-
All For Sale threads must have a pic showing the knife being sold with written date listed, your username & Bladeforums or BFC to prevent photo harvesting from elsewhere - scammers hate this one trick! The rules for The Exchange can be found here. Please read and follow them. Stop using Paypal Friends & Family and follow our best practices to prevent getting ripped off or having a bad deal.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Cliff Stamp
- Thread starter pahl
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,769
Eric,
Classic!
Classic!
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,769
Hey Pahl,
Many may disagree with you, some may agree. There is much controvery over his methods and his application of "science."
Cliff once beat to death one of our SOG knives on its flat side with a pipe. Part of evalutating a knife is that the tests should simulate real-world situations. Think for a moment. As I mentioned elsewhere, if beating a knife on its flat side has any real-world application, maybe it would for an unconventional golfer on the green right after yelling "fore!" Otherwise, I'm at a practical loss.
Tongue-in-cheek, I've often wondered if he is a 12-year-old prodigy here in the fourms trolling.
Personally, after reading some of Cliffs posts and reviews, I often think back to vintage Saturday Night Live, when Dan Murray, during Weekend Update, would turn to Jane Curtin, and say, "Jane, you ignorant..." ummm...well, I think you get the point.
I'm sure in this thread, the supporters and dissenters will both come checking in.
You all know where I stand.
Many may disagree with you, some may agree. There is much controvery over his methods and his application of "science."
Cliff once beat to death one of our SOG knives on its flat side with a pipe. Part of evalutating a knife is that the tests should simulate real-world situations. Think for a moment. As I mentioned elsewhere, if beating a knife on its flat side has any real-world application, maybe it would for an unconventional golfer on the green right after yelling "fore!" Otherwise, I'm at a practical loss.
Tongue-in-cheek, I've often wondered if he is a 12-year-old prodigy here in the fourms trolling.
Personally, after reading some of Cliffs posts and reviews, I often think back to vintage Saturday Night Live, when Dan Murray, during Weekend Update, would turn to Jane Curtin, and say, "Jane, you ignorant..." ummm...well, I think you get the point.
I'm sure in this thread, the supporters and dissenters will both come checking in.
You all know where I stand.
I don't really understand why Cliff has so many critics.
IMO, he gives more information about what works and doesn't than any other source. People complain about his methods or his tests, yet I see almost no one else doing anything to give us information.
IMO, he gives more information about what works and doesn't than any other source. People complain about his methods or his tests, yet I see almost no one else doing anything to give us information.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 1999
- Messages
- 6,117
I'm always amazed by the amount of time and thought that Cliff invests in studying knives. Even if I thought I could do better, I know that I'd never put in a fraction of the time that he does.
The key word here is "studying"
- Joined
- May 9, 2000
- Messages
- 29,205
Cliff not only studies knives, he studies knives by using them. Maybe he tends to do most of his using while he is testing knives, but he hacks up more lumber, clears more brush and limbs more trees than anybody else I know of.
I have noticed that many makers and companies don't like the way Cliff tests knives. They find many of his tests irrelevant. That may well be true, but many of his tests are very relevant and he has taught me a lot about what edge you should have on a knife to do a certain job. I also have much more knowledge about the toughness of different steels thanks to his testing.
I've learned a lot from Cliff and appreciate his efforts. I also know when to take what he says with a grain of salt.
I have noticed that many makers and companies don't like the way Cliff tests knives. They find many of his tests irrelevant. That may well be true, but many of his tests are very relevant and he has taught me a lot about what edge you should have on a knife to do a certain job. I also have much more knowledge about the toughness of different steels thanks to his testing.
I've learned a lot from Cliff and appreciate his efforts. I also know when to take what he says with a grain of salt.
In the absence of objective standards by which Cliff's exhaustive tests could be evaluated, I frequently walk away "scratching my head"
. What does it all mean?
He makes for interesting reading, but what is the real significance?
