ABS president/cutting finals

2knife

2knife

Joined
Mar 13, 2002
Messages
2,125
At Blade, I had the opportunity of a friendly discussion with three well known Mastersmiths about the cutting finals and knives, the conversation took many directions and someone brought up the ABS. I found it interesting that it wasn't common knowledge (even among these Mastersmiths) how the ABS chooses its President.. Also, one of them said "I'd like to know where all the money goes.. who decides how it's spent?" Then when I asked one of them, shouldn't it be his business to know since he's a Mastersmith and a member of the ABS? He said, (paraphrasing) "... well, you join their club, you play by their rules."

I also asked this group of three, all who competed in the World Finals (either this year or years past), if they were to all SWITCH blades would the results be the same. They all agreed that up to 90 % of it was skill. If the blades were switched they were confident it would still turn out the same. I found that interesting, since it seems like it would be an equal test of the performance quality of the knife...
David
 
2knife said:
I also asked this group of three, all who competed in the World Finals (either this year or years past), if they were to all SWITCH blades would the results be the same. They all agreed that up to 90 % of it was skill. If the blades were switched they were confident it would still turn out the same. I found that interesting, since it seems like it would be an equal test of the performance quality of the knife...David
Click to expand...

Thanks a million for sharing that, David. I've often wondered about that very scenario myself. Interesting to get a take on that from the event competitors themselves.

I've also wondered if any thought has been given to a secondary finals competition in which each of the five finalists does all of the same competitions with each of the other four finalists' blades. (No one would use his own blade in this competition.) Each blade's four scores would then be added up to determine its rank against the others. But from the reaction of your three Mastersmith's, the knives themselves apparently are so evenly matched that the outcome still probably wouldn't tell us much.

Seems that as a real test of blades, ABS cutting competitions have a ways to go.

Thanks again,
Will
 
I had always gathered that it was a competition of skills myself. Up to a certain point a blade helps. But put me behind Reggie's winning blades and him behind the worst production knife I have and Reggie'd still beat me by several light years.
 
WILL YORK said:
....
Seems that as a real test of blades, ABS cutting competitions have a ways to go....
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow your path to that conclusion Will. The blades most definitely are tested. Remember - one rolled or chipped edge and the maker is disqualified. It stands to reason, however, that by virtue of consistent performance throughout the year, the makers who made the finals have shown that they can make a knife that will perform. I would expect the blades to be closely matched.

There can be no doubt that technique is a huge factor - one of the competitors told me he would put it at 70-80% - but that is hardly surprising to me and doesn't take away from the test of the knives.

Put another way - what tests do you envision that would better test the cutting ability and durability of the knives than the ones employed by the ABS?

Roger
 
Hi, Roger. You raise some very good points.

Your comments suggest that you do not feel there is any measurable difference in performance potential between the top knives tested in an ABS competition, and maybe you’re right. I have no way of knowing. But obviously, current ABS cutting tests don’t rank blades nearly as effectively as they rank human skill. When a maker is crowned the winner of such an ABS competition, I think most people assume it’s because that maker is making the best knife—as David suggests in his opener to this thread. That was my assumption over the first few such titles I read about. And for me, as for David, it was quite a surprise to learn that’s not necessarily true.

After all, the contestants in an ABS cutting contest are not professional martial artists—they’re knife makers. Do we really think there are no participants who could be found—martial arts professionals who have honed their skills with weapons for decades, for example--who couldn’t exceed the blade-handling talent of our knifemaker contestants? Why are we even measuring such skills, when what we really want to know is who makes the best knife?

Don't get me wrong--I think ABS cutting competitions are a lot of fun, and maybe that's reason enough to hold them. But what do they actually measure? If the ABS is trying to stage a competition to demonstrate who’s the best knife handler/chopper/slasher, who has the best hand speed, or the most arm strength, then maybe they have the best tests possible. If the ABS wants to put the strongest and most geometrically efficient blades in the country through a battery of tests that will show some separation between those blades in terms of performance, then they’re obviously not getting the job done.

