Author Topic: Ravage replacement? (Read 1497 times)

charlest · « **on:** April 25, 2006, 05:16:10 AM »

So, in MoRich's philosophy, which of the current balls can most easily be made to replicate the overall performance (oil handling, ball reaction, etc) of the late lamented Ravage?

(I was one of the most surprised at their discontinuing of this beauty. It is still going for absolutely outrageous prices on Ebay, both used and new. With the wonderful PK18 coverstock and his core, it had to be one of the most easily manipulated ball, in both drilling and coverstock, ever made. In fact, I'd say it out-DangerZoned the Danger Zone.)

--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Jeffrevs · « **Reply #1 on:** April 25, 2006, 01:32:52 PM »

Jeff,
because of the potential flippiness of the Ravage, I'd have to lean towards the Flip w/ the upper puck on the V core.

Probably a great ? for KOTM too....but that would be my guess
--------------------
JEFF
Now THIS is funny!
http://www.blackjelly.com/Mag3/gallery/fents.htm

charlest · « **Reply #2 on:** April 25, 2006, 03:09:04 PM »

quote:
Jeff,
because of the potential flippiness of the Ravage, I'd have to lean towards the Flip w/ the upper puck on the V core.

Probably a great ? for KOTM too....but that would be my guess
--------------------
JEFF

Because of the Activator-type cover and the Vanguard-type core on the Flip, I guess I'd have a lot of reservations about that. (Activator-type coverstocks act more like particle pearls than like resins, in my view. Granted that they can be modified quite a bit, but that tendency remains.)
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

BallsDeep · « **Reply #3 on:** April 25, 2006, 04:15:42 PM »

I'd actually say the TS&A. The AF for me is alot cleaner and tends to have more of a length/strong midlane/strong arc reaction. The ravage on the other hand I always thought of as a ball that would float throught the oil and then have a more pronounced breakpoint. The TS&A would definatly need the right surface prep and drilling but I could see them being very similar.
--------------------
four fried chickens and a coke[/size=4]

Jeffrevs · « **Reply #4 on:** April 26, 2006, 08:20:21 AM »

quote:

Because of the Activator-type cover and the Vanguard-type core on the Flip, I guess I'd have a lot of reservations about that. (Activator-type coverstocks act more like particle pearls than like resins, in my view. Granted that they can be modified quite a bit, but that tendency remains.)
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

So, you don't think a highly polished resin (ravage) won't act like a 'fairly' strong particle pearl like (act+)Flip ? I guess I don't see someone seeing a ton of difference between them.

I can't say I have much if any experience w/ PK....but as I said originally, the Ravage came highly polished and had a lot of flip potential...so my first guess was the Flip.

The TS&A "may" be a possibility with the same OOB sufrace adjustment as a ravage. However,....not a ton of flippines potential w/ the TSA w/ the puck on the bottom of the Vanguard core.
--------------------
JEFF
Now THIS is funny!
http://www.blackjelly.com/Mag3/gallery/fents.htm

BallsDeep · « **Reply #5 on:** April 26, 2006, 02:26:34 PM »

quote:

The TS&A "may" be a possibility with the same OOB sufrace adjustment as a ravage. However,....not a ton of flippines potential w/ the TSA w/ the puck on the bottom of the Vanguard core.

I'd have to disagree with you somewhat here. The TS&A for me was certainly very angularat the breakpoint. The only differences I saw @ the same finish were the fact that the TS&A was still 4-6 boards stronger, and it was slightly earlier. Although the Top flip cap vanguard is flippier than the bottom that does not mean that the bottom flip cap was even. The two balls with the bottom cap, TS&A and S&A were both quite angular for me.

Charlest did bring to light a gap in the current line stuff. There are balls that can give a somewhat close look to the Ravage, but there is a sizeable gap there.

--------------------
four fried chickens and a coke[/size=4]

Edited on 4/26/2006 5:25 PM

Edited on 4/26/2006 5:25 PM

charlest · « **Reply #6 on:** April 26, 2006, 02:57:31 PM »

quote:
quote:

Because of the Activator-type cover and the Vanguard-type core on the Flip, I guess I'd have a lot of reservations about that. (Activator-type coverstocks act more like particle pearls than like resins, in my view. Granted that they can be modified quite a bit, but that tendency remains.)
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

So, you don't think a highly polished resin (ravage) won't act like a 'fairly' strong particle pearl like (act+)Flip ? I guess I don't see someone seeing a ton of difference between them.

I can't say I have much if any experience w/ PK....but as I said originally, the Ravage came highly polished and had a lot of flip potential...so my first guess was the Flip.

The TS&A "may" be a possibility with the same OOB sufrace adjustment as a ravage. However,....not a ton of flippines potential w/ the TSA w/ the puck on the bottom of the Vanguard core.
--------------------
JEFF

Jeff.

It's not just the cover (as I see a major difference between Activator and PK18 covers), but it's also that wonderful/dreaded Vanguard core.

--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

charlest · « **Reply #7 on:** April 26, 2006, 03:00:22 PM »

Balls Deep,

I'm inclined towards the TS&A because of the coverstock, but then there's that Vanguard core again.

KOTM,

The Ravage just seems/seemed so much more easily flippable than balls with the Vanguard core, modified or not. Is the FLip the closest to the Ravage or is some other ball closer. (FYI this is all theoretical.)
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

BackToBasics · « **Reply #8 on:** April 26, 2006, 03:26:43 PM »

charlest...not sure if this will help nor am I sure what reaction type you desire but the Flip is aptly named

. I was thinking about purchasing one and I tried 3 different ones with various pin and MB placements (including a 25* layout). The change in direction in that ball is one of the strongest I've seen. I'm not sure what cover base is on it but it doesn't have that Activator type look nor that roll/flip look. Not much read from the 3 I threw and just sideways when it hits friction. I've aslo seen quite a few in my area and they all have the same look.

Hope that helps..

charlest · « **Reply #9 on:** April 26, 2006, 03:57:04 PM »

Thanks, Anthony.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

42swaff · « **Reply #10 on:** April 26, 2006, 04:54:34 PM »

just a note to add, to this, seems to me the flp would be similar with the right surface prep, but the sahara out of box to me was very similar, to the ravage but carried better for me ,

BowlinStr8t · « **Reply #11 on:** April 28, 2006, 10:37:31 PM »

I'd have to say go with the Sahara. You can abralon the Sahara to 2000 grit and get a similar reaction to the Ravage IMO. Personally, I think the Flip would have more reaction on the back.
--------------------
My ball won't hook--Oops, it was my spare ball....

Author Topic: Ravage replacement? (Read 1497 times)

charlest

Ravage replacement?

Jeffrevs

Re: Ravage replacement?

charlest

Re: Ravage replacement?

BallsDeep

Re: Ravage replacement?

Jeffrevs

Re: Ravage replacement?

BallsDeep

Re: Ravage replacement?

charlest

Re: Ravage replacement?

charlest

Re: Ravage replacement?

BackToBasics

Re: Ravage replacement?

charlest

Re: Ravage replacement?

42swaff

Re: Ravage replacement?

BowlinStr8t

Re: Ravage replacement?