Personally, I'm starting to go full circle on the whole knife testing issue. I'm now more inclined to give greater weight to someone that I trust,who puts a knife through some realistic "actual world" testing. Just as an example, take some of the testing done by Buzzbait, out in the woods in real conditions and giving real practical feedback--the feedback of a real user in real conditions. I frankly find this more useful than a page full of numbers with no standard of comparison.
I'm not denigrating the considerable efforts of Cliff--but how about at least some effort at coming up with some reasonable parameters? If they can do it with autos, why not with someting as simple as a knife?
. What does it all mean?He makes for interesting reading, but what is the real significance?
Personally, I'm starting to go full circle on the whole knife testing issue. I'm now more inclined to give greater weight to someone that I trust,who puts a knife through some realistic "actual world" testing. Just as an example, take some of the testing done by Buzzbait, out in the woods in real conditions and giving real practical feedback--the feedback of a real user in real conditions. I frankly find this more useful than a page full of numbers with no standard of comparison.
I'm not denigrating the considerable efforts of Cliff--but how about at least some effort at coming up with some reasonable parameters? If they can do it with autos, why not with someting as simple as a knife?
- Joined
- Oct 3, 1998
- Messages
- 4,842
Originally posted by knifenerd
In the absence of objective standards by which Cliff's exhaustive tests could be evaluated, I frequently walk away "scratching my head"
Cliff includes something that always lets me a get a feel for what his results mean: a direct comparison to another knife on each test. By testing a knife against other knives, presumeably at least one of which is a known quantity (because, say, I have direct experience with it), I get a feeling for what the results really mean.
I definitely agree that "real world" testing has an important place in knife evaluation. I always read evaluations by guys like Jeff Randall, etc. But this type of evaluation, where one knife is tested hard but no other knives are tested against them as benchmarks, sometimes leave me wondering "what is the real significance". As you can see, my feelings are exactly the opposite of yours: testing a knife against another knife gives you a direct comparison and feel for how those knives do relative to each other. If one of the test knives is a well-known (by me) benchmark, then I know exactly how well the test knife performed. By contrast, when a knife is tested by itself, real-world or not, it lets me know that that knife can handle certain jobs, but tells me absolutely nothing about how easily other knives could handle the same jobs, and whether they could do so with the same level of performance, possibly much less expensively.
Sometimes Cliff's tests go beyond what I think is useful for a particular knife. I ignore that part of his report. Sometimes Cliff's test results are different from what I experience in the real world, e.g., his Ontario machetes falling apart in testing, while I use them happily in the real world. In those cases, I look to see what's different between his tests and my experience, and I can learn something about the limitations of my knife. In the case of the machete, I still happily use mine, though I'm glad that through Cliff's tests I have a better understanding of where its limitations might lie.
In summary, I enjoy reading Cliff's tests, and there are many things to learn from them for those who look. And he always tests against a benchmark knife, a very important process that gives me a real sense for performance. Sometimes he tests harder than I think is applicable, or does a test I don't think is appropriate for a certain knife's mission -- in those cases, I ignore that part of the report.
Joe
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,769
Hey Joe,
Cliff's reviews come across to all as professional and "scientific" if nature. When does one cross the line into slander? Can someone be reckless as someone else's loss? You said that you just skip over things. At what point does one disregard it all?
You certainly are one I do respect. Let me ask of you:
Cliff's reviews come across to all as professional and "scientific" if nature. When does one cross the line into slander? Can someone be reckless as someone else's loss? You said that you just skip over things. At what point does one disregard it all?
Hey Joe....
I 've said this before about Cliff's testing,, it's not the testing more or less it's how he does the testing...
If the testing whether or not the knife is brought to failure was done in a manner that can be scientifically duplicated much in the way consumer reports does its testing, I'd be all for it...
you know the type of testing I'm talking about.. The way football, hockey, cycle helmets are tested..
By a machine that duplicates and measures various forces put on the knife...
If cliff wants to chop rope til his hands bleed thats fine,,and I'll listen and respect the tests,,but how do we know how clinical and precise these tests are being conducted...
Anybody can destroy, torture, or abuse a knife..But not just anyone can do it properly...