I’m not a knife maker, not an engineer, and not a physical scientist, but obviously the ABS has resources from all of these fields at its fingertips. Surely there are aspects of heat-treated steel, geometry, and other aspects of construction that can be measured to arrive at some separation among any five blades hand-forged by human beings. I don’t know how to design those tests, but I’d have to assume such tests can be devised. Of course, they may not be as much fun as the cutting competitions we have today, or as good for the ABS in terms of generating excitement. And some tests may be extreme enough, such as testing to destruction, that they would be outside the “everyday” scope of use for the knives involved. For some that might mean such tests would be of limited value in terms of testing “real-world” applications. Personally, I’d like to see more testing that would yield information in all these areas, up to and including destructive testing--i.e., whose knife was left standing after all the others had failed?

Your point is well-taken that there are knives that do fail in competition, meaning that for those knives, the ABS tests reveal weaknesses. But for those makers who can build a geometrically efficient knife that will survive the tests the ABS is currently using, there is no further mechanism for measuring any apparent separation between the blades. Because in these tests, it’s all about skill—or 90% anyway, as David’s interview with those three Mastersmiths indicated.

So does ABS cutting competition measure who makes the best knife? Not really, no. Is the competition valid? As I said, it depends on what you want to measure. To me it seems apparent that, given what the current competitions test, the ABS has a ways to go in measuring knife performance. From your comments, I gather you feel the current competition is testing what you want to see, which is great. I’m not particularly interested in who’s the best knife handler, but I agree it’s fun to watch. For me, at the end of the day, I’d rather know who made the best knife.

Will
 
Will,

I hear what you're saying - but let's assume that there exists some series of tests somewhere that neither the ABS nor anyone has come up with yet that will truly "test the blades" as you envision.

Do you really think that in respect of the finalists - who got there through year-long competition - there would be a significant and quantifiable difference in the performance of their blades? I sure don't.

If the blades are in fact closely matched, then whatever tests you devise are going to show - no surprise here - that the blades a closely matched. The human factor will make the difference.

If there were some computer somewhere that we could dump all the knives in and have it proclaim to a scientific certainty that one was conclusively - if fractionally - superior then you would have the answer you seek. However, I can't say I'd be much interested in the process or the result. At the end of the day, a knife does nothing unless it's in somebody's hand.

Roger

P.S. - One more point - my understanding is that the purpose of the cutting competitons is not to demonstrate conclusively who makes the best knife, but rather to give the makers an opportunity to learn about the aspects of knife design and construction that they apply to their own knives - figure out what works and what doesn't - and hence build a better knife. When that happens (and all the competitors will tell you they have learned lots) the maker and their customers benefit.

Plus it IS really fun to watch.
 
Roger-

You make some fair points. Participating in the cutting competitions certainly gives makers a chance to test their knives and learn from the experience. But why should the competitions be primarily a test of skill rather than primarily testing the blades themselves?

The flip side of this situation may be even more significant. Think of all the bladesmiths in the ABS who do not compete in the cutting competitions—more don’t than do, certainly. Among those who are not competing are some of the most honored bladesmiths in the country. And it makes sense under the current system--why should a top bladesmith put his or her name and reputation on the line in a competition where they’re likely to get beat by someone with a faster or more accurate swing, even if that top bladesmith is building a better knife?

I think the current competition is probably an outgrowth of several factors. Actually, there's no need to throw all the knives into some big computer bin to decide the winner. The ABS already has much more accurate and stringent testing in its JS and MS qualifying examinations than it shows in the cutting competitions. But those tests are pretty dry, and the cutting competitions are a lot more fun to watch—several makers out there in front of the public, going mano-a-mano in swashbuckling events. More importantly, I think, is that it’s probably a lot easier on one’s ego and reputation to get beat by someone with a quicker swing than it would be if your knife broke in a flex test before some other maker’s did, or failed in some other way before someone else’s knife did. So maybe the current competition format, with its excitement factor, together with exhibiting some admittedly exceptional forged blades--and with no one getting their feelings hurt too badly about losing--is just what the ABS wants.

I do think it’s a bit of a shame that the system obviously rules out talented makers who make excellent bladeware but don’t have the physical stature or skill to compete in these games.

And I also think it’s a bit of a shame that the cutting champion is presented to the general public without any caveat as to what that crown means. You can go to a number of internet knife purveyors’ websites right now and see references touting certain makers based on how they did in ABS cutting competition. Sells knives, sure—excellent knives, no doubt.

But we know that reference doesn’t really tell the whole story, does it?

