Cliff Stamp

While I personally think Cliff is is on the certifiable side, I only think so because he seems to get a kick out of destroying knives.
Me? I don't buy things just to destroy them. But that is me, and he is him, and he is doing no harm to anyone.
On the other side, I am often very pleased and interested to see the results of Cliff's abuse tests, and I feel they give me a better idea of what a certain knife is all about.
So I guess as a knife lover I can't really approve what he does to knives, but I am always interested to see his results. I think of Cliff as someone performing something of a controversial public service.
 
Originally posted by YoungCutter
I think of Cliff as someone performing something of a controversial public service.
Click to expand...
Hummm...I think that was well put. A statement with which I might agree. [But slip "certifiable" in there.]
 
Ron

Why don't you do you're own tests? Cliff is pretty clear when he tests what he is trying to test for.

So do you're own tests for similar qualities and post the results.

Folks here would then be able to evaluate both results.

I'd be interested.

Ben
 
Cliff is one of the most valuable contributors to this forum, IMHO. I've saved a lot of his observations and have learned a great deal from him. His 'abuse' is often what happens in real life to knives. The only person more severe on knives is probably my wife:) .
 
Originally posted by matthew rapaport

Cliff tells us what he does, so there is nothing to stop others from trying the same things and seeing what results they get. I'm not saying what Cliff does and how he reports makes for "exact science", but it isn't "totally subjective" either. ...To some degree, Cliff is not just testing KNIVES, but also manufacturer CLAIMS about knives. ....if he is really doing all this hacking on wood and reporting what he finds accurately about his hacking tools, then we do indeed learn something, and I would also expect a certain percentage of the woody growth in a certain part of North America (the Continent) to be considerably thinned out over the next few years...
Click to expand...

Basically he's doing something and giving his opinion, if more people on this forum did that there might be a shorter learning curve for the newbies. No one forces anyone to read his opinions,(personally I look forward to his opinion, a lot of what he says makes sense to me a 30 year mechanic and fabricator), just like television or the radio if you don't like him read another thread, but if you look at the # of viewings, his threads and replies tend to be high. For what it's worth that's my opinion.
 
Ben,

SOG doesn't do their own tests very often for much the same reason many companies don't do their own tests...

they always get accused of setting up the tests to make their knives look good, you see this alot against folks like Busse (usually by trolls). When Cliff Stamp does a test, you can feel relatively confident he doesn't have a stake in the results, he is a neutral 3rd party who's just out for the truth and no one questions that. Sometimes certain companies skew their tests, and the ones that don't that actually do test get accused of skewing anyway, so what's the point, from a business perspective?
 
Originally posted by Alberta Ed
His 'abuse' is often what happens in real life to knives.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight. You're saying that beating a knife with a pipe till it breaks is "often what happens in real life to knives." I seriously don't mean to be insulting, but are you kidding?
 
Personally I think Cliff does a great job and I am really grateful.

Some people don't like his reviews because those are too subjective - Donno, as usual he describes in details what he does. Presumably one could do the same if desired. May be your numbers will be differet, or most likely they will be different, so what.

Others don't like them because those are not close to real life, very artificial etc. Are those real life tests less subjective or more repeatable, or more scientific? I think not. The fact that person X went out and skinned the monkey or two with the knife Y, and Y was still sharp doesn't tell me much. If the X would provide another more or less known knife for the reference it would've been more meaningful.
However there are people who are against direct comparisons too... I don't understand that position either, because how do you define performance levels then? Virtual monkey against virtual knife?

His cutting/edge holding tests are the best I've seen so far. At least he has a relatively simple method to determine the sharpness at home conditions. Sooner or later I'll get that done too :) Plus the charts, graphs etc. If you don't like numbers or charts that's rather your problem than Cliff's methods.

Sure there are those who don't read his reviews because those are "bad", long and boring ;) Yet they're positive the reviews are bad, without reading them... That's sortta entertaining too.

And finally, as he always says, use his testing and data for the reference, it is no bible. Make your own conclusions, argue, discuss, etc. But what Cliff never does and deserves grat respect for it is personal insults. IMHO ppl resort to those once they're out of arguments at least.
 
First, to topic:

Cliff Stamp - prolific poster and champion of "hard use" in big knives. His testing and the information presented is so far beyond what I would conceive of doing with a knife, that they are of little current value to me. That fact aside, they are generally entertaining and well-written.

Testing in general - like most manufacturer's of any product, facts are withheld from general knowledge purposefully to minimize comparison to other products and maximize differentiation via marketing of desire rather than performance. This is true in every industry and is the core of advertising.

Ron@SOG - I think you should use the word "libel" rather than "slander". However, I don't agree with you that Cliff has willfully misrepresented the quality of SOG knives. He has made specific tests and observations, usually on a comparison basis and then presented with conclusions in an opinion format.