Jumping up and down,having someone do pull ups on a knife that was hammered into a tree is not only unscientific, its utterly stupid, and some young person reading this thinking he's going to get some notoriety and 15 mins of fame by testing the Home Shopping Network Box-O knives is going to get hurt doing it,,because he wants be be like Cliff Stamp...But thats besides the point....
I think Cliff just wants to get a little notority and his 15 mins and he'll take it no matter how it comes...
These types of posts only fuel his ego and I'm sorry I made the initial smart assed remark...
ttyle
Eric...
I 've said this before about Cliff's testing,, it's not the testing more or less it's how he does the testing...
If the testing whether or not the knife is brought to failure was done in a manner that can be scientifically duplicated much in the way consumer reports does its testing, I'd be all for it...
you know the type of testing I'm talking about.. The way football, hockey, cycle helmets are tested..
By a machine that duplicates and measures various forces put on the knife...
If cliff wants to chop rope til his hands bleed thats fine,,and I'll listen and respect the tests,,but how do we know how clinical and precise these tests are being conducted...
Anybody can destroy, torture, or abuse a knife..But not just anyone can do it properly...
Jumping up and down,having someone do pull ups on a knife that was hammered into a tree is not only unscientific, its utterly stupid, and some young person reading this thinking he's going to get some notoriety and 15 mins of fame by testing the Home Shopping Network Box-O knives is going to get hurt doing it,,because he wants be be like Cliff Stamp...But thats besides the point....
I think Cliff just wants to get a little notority and his 15 mins and he'll take it no matter how it comes...
These types of posts only fuel his ego and I'm sorry I made the initial smart assed remark...
ttyle
Eric...
- Joined
- May 1, 2000
- Messages
- 2,259
I understand that many feel that portions of Cliff's reviews are unfair, but I feel these criticisms would hold more weight if anyone were doing serious comparative testing in a manner they would consider to be more fair. On the forums we see a lot of reviews that cover fit and finish and how happy a person is with a certain knife or how well it serves their purposes, but no one else really does serious testing of knives. I see this as a hole in our knife evaluation strategies as a whole, and we, as a community, are really not good or thorough at seriously testing knives. I think there should more serious, destructive tests of knives to really see how much use and, yes, abuse, they can take. It is unfortunate that no one other than Cliff Stamp does this. Some aspects of Cliff's tests don't apply to what I'm interested in, and I pay less attention to those parts of his tests, but I'm still glad he does them because he provides information that no one else does. We know that anything can be broken, and any knife can be broken, but how much does it take to break a certain knife? No one else is bothering to tell us. I think the problem is not that Cliff does what he does, but that no one else does it. We have only Cliff's destructive tests to go on, so there's nothing to compare them to. Whenever only one person is doing a certain kind of testing, there's obviously heavy bias, which is why we need more people doing it. Then we can compare the results and find out why they are different where they are.
A lot of the controversy surrounding Cliff's testing methods involves whether they're "objective" or "scientific," and I, personally, am not interested in those issues as much as I am in knowing how a certain knife responds to a certain kind of treatment. If someone says that they ran over these two knives with a pickup and this one broke and that one's fine, that's information I'm interested in. If someone says that a certain knife can take 32.423 kg of weight at 2.984 inches from the pivot at an angle of 19.47 degrees without damage, I don't know exactly how to interpret that, though it could be helpful if they did it with half a dozen different knives and compared the results.
We've had a few serious tests done by others, but not many. Off the top of my head I remember Mike Turber's 9" fixed blade tests, Frank aka Rage's lock destruction tests (what ever happened to that guy anyway?), Steve Harvey's T-ball bat tests and mud in locking mechanism tests (I think it was Steve who did these), but not many more. We need more people doing serious, heavy testing and then we can put Cliff's tests, in particular, into a better perspective. As long as he's the only one doing it, though, we don't have too much room to bitch. I mean, if you're doing serious testing also, you can try to explain where your tests are better, or more fair, or whatever than Cliff's, but if you're just running your mouth you're certainly not helping much. And if you're keeping the results of your tests secret while Cliff is publishing and answering questions about his, how can you tell us not to listen to him when he's the only one talking?
