, and the results were instant (given that this is his first ball with cover and core). I'd say that it would be a good solid (no pun intended) replacement.

BL.

Thanks a lot for your opinions, highly appreciated. The old black Pure Hammer was and is hard to replace; I made several attempts over the years, all more or less failed or turned out to be quite different from what I was expecting.

I currently have a Lord Field Burning Up* "below" it, a urethane ball with a stronger true core which just struggles on longer oil and carrydown. A really good ball, but it has its limitations.
"Above" there's currently a Radical Intel Pearl* and a Brunswick Fanatic BTU* (yes, I already tried that one as a potential successor  ), but both turned out to be MUCH more aggressive/strong than I expected from advertising and their specs!
The Intel Pearl has a VERY aggressive cover and reacts almost violently when it hits dry boards - when things dry up or on short patterns I rather fight to get it into the pocket with force than play "my natural game". That's fine in training as a challenge, but nothing you want during league and in a team.
The Fanatic BTU is similar strong (for me), it just works differently: While it reads the lane steadily and with a rather smooth reaction to friction, it does so VERY early and thoroughly. If there's still the image of Brunswick balls being "rolling early", the Fanatic BTU exemplifies this!
In the end, both balls cover too many boards too early, on conditions where the black Pure Hammer would still have good length and an arcing hook for me with good response to release changes (*sigh*). I guess the "window" I am trying to fill is quite narrow/special - but it's a vital one for me.

However, your statements confirm so far that the Hammer Raw Black Solid appears as a sound basis for the next replacement attempt, esp. when you say that it reacts well to surface tuning. I'll give it a try - even more so because there are currently very few other options on the market. Thanks a lot so far. 

*For details, you might look up their reviews somewhere here in the archives.

Hard to tell. I am not certain if I actually would take one again, because the ball would be more than 15 years old now and the status of its material would be uncertain (I'd expect the softener to have evaporated, so that the ball might be prone to cracking).
I'd also expect a reaction disappointment, because it will certainly not roll and behave like the "old trusted one". If it was a freshly produced one, NiB and with decent specs, I'd pay up to EUR 150, (something of the normal retail price), but that's only theoretical; due to the age, it's not a serious option for me anymore. And sometimes you just have to go on.