All "scientific" method results are interpreted with opinions and then reported as "facts". The idea is that if the methodolgy can be repeated and similar opinions found by other scientists, that these opinions will represent something of a consensus and thus, become a "fact". This is like saying that histories are a collection of "facts". Really, they are a collection of "interpretations". If repeated long enough, then can be held as "truth" and thus, fact. If you really believe that "science" gives us the "facts", then brother, we are on different planets.
 
Originally posted by Ron@SOG
So let me get this straight. You're saying that beating a knife with a pipe till it breaks is "often what happens in real life to knives." I seriously don't mean to be insulting, but are you kidding?
Click to expand...
Is that all Cliff does? That would make for some pretty short reviews.
btw, your recent behavior on these forums in regards to Cliff is shameful. A string of personal attacks, and trolling that doesn't speak too well of your maturity, or your suitability for being a forum moderator here. Grow up.
 
I think pretty much anything you read on any internet site should be taken with a grain of salt.

I frequent other message boards for my other hobby (cars) and I wouldn't take anyone's opinion or supposed facts about any modifications on my vehicles without either researching it myself, or relying on a sanctioned body that has earned the industry's trust over time through proven experience.

Do I think Cliff's reviews are completely scientific and unbiased? No, but I find them to be very interesting, and informative, even if the engineer in me disagrees with some of the finer points. That someone would be willing to perform their own tests for little or no compensation, but out of curiosity and the love of knives, is good enough for me.


Jason
 
Hi Architect,

Here's some definitions:
Main Entry: 2slander
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sclaundre, slaundre, from Old French esclandre, from Late Latin scandalum stumbling block, offense -- more at SCANDAL
Date: 14th century
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person -- compare LIBEL

Main Entry: 1li·bel
Pronunciation: 'lI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Middle French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
Date: 14th century
1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

Source: Merriam-Webster.com
Click to expand...
Yea...you're probably right. But that "libel" starts in "slander." ;)

Cliff's "tests" of our knives at times pivot on whether or not the man ate a healthy breakfast (giving him energy). Or, whether or not he was angry at a prof (maybe for a bad evaluation on a thesis) while he was swinging and swinging with that pipe on our Recondo. He says it was "science" and that he could "measure" the force of each swing as he pounded away. Get real! There was ZERO science evidence in that action.
 
cliff is the father of all knife nuts and buys knives and independently tests them. that is a service to us all.

who else would have 3 pages written about them?

keep hacking :D :)

I tell you what, I would rather read cliff's site than any knife mag that performs "tests" on new knives but every evaluation article has the same formula. they all say well this was ok that was decent all in all it is a good knife :yawn: :yawn:


I am glad knife makers are mad at cliff, it just shows that he is doing a great job. if they were all happy with him then we know, he would be just another mag writer. kissin'A$$ instead of kickin A$$
 
He says it was "science" and that he could "measure" the force of each swing as he pounded away. Get real!
Click to expand...

I have read just about every review that Cliff has published on these forums and I have yet to see him make such a claim. Can you provide a proper citation for your accusation?

While I never take Cliff, nor anyone else, at face value, I can appreciate the information he has collected. Strangely enough I have never had the occasion to use a knife to chop through a concrete wall, nor have I used one to fend off attacked by rogue pipes, hammers, and other household tools; but, I have hit plenty of solid objects by mistake. Whether it is a discarded tool in your garden, or a rock in the brush, this kind of contact does happen and it is useful to have some idea of the type of damage that may result.

n2s
 
Ron-
Though both slander and libel are forms of defamation, usually libel refers to written defamation (or visual, or recorded, i.e. Television broadcasts) and slander is oral statements.
The main difference between the two is a practical one, libel allows for presumed special damages, and with slander, actual damages have to be shown. The exception is for Slander per se which is treated like libel. There are five kinds of libel per se, things like making statements about the chasitity of a women, accusing someone of having a loathsome social disease or having commited a crime involving moral turpitude.

In general though, in order to defame a public figure (such as your company that puts itself out to this community, through forum presence and advertisement) actual malice must be shown. Actual malice for defamation is a legal term of art that refers to making staements known to be false, or made with a reckless disregard for their truth.

The most cited line of cases in this area is N.Y. Times v. Sullivan and its progeny. If your company doesn't have access to westlaw or lexis, you can find the cases on findlaw.com if your co. has a subscription there.

Prosser and Keaton is an excellent treatise on Torts, if you have any interest in the subject.

As to the Cliff issue I have the same perspective as Buzzbait, Owen and Joe Talmadge. I count myself in excellent company.
 