Even if you don't like what Cliff does, you at least have to admire his perseverence. That guy has made more enemies in the knife world than just about anyone else, and it doesn't seem to phase him at all. He never (in what I've read) lowers himself to personal attacks (as many of his detractors do), and he always answers, in detail, questions about his methodology, results, and reasoning. He'll tell you why he did a certain test as he did and what kind of information he expects to get out of it, as well as how other knives fared when treated similarly. He's been known to go back and do certain tests differently when asked to by people who want more information. He's always been very helpful with information about sharpening, edge geometry, heat treating, etc., and while he's not the only one sharing much of that information, he does do it in a consistent and helpuful manner. I don't know that I've ever doubted the truth of what he's said. Even though I wouldn't hit a knife with a hammer, if he says he did and explains the results, I trust that he did, in fact hit said knife what a hammer and this is what it looks like now. That information won't be useful to everyone, but he's being very clear and honest about what he's doing and why, and what the results are. Spyderco does scientific lock strength tests, but they don't show pictures of what their knives look like after they break them or tell us what breaks first and how it breaks, they just give ballpark numbers of what their knives can take. If Cliff does a similar test, he gives us much more specific information about everything that happened. Why doesn't anyone else do that also. I'm sure every knife company does some kind of testing, and I'm glad they do because it helps them make us better knives, but why don't they release the results of those tests? I'd love to see such tests done by people other than Cliff, but whoever else does them keeps them to themselves, so Cliff's information is all we have to go on.
I have read allegations that Cliff gets paid to do some of his tests. I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other. I would like to see some evidence or at least to hear Cliff respond to this allegation, but if no one with any evidence is releasing it then it remains a rumor that isn't backed up. If this can be documented I'd like to see it.
Do better tests yourself, and publish the pics and details, and then you'll have a leg to stand on when you criticize Cliff's tests. Until then, you're complaining without doing it better yourself and that means that Cliff's information is infinitely more useful than yours.
Ron, I'll pick on you because I like you, I like your (SOG's) knives, you don't like Cliff, and you have information that I'd like to see. I know you guys have tested the ARC lock extensively. The fact you have is clear in the excellent knives you produce. But when an ARC lock breaks, how does it break? How much force does it take? What part gives first? Has the ARC lock been tested side by side with the Axis lock, framelock, or others? If you're not going to tell us, then who is? I'd like to see SOG release an extensive, Cliff Stamp style test of SOG's knives, with explanations and numbers and pictures. Once you have, you can say that Cliff's tests are all screwed up and here is why; you can say that when you did these tests these were the different results that you got, you can provide an alternate source of information. Then we can all say that Cliff's test is all screwed up because here's a better report that proves it. Until or unless you provide some kind of test that shows us what your knives can do and what they can't, Cliff is our only source of information. If you don't want people to go to Cliff Stamp to find out what SOG knives can do, you have to tell us yourself. I've done some light, nondestructive testing with some of my knives, and have concluded that the Night Vision is one of the strongest folding knives I own (here: http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=208219), and that is one of the reasons I carry it daily, but since I don't want to break my knives, who else is doing testing I can learn from?
A lot of the controversy surrounding Cliff's testing methods involves whether they're "objective" or "scientific," and I, personally, am not interested in those issues as much as I am in knowing how a certain knife responds to a certain kind of treatment. If someone says that they ran over these two knives with a pickup and this one broke and that one's fine, that's information I'm interested in. If someone says that a certain knife can take 32.423 kg of weight at 2.984 inches from the pivot at an angle of 19.47 degrees without damage, I don't know exactly how to interpret that, though it could be helpful if they did it with half a dozen different knives and compared the results.