Cheers,
Will
 
I've entered four of these contests and have never placed higher than third yet in every instance felt that at some level I won because my knives didn't fail. Time was that most cutting contests would have a few participents wash out due to blade failure. These days it is quite a rarity to see a blade fail in those contests and when you do it is generally due to contestents flying to close to the sun. ie edges thinned to gain an advantage on some type of cut and expecting that hardest thing to be cut a 2x4 and then needing to cut through a hard rawhide dog toy. so to some extent I do see these tests as still a test of the knife though a bad cutter with a great knife will never win but a great cutter with merely a good knife can take home the belt buckle. Of course if you are up against a great cutter with a great knife like Barker, Fitch, Crowell, Cashen ar a handfull of others look out. Mortals like me don't stand a chance. It can be a little disheartening to someone like me to place third and feel on top of the world to hear Fitch describe his placing second as being first looser. One last thing, I've bought several knifes from those taking part in the cutting contests notably several from fitch and some of the first barker sold and what impressed me is that they had enough confidence in their knives to test them out in such a public manner. I'm not sure the upside to winning a contest is enough to offset the down side if one of their knives were to suffer a catrostrophic failure.
 
The intent of a the ABS cutting competitions is not to find out who makes the best knife. Nor is it to see who has the best swing. It is a "fun to watch" event that is intended to help ALL the bladesmiths who compete to improve their knives. I have competed in a few and learned a huge amount about my knives and their designs. The customers benefit in the end. There is a winner, but no loosers. All the competitors have a rapid growth curve on their knives. Adam Derosiers hasn't been making that long, but his knives are exceptional tools. He is a dedicated competitor, and no doubt owes much of his rapid education to the extreme tests in many of the competitions.

Unless you attatched each knife to an "iron Byron" like machine (used to test golf equipment), you will always have the human factor and never achieve a true knife vs. knife test. Testing products like that is a tedious, mind numbing task that would yield conclusions of "x knife is better for rope cutting, Y knife is better for cutting cans, Z knife is the best chopper, but not good for stabbing"....... Not to mention that each user is a little different and may not like the way each knife feels. My cutters work for me, but are a little heavy for some of my friends. Theris are a little light for me, but they work in their hands as well as mine do for me.

The finals at the Blade show are the guys who proved their knives several times over, and so are very close in cutting ability. Had the same question been asked as to useing someone elses knife at a regular competition with 20-25 cutters, the results wouldn't be the same.
 
WILL YORK said:
Roger-

You make some fair points. Participating in the cutting competitions certainly gives makers a chance to test their knives and learn from the experience. But why should the competitions be primarily a test of skill rather than primarily testing the blades themselves?
Click to expand...

Pausing there for a moment - and not meaning this to sound as cynical as it might - why shouldn't they?

You know how they test golf equipment right? With a robot that can duplicate exactly the same swing, through exactly the same plane, at exactly the same speed, imparting exactly the same amount of force, time after time ad infinitum. The only variable will be the equipment being tested - and given the quality of product in the industry, the differences among the top manufacturers - while measurable - is minute.

Say that we could have a knife-bot that could chop some uniform synthetic material (can't trust the variations in 2 by 4's, you know) in a precisely repeatable fashion and determine that out of a theoretical score of 100, Joe Blow's knife scored 99.9875 and Joe Schmo's knife scored 99.9872. Joe's knife would be declared - with mathematical certainty no less - the conclusive winner and those whe feel the need to know which knife is best (I am not among them) will have an answer. (Of course, as in golf, the import of that answer is likely to be more misleading - as one manufacturer will claim their ball is THE LONGEST because it test-carried 1.345 inches further than the second place ball).

A couple observations - 1) I wouldn't be standing out in the hot Atlanta sun to watch the knife-bot carve up plastic. And 2) I don't have a driving need to know to a mathematical certainty which knife is best. I guess in that way, we just see this issue differently. At the end of the day, I am content to trust in the my ability to assess a quality knife, and more importantly, trust in the maker's ability.

Cheers,

Roger

P.S. - One more thought - you do realize, of course, that not even the knife-bot could tell you who makes "the best knife", but merely which knife tested better on this day against its identified competitors. Makers are not machines - there will be variation within the products they produce because they are human - the very factor which you seem to wish to excise from the equation. The only way the knife-bot, OR ANY test you can conceive of, could tell you who makes the best knife, would be to test every knife made by every maker. And since makers are known to improve over time, and the pool of makers is always changing (growing) that answer would constantly be changing.