Wow, don't visit the forum for two days and see what you miss :)
Cliff is great member of this knife community, he usually exemplifies curiosity in its best forum- trying things out in an effort to learn, and by sharing we learns somethings along the way too. No, not every thing he does makes sense to me- this is true for everyone, probably, even himself (remember when the loose kuhkri butt TIGHTENED after extended use), still his work teaches by trial and error. All on "HIS DIME."
As for developeing a "scientific method"- Comsumer Reports does "destruction testing" with cars far beyond what most of us will do, they do it also by randomly purchasing their products "off the shelf "(or showroom floor etc) because that is what a normal consumer would do. Their results are usually very instructive and well regarded by scientific community (their tests conducted by trained scientists unaffiliated with products they test), however each year the co's with the worst reported results say Consumer Reports is baised, methodology flawed, incompetent personnel, etc. So "developing scientific approach" and "doing away with Cliff's approaches" (which in many ways similar to something like Consumer Report) will not resolve conflict- poorly rated knife co's will cry foul just like they do now.
On that last point, Ron@SOG = 8 posts and counting, in JUST OVER ONE DAY! Very "immoderate" for a moderator. Give it a break!!!
Martin
 
Hi Owen,
Originally posted by OwenM
btw, your recent behavior on these forums in regards to Cliff is shameful. A string of personal attacks, and trolling that doesn't speak too well of your maturity, or your suitability for being a forum moderator here. Grow up.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry you feel this way. It is certainly not my desire to alienate people. It is your right to believe that these are personal attacks, that it is my goal to troll here, that I’m showing immaturity, and whether or not I should be a moderator here. If you feel I’ve crossed a line, report me to the site Administrator.

I hope you see that I am addressing key issues in Cliff’s reviews. And I have addressed many other key issues in various threads. Much of what he does is fine and I do endorse. It is the “subjective science” (how’s that for an oxymoron?) with that I have a problem. If he didn’t shroud opinions or beliefs with “numbers/facts” he would hold a lot more credibility with me.

If addressing these truths as clearly evident is “trolling,” so be it. I don’t make these statements maliciously. But I do want to make sure that those who who can easily be swayed by the “science” are not snared by facts not in evidence.

Hey N2S,

Here is a quote from Cliff’s Recondo Review:
Moving on to more extreme work I had a friend hit the blade with a mild steel pipe (1mm thick, 1" diameter, 3' long) while I held onto it. This was to simulate hard contacts if the blade was used in a defensive manner against a hard impact weapon like a pipe. We did a half a dozen impacts on the spine on the flat and on the edge. The blade was very difficult to hold onto due to the checkering on the slabs, thin profile and aggressive ridges on the pommel. I could take the spine whacks ok , but because of the difficult of getting a solid grip, the hits on the flats and on the edge just threw my hand around....At the time I should have made an effort to estimate the impact energies, but didn't. Considering some similar work with other objects, I would estimate the impact energy of the pipe to be about 100 +/- 25 ft. lbs.
Click to expand...

Hi Chad,

I figured a “legal type” might clarify this for me. I have my feelings on Cliff’s willful intention. He has certainly been reckless in his representation of “facts.”

It if not my intention to tick anyone off here. Please believe me. If anyone feels they would like to address me personally on this issue, my email address is ron@sogknives.com and my phone number is (425) 771-6230, ext. 228 (west coast extended business hours).

I'll dial it back for now and let others say their peace.
 
Cliff is cetainly an interesting character

He portrays himself as a "scientific" evaluator of knives and by his own admission takes makers to task for "excessive hype"

What is ironic to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of study design and statistics is that cliff, by his flagrant overstating of the significance of his results, shows that he has limited knowledge of those subjects and is himself engaged in the gross "hyping" of the significance of his "tests."

Why he persists in reporting results and analysis that can not possibly be supported by his limited data sets and often flawed methodology is puzzling to me. It is unneccessary for him to do so but he keeps on doing it.

Ego or ignorance? Or both? I am unsure.

Before people whine, it is Cliff who has attempted to "go to the next level" and try to produce "scientific testing." When one attempts to show the superiority of ones own testing by using statistics and scientific methodology, one must be willing to accept critical analysis.

Cliff is unwilling to do so. He persists in the same behavior ... obviously for his own reasons. Perhaps getting free knives from Busse and other makers? Other reasons?

One may of course accept his results despite the flaws ... that is an individuals perogative ... much as one can choose to buy the latest herbal wonder-potion based on the testimony of "a nurse from Seattle" or because it was "proven by studies by leading researchers in Germany to be the best" ... you have heard the commercial haven't you??????

If he stopped trying to awe the masses with his pseudo-science his postings would be much more useful.

Simple effort does not make for useful results. They must be truthful as well ... both in method and reporting ...
 
Before people whine, it is Cliff who has attempted to "go to the next level" and try to produce "scientific testing.
Click to expand...

I am beginning to suspect that we are reading Cliff's reports very differently. I read through them and see merely an organized catalog of observations along with some personal opinions. Some of you are reading them as "scientific" experimentation. The difference between science and opinion is that science claims a conclusion as fact and offers a repeatable experiment as evidence. I just don't see that here.

The observations are organized well enough (Cliff probably is a scientist and organizes this way out of professional habit), but, his conclusions never comes to statement of fact.

Ron,

Read it again slowly and you will see that these are merely his opinions. Were it a statement of fact he would have had to go much further. He would have had to have stated his hypothesis, justified his methods, and then limited his observations to the parameters of that issue. I just don't see that happening here, nor, do I see him claiming that he is setting out to do anything like that.

n2s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top