We've had a few serious tests done by others, but not many. Off the top of my head I remember Mike Turber's 9" fixed blade tests, Frank aka Rage's lock destruction tests (what ever happened to that guy anyway?), Steve Harvey's T-ball bat tests and mud in locking mechanism tests (I think it was Steve who did these), but not many more. We need more people doing serious, heavy testing and then we can put Cliff's tests, in particular, into a better perspective. As long as he's the only one doing it, though, we don't have too much room to bitch. I mean, if you're doing serious testing also, you can try to explain where your tests are better, or more fair, or whatever than Cliff's, but if you're just running your mouth you're certainly not helping much. And if you're keeping the results of your tests secret while Cliff is publishing and answering questions about his, how can you tell us not to listen to him when he's the only one talking?
Even if you don't like what Cliff does, you at least have to admire his perseverence. That guy has made more enemies in the knife world than just about anyone else, and it doesn't seem to phase him at all. He never (in what I've read) lowers himself to personal attacks (as many of his detractors do), and he always answers, in detail, questions about his methodology, results, and reasoning. He'll tell you why he did a certain test as he did and what kind of information he expects to get out of it, as well as how other knives fared when treated similarly. He's been known to go back and do certain tests differently when asked to by people who want more information. He's always been very helpful with information about sharpening, edge geometry, heat treating, etc., and while he's not the only one sharing much of that information, he does do it in a consistent and helpuful manner. I don't know that I've ever doubted the truth of what he's said. Even though I wouldn't hit a knife with a hammer, if he says he did and explains the results, I trust that he did, in fact hit said knife what a hammer and this is what it looks like now. That information won't be useful to everyone, but he's being very clear and honest about what he's doing and why, and what the results are. Spyderco does scientific lock strength tests, but they don't show pictures of what their knives look like after they break them or tell us what breaks first and how it breaks, they just give ballpark numbers of what their knives can take. If Cliff does a similar test, he gives us much more specific information about everything that happened. Why doesn't anyone else do that also. I'm sure every knife company does some kind of testing, and I'm glad they do because it helps them make us better knives, but why don't they release the results of those tests? I'd love to see such tests done by people other than Cliff, but whoever else does them keeps them to themselves, so Cliff's information is all we have to go on.
I have read allegations that Cliff gets paid to do some of his tests. I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other. I would like to see some evidence or at least to hear Cliff respond to this allegation, but if no one with any evidence is releasing it then it remains a rumor that isn't backed up. If this can be documented I'd like to see it.
Do better tests yourself, and publish the pics and details, and then you'll have a leg to stand on when you criticize Cliff's tests. Until then, you're complaining without doing it better yourself and that means that Cliff's information is infinitely more useful than yours.
Ron, I'll pick on you because I like you, I like your (SOG's) knives, you don't like Cliff, and you have information that I'd like to see. I know you guys have tested the ARC lock extensively. The fact you have is clear in the excellent knives you produce. But when an ARC lock breaks, how does it break? How much force does it take? What part gives first? Has the ARC lock been tested side by side with the Axis lock, framelock, or others? If you're not going to tell us, then who is? I'd like to see SOG release an extensive, Cliff Stamp style test of SOG's knives, with explanations and numbers and pictures. Once you have, you can say that Cliff's tests are all screwed up and here is why; you can say that when you did these tests these were the different results that you got, you can provide an alternate source of information. Then we can all say that Cliff's test is all screwed up because here's a better report that proves it. Until or unless you provide some kind of test that shows us what your knives can do and what they can't, Cliff is our only source of information. If you don't want people to go to Cliff Stamp to find out what SOG knives can do, you have to tell us yourself. I've done some light, nondestructive testing with some of my knives, and have concluded that the Night Vision is one of the strongest folding knives I own (here: http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=208219), and that is one of the reasons I carry it daily, but since I don't want to break my knives, who else is doing testing I can learn from?
Exactly. The problem I have with Mr. Stamp's "testing" is that it's not quantitiative and it is not repeatable. It's totally subjective. There is no way that someone else could verify his results by duplicating his tests and achieving the same results. That's part of definition of science, that the results can be duplicated independently.