Until someone comes up with a better idea (and I'm not saying that a better idea isn't out there) - I like the way things are currently set up, and feel no regret over the prominence of the human factor in these competitions.
 
RogerP said:
Makers are not machines - there will be variation within the products they produce because they are human - the very factor which you seem to wish to excise from the equation. ... Until someone comes up with a better idea (and I'm not saying that a better idea isn't out there) - I like the way things are currently set up, and feel no regret over the prominence of the human factor in these competitions.
Click to expand...

Roger-

Again, you make some excellent points, but I think you're missing the thrust of mine. Go back and read my very first post to this thread. I'm not trying to eliminate the human factor from the equation at all--if we did that, we'd be eliminating the foundation of what makes a hand-forged blade unique to begin with. All I'm asking for is a level playing field, one on which the knives are being tested--not just the physical skills of the makers.

Maybe the current system works up to the finals round by eliminating all but the best five knives. Maybe the best five knives are making it into that final round. What we know from the comments of the participants themselves is that the individual holding the knife makes more difference at that point than the knife itself. Why not add a session in which each of the five finalists gives each of the other four knives a go? And indeed, rather than have that score dependent on whether each competitor got equally good swings with each knife, let each contestant work out with all four knives on each phase of the competition until he's satisfied himself as to his own subjective ranking of all four knvies for that phase. Then add up the results and weigh them in on some averaged basis with the outcome of the current competition. Only the individual competitor knows if he got in a really good swing on the rope or water bottles, or made the best possible time he could make in a timed event, which is an aspect that could be addressed by letting each contestant try each of the other four knives in each event until he has satisfied himself as to its rank in that event.

Of course, you still have the unfortunate aspect of limiting head-to-head testing among all ABS members to only those who can swing a knife best, but at least you'd have a little more to go on than a series of one-time tests with each maker influencing the outcome more by his own physical skill than by the quality of his blade.

Such an extended competition would give even more of a show than the present event, and would take into account things like which knife had the best ergonomics, balance, etc., as judged objectively by the other four contestants.

If I didn't have an (obsessive) appreciation for the human factor involved in the high art of bladesmithing, I wouldn't buy forged blades to begin with.

Best regards,
Will
 
The main purpose of the ABS, I believe, is to educate and improve the skills needed in making forged blades. The Journeyman and Mastersmith tests show that the maker has acquired the level of skill for the particular rating. The Moran School has classes to teach various aspects of bladesmithing. These are geared mainly towards makers who want to improve their skills.
The ABS cutting competitions are a way for the ABS to educate the public about the benefits of forged blades. In addition I think that the makers who participate probably improve because their blades are tested in many different ways. There is usually at least one new test in each event that the makers do not know about in advance. Like any competition skill plays a part. I think that Tiger Woods with a 1920's Mashee could beat most people with a set of great clubs on a golf course. The ABS competitions are also entertaining which is good both for the piblic and the makers.
I am sure that a scientific test could tell on a particular day which knife cuts a particular thing best. That is not the purpose of the ABS. Don't blame the ABS who is the first organization that tested blades if you don't like their competitions.
I am a collector not a maker, but I joined the ABS because they did help educate me and even if I don't use all of my blades I know that they have the ability to cut.
Jim Treacy
 
I have read the above posts and feel compelled to give my thoughts on the ABS cutting competitions.
When I first started entering the competitions, my blades were too light, edge profile too thick, handles not comfortable, and a host of other deficiencies. Thru the continuing contests and the chance to enter and test my new designs, I continued to learn what it takes to make a winner. As has been mentioned before, some of us skate close to the edge and sometimes go over (a dinged edge) but that goes with the territory. At my age, I needed all the edge I could get. :)
To Will,
Why would I want to use anothers knife in a competition when I can use my own. I am there to find out if I make a better one. If he wins, then I can handle his blade and ask all the questions I want and they are always happy to answer. If you think you want to find out who makes the "best knife", there is no such animal, just as there is no "best steel" or "best design".
Winning contests depends on a lot of factors of which the knife is the most important. You can bet that "ALL" the knives used in the finals are the best knives made for the event. When you eliminate the blade, who wins the finals is the one with the determination, skill, and a touch of luck. Any of the contestants that competed at Blade this year builds a great knife that I would be proud to own. I know them all and some I know a little better because I have known them longer. A better group to represent the ABS in the demonstrations of cutting would be hard to find.
To those that have already made a name for themselves and are relying on the continued praise of their customers to stay in business, it is not a shame to lose, it is a shame to not try. I do wish they had a cutting catagory for forged blades that have been bought from ABS members to enter. The problem with extending the contest is that there is a time frame that most of them have to adhere to and for non members to cut, there is the liability involved for the contestants.
If the ICCT is ever a fact, then there should be an agenda for all to enter and cut. That way, those that have been wanting to participate can do so to test their knives or a company's knives. It would also probably be a slightly longer competition since there would be at least 3 groups performing the same tasks of cutting.
 
