FOund a cool site.....

He put himself in position of scientific priest who only know the truth, and answers on all questions. This is so unscientific and is a common way to degradation as a scientist and this is what finally happen. First I got excited about his scientific reviews - if you do not pay attention to details and accept results as correct and scientific then his conclusion give you some fictional guidance. But then when I look close I found that they just look like one and finally realize that this is more pretending then real researches and based in many cases on unreliable second hand information.

And yes he was a bit arrogant.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
I agree with most comments here. But his science was a lot more speculative and theoretically shaky than most of his fans ever realized, I think. If his ideas weren't always presented as absolute scientific fact, and if he wasn't so arrogant and insulting, I would have tolerated him better and enjoyed arguing with him (but you couldn't really argue with him, because he never directly answered any questions that may contradict what he was saying at the time). I do miss his test results, even more now that the most discussed testing here are posts of folks making definitive conclusions and comparisons about toughness and strength of a knife based on videos of some guy wailing on one knife with a hardened face steel hammer (danger danger Will Robinson!).

He was right in one thing for sure - thin geometry cuts well. But thin geometry made out of jello doesn't cut so great on anything more than air, so you do need the steel part. :D

In the grand scheme of things, I am happy with using old-tech knives, but all the modern high tech steels and science just makes it more entertaining for me.
 
He's back you know, go to whine and cheese and look for a thread marked, "In memory of cliff stamp".:D
 
Dunno, there was a lot in his arguments, some right, some wrong. IHMO he contributed a lot to this forum and knife world.
For one, he could challenge any authority and question his claims. Hardly anyone does that here. I do remember few years ago his argument with CRK about A2 knives below optimum hardness. Interesting read considering latest test from knifetests.com, no?
 
Cliff's alive. He's just not here.

Zvi,

S30V in the Harsey-designed knives was what Cliff was railing against. I believe he was citing a loss of corrosion resistance and overall strength for a meager gain in impact resistance as a reason to choose some other steel in place of S30V.

Whether someone's an iconoclast or not, I get wary and grow weary of folks who have their argument found to be incorrect and then keep trying to slightly modify their argument so that the mutated version might be even slightly correct and then claim that's what was being argued all along. Probably because I'm guilty of doing that. :o
 
thombrogan said:
S30V in the Harsey-designed knives was what Cliff was railing against.
Click to expand...
That too. However, few years before that there was another one about exactly same stuff with A2 that is discussed today in another thread. HRC 55 is below optimum for toughness and impact resistance.

Anyway, I disagreed with him on many things, but I don't think he was piling pure BS as he's being accused of.
 
Cliff was one of the few (perhaps only) poster who used data to back up some of his ideas. And continues to do so on his site. Clearly, the number of folks who want to come here and heap praises on their pet brands far outnumber the folks who want information that's a little more objective.

It's certainly true that Cliff was abrasive. I can forgive his harsh criticism of knifemakers. They need to be vigorously challenged, and few ever offered meaningful retorts to his criticism. His attitude toward members and owners is harder to justify, though personally, I feel little sympathy for folks who got their wittle feewings hurt by that mean old Cliff. I found his criticisms harsh and biting, though not necessarily unfair.

My biggest criticism of him was that his posts were often clumsily worded and usually needed several readings to parse his thoughts.
 
I think the A2 comments; which may or may not apply to CRK's A2; were levelled at Mission's use of A2.
 
Cliff wasn't banned for being mean. He was banned because of pride.
Not just his. My opinion based on my observations and not presented as fact.
 
shecky said:
I found his criticisms harsh and biting, though not necessarily unfair.
...
My biggest criticism of him was that his posts were often clumsily worded and usually needed several readings to parse his thoughts.
Click to expand...
Agreed. one thing though, I don't recall Cliff resorting to name calling and personal insults which his opponents knifemakers or members used liberally. To me that just shows lack of data and facts to back their opinion in the argument.
Although, I can't comment on latest events, I wasn't around for over a year.
 
Gator97 said:
Agreed. one thing though, I don't recall Cliff resorting to name calling and personal insults which his opponents knifemakers or members used liberally. To me that just shows lack of data and facts to back their opinion in the argument.
Although, I can't comment on latest events, I wasn't around for over a year.
Click to expand...

I do. Might have been on the Spyderco forum and not here, but there was one occasion where Cliff got one result, and Ed Schempp got another during his cutting competitions. Cliff said one thing, Ed said his experience had been different, and Cliff's response was to tell Ed to stop lying. Not "that's interesting", or wondering what went differently, but to tell Ed to stop lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top