There is nothing wrong with subjective tests per see' just as long as you are very careful to keep in mind what they are: one person's subjective opinion. You can accept those opinions for what they're worth, but please don't try to confuse them with science and please don't try to present them in a way that makes them seem scientific, that trys to usurp scientific credibility.
Unfortunately, right now the knife industry does not have an accepted set of tests. There is no accepted scientific protocol for testing knives. Until such a protocol is developed, there can be nothing but subjective reviews. And, as long as there are nothing but subjective reviews, there will be arguments about the validity of those reviews.
I wish very much that certain knife companies would stop arguing and get busy and develop and publish some scientific protocols for knife testing so that we can get out of this situation of subjective reviews and arguments that we're stuck in. Maybe Mr. Stamp can even contribute and help develope those protocols.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,769
Hi Jason,
We did publish Arc-Lock info here.
Almost no manufacturer will publish the kind of data everyone wants. But listen. Much of Cliff's data doesn't count because it is both unscientific and hints of biased. The argument that "since no one else is doing it......" I'm sorry, if the reseach isn't good, it is still bad research.
Chuck: I love you, man! Seriously, I agree with every word...
You're a class act. Pick on me or SOG anytime. Anyway, I make for a damn big target!
We did publish Arc-Lock info here.
Almost no manufacturer will publish the kind of data everyone wants. But listen. Much of Cliff's data doesn't count because it is both unscientific and hints of biased. The argument that "since no one else is doing it......" I'm sorry, if the reseach isn't good, it is still bad research.
Chuck: I love you, man!
Seriously, I agree with every word...
That is also my wish. Cliff does as good a job as any individual can do, and alot more than any of the knife rags are doing. The nice thing about science is that it can either be objectively proven, or, disproven, feel free to duplicate his efforts with the necessary corrections and report back on your findings.
n2s
I found one angry phone call from a knife maker claiming I was out to ruin his business by wagging my tongue on the Internet (or words to that effect) to be quite enough. If Cliff wants to state his opinion more power to him, Im no longer surprised by the reactions generated.
If you dont consider the source of the information you receive then you cannot properly evaluate it.
If you dont consider the source of the information you receive then you cannot properly evaluate it.
I have personally learned quite a bit from Cliff's posts. I find him to be very knowledgeable in certain areas. His understanding of edge geometry, and what it takes for a knife to cut a given medium is quite excellent. I would go as far as to say that Cliffs comments have had a profound impact on my preference towards certain types of knives. It seems as though he prefers to test larger knives than Im interested in, but he chimes in on the smaller knife discussions from time to time. These are the occasions where I learn something new than pertains directly to my given interests.
There are times though, where I tend to disagree with him. Like many people, and myself included, I think he goes off the deep end in an attempt to prove his point. Sometimes its better to just disagree with someone, than to beat a dead horse. Any more than that and you put a stinky foot in your mouth. But like I said, Ive done it myself; so I cant beat up anyone else for doing it. Its human nature.
As for durability testing, I tend to be a bit more conservative than Cliff. I prefer more extensive testing using real world tasks. I find that they reveal a bit more about the knife as a whole than quickly finding out how a knife handles under just the extreme ends of the cutting spectrum. There are a myriad of facets to a knifes performance, which I can only manage to find through prolonged testing. This is just personal taste though, so take it for what it is. There are a ton of people here who are much more qualified to test a knife than myself.
There are times though, where I tend to disagree with him. Like many people, and myself included, I think he goes off the deep end in an attempt to prove his point. Sometimes its better to just disagree with someone, than to beat a dead horse. Any more than that and you put a stinky foot in your mouth. But like I said, Ive done it myself; so I cant beat up anyone else for doing it. Its human nature.
As for durability testing, I tend to be a bit more conservative than Cliff. I prefer more extensive testing using real world tasks. I find that they reveal a bit more about the knife as a whole than quickly finding out how a knife handles under just the extreme ends of the cutting spectrum. There are a myriad of facets to a knifes performance, which I can only manage to find through prolonged testing. This is just personal taste though, so take it for what it is. There are a ton of people here who are much more qualified to test a knife than myself.