Ray,

I respect your opinions and position--thank you. Your comments on the ICCT are well taken. I hope to see progress on that front as well.

I'd also like to say thank you for contributing so generously to the education of all of us here on the performance characteristics of forged knives, by providing test blades to Cliff Stamp. I feel personally in your debt for that effort.

Heartiest congratulations on winning your MS stamp.

Best,
Will
 
Thanks, Will.
I will continue to strive to make the best knife I can. Being the first concrete block cutter didn't hurt any either. :) I had been told that it would be a mistake to send the knives to Cliff to test. I knew that if I had done the testing, it would have been looked at a lot different than if an independant person had done it. We all learned a great deal from the testing that Cliff did. I know that I did for sure.
The ABS competitions are definitely a learning tool also. There is also the entertainment factor that is provided by Mr. Fisk and as to whether it proves who makes the best blade in the ABS, we have a winner every year that represents the ABS. Reggie Barker is definitely a good spokesman for our organization who realizes that it takes a lot to win. Every one that competed, watched, read, or other wise happened to be interested, is a winner. The knife community is being exposed to more people and that is what counts. I know I may be preaching to the choir but there may be others that are reading and following the different threads on the forums.
 
David
Apprantley the smiths that you spoke to does not particpate much. It is in the bylaws that each member has or had at one time all about everything we do. If they need another copy it can be had by writing the ABS office and requesting one. Nothing is hid.

As to the cutting contest. Each of them must be balanced for actual performance and to keep both makers and observers interested. No need to have a knife-bot if no one wants to see it. Yes, there is a human factor. Always will be either in using or making. However of the finalist from this year and last, Crowell, Fitch, Barker and Dickie all were disqualified with in the last two years for blade failure at one time or the other. I think one others of the finalist but cannot remember for sure. Yes, the knives by the time they reach the finals are pretty close. They have to be or they would not get there. The guys learn more, the crowd gets to see someone acutally using a knife. These events are not only for the makers to work better but for the crowd to see just how to use one. Many of them have never got to see a knife put through its paces before. They do not know how to do it safely. That is also what the events are for.

Let them use each others knives? Do you know how serious these guys get? If he placed just a hair under the winner will he not think, "Well, if I had my knife I would have won". This sets up too much trouble. Also, you have no ideal of the insurance on this. We are very near having to get insurance just to cover each event seperate. You always get low rates when you have guys swinging knives in front of a crowd and near other makers where the product being used is not covered by the makers own libility insurance. I dont think we could afford to pay it for a maker to use someone elses knife. You have any ideal of what the liabilities of that puppy would be? We run on a shoe string budget for this stuff anyway. Sometimes I have ended up paying for part of it out of my own pocket but when I order a knife from a maker that does participate I know I get a better knife due to the fact that he is testing in the competition.

Overall it is fun, each learns and goes away a bit wiser.
j
 
Looks like you boys have brought out the big guns and got me surrounded. I don’t know why it’s hard to see what I’m talking about—I think David’s opener to this thread and the followup by Grapevine pretty much spell out the public reaction I’ve been trying to address.

But what the heck, all of the makers who have responded here seem perfectly happy with the way things are run, and as Jerry says, “Overall it is fun, each learns and goes away a bit wiser.” Not a bad set of goals, I do admit. I guess public reaction will adjust over time, as people learn more about what those goals are.

Have fun boys,
Will
 
raker said:
...... it is not a shame to lose, it is a shame to not try....
Click to expand...

Wow - what a great qote that is. Seriously.

I NEVER look at any of the contestants as "losers". They all have my respect for putting the desire to learn and improve over any fear of public "failure". My hat's off to all you guys.

Roger
 
Outstanding thread! (and that's from a "folder guy"! ;) ) The perfect example of why I _PAY_ to belong to THIS forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top