Got a Proactive Plum in March 2004, drilled for medium oil conditions. At that time I used to play at about 17,5 mph with low rev, right-handed. In the meantime I sold the ball, because I was disappointed with its overall performance - especially for the money I paid.
I am very ambiguous about this ball, it used to be my first fingertip ball. It seems very oil-sensitive to me, especially on longer patterns and broken-down lane conditions. I am regularly playing on synthetic lanes, one with a high-standard competition pattern and the other with "doctored" oil patterns for high scores. On both the Proactive Plum is a bit unpredictable, as it either hooks only slightly (though in an even arc) or wanders over half the lane, hitting the Brooklyn pocket. Well, the ball's impact in the pins is very good, though, so it makes up for this inaccuracy. But it is not satisfying and not a ball reaction I'd call "predictable" and "assuring".
I suppose that Brunswick's low load particle shell does not match up well with the high RG layout of the Power Groove series, at least with the polished Plum Pearl. It is almost impossible for me to create an angular hook with it. It slides in oil, missing its breakpoint and building no considerable grip. The Proactive Plum needs LOTS of revs to hook on oil at all, it is not a stroker ball. On a fresh 40' pattern it is almost like playing a simple polyester ball!
Now, would I recommend this ball? No.
I can, after long trials, only give it 4 or 5 out of 10, at best. To me it seems as if "Big B" searched through the darker parts of their labs and found some leftover ball components, put them together and sold them.
Originally, the coverstock (DTX-1) comes from the Navy Quantum - a ball with a medium RG and the Quantum mushroom core, suited for medium to dry conditions. I guess that this ball was pretty good for the job.
But instead of the Power Groove design, this coverstock should have better ended up with a Monster doorknob core, or even the modified mushroom core featured in the Bruiser/SlayR. I think that this would have made a MUCH better performing ball, and a valuable addition to the Monster line which ever missed a mild particle pearl ball. Why not, WHY?
I can not figure out who could seriously need this ball? Well, it is relatively cheap (or: "reasonably priced"), but VERY limited in its versatility. For a GOOD particle ball, invest a little more money into a low RG core ball with an influential core for stronger midlane roll. If you are looking for a good Brunswick rookie ball, take a Groove Reactive. It is cheaper and creates, on similar lane conditions, more hook for the money. The particle in the Plum Pearl is no benefit. If you are playing on medium oil or more, take the sanded Proactive Black Sparkle, but even then I think that a low RG ball would be a better choice.
Edited on 26.09.2011 at 7:46 AM
