Knifetests.com-whats YOUR opinion

Status
Not open for further replies.
i love how you all are trying to insult one another with educated grammar and big paragraphs when all you are trying to say is "F*ck you all i'm right.." " NOO! F*ck you i'm right"

lol

I suggest this gets moved to W/C.
 
Gaurdian_A1 said:
i love how you all are trying to insult one another with educated grammar and big paragraphs when all you are trying to say is "F*ck you all i'm right.." " NOO! F*ck you i'm right"

lol

I suggest this gets moved to W/C.
Click to expand...

Would you rather folks get down to the noss4 level of grammar and diction? :p
 
Hey, I have an idea: let's incorporate our opinions on gun control and abortion into this thread. Might as well, since you have about the same chance of changing minds on those topics as you do on knifetests.

There is one criticism that I do enjoy for its irony: that assertion that a knife test (review, whatever) isn't valid because it isn't 'scientific.' So where are all of these 'scientific' reviews that Noss's test fail in comparison to? Granted, I've not been a BFC member for all that long, but I don't recall reading many knife reviews that were conducted scientifically. The typical knife review is full of unquantifiable opinion.

" It fits my hand well" --What if you have abnormal hands?
"Fit and finish are good" --Really? How many microns?
"Sharpens easily" --As measured on what scale?
"Great edge holding" --What was your protocol for determining that?

and on and on---- If you're looking for science in your hobbies then maybe you need to take a step back. Besides, the one guy who tried to apply a little science went and got himself banned. Seems like if scientific testing were all that important to the 'community' then there would be a Reinstate Cliff Stamp movement.
 
If the name of the website was "hockeymaskedknifestunts.com," nobody would care. The word "test" implies a reproducible, quantifiable method. Making conclusions about a knife's ability to perform as a knife based on its ability to perform as a sledgehammer also implies a reproducible, quantifiable method, stupid as the premise is.

Don't call something a test if it's a stunt. Pretty simple.
 
I read a lot of reviews here at BFC. I don't see anyone else calling these impressionistic endeavors "tests."
 
Broos said:
I was making an analogy, you are the one who is stuck on the "stupidity"! Explain your theory that one has to first make a video in order to comment on a video. Do you also think that one has to first jump off a bridge, in order to build a bridge? Or should every good airplane designer first have to crash an airplane before they are qualified? I can go on and on with the analogies, so try not to get to stuck on one.

And as I suspected - you cannot come up with one factual statement I have made to contend with. Your arguments are empty, and do not even make sense in the context of a discussion of physical science.

Why don't you tell me what has to happen to make those videos repeatable - have you given it any thought? Are you familiar with any of the tests that are considered repeatable and what is involved in them? Have you looked around to research the TRUTH about beating on hardened steel with a steel hammer? Your statement above only tells me that you have not, and are just pulling your comments out of a dark place with zero facts to back you up. You are like a lawyer in a test lab. :D

Instead of more empty words, why don't you tell us how you can make any test where you will beat on hardened steel with a steel hammer repeatable. Once again, I think there have been more than many suggestions provided to that little scared fella, nossy, in the various threads.

I will at least give you credit that you aren't a coward, unlike young boys who make comments in lame videos showing semi-random and unrepeatable failure.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in my statements is it written one must make a video.

"And as I suspected - you cannot come up with one factual statement I have made to contend with." What factual statent have you made.

They are repeatable in as much as anyone can gather up similar materials, perform the same tasks, and arrive at their own opinion. Try it.

Yeah, I know about hitting hardened steel with hardened steel hammers. Nothing new there - another statement of little weight. Such actions are mentioned in numerous books and some papers have been written on such - I like the ones that show pictures of a hammer's face separating.

Repeatable test of hitting an object with a hammer head is easy to configure in multiple ways - the cheapest probably being attaching the hammer dead to a lever arm attached to a fixed rotation point. We had one in a physics lab. Grade school stuff, actually.

"Once again, I think there have been more than many suggestions provided to that little scared fella, nossy, in the various threads." And therein you show your stripes - nothing but innuendo and name calling.
 
orthogonal1 said:
Nowhere in my statements is it written one must make a video.

"And as I suspected - you cannot come up with one factual statement I have made to contend with." What factual statent have you made.

They are repeatable in as much as anyone can gather up similar materials, perform the same tasks, and arrive at their own opinion. Try it.

Yeah, I know about hitting hardened steel with hardened steel hammers. Nothing new there - another statement of little weight. Such actions are mentioned in numerous books and some papers have been written on such - I like the ones that show pictures of a hammer's face separating.

Repeatable test of hitting an object with a hammer head is easy to configure in multiple ways - the cheapest probably being attaching the hammer dead to a lever arm attached to a fixed rotation point. We had one in a physics lab. Grade school stuff, actually.

"Once again, I think there have been more than many suggestions provided to that little scared fella, nossy, in the various threads." And therein you show your stripes - nothing but innuendo and name calling.
Click to expand...

I think Broos' point is that the impacts could be standardized to be repeatable, but are not by Noss. And it looks like you agree.
 
orthogonal1 said:
They are repeatable in as much as anyone can gather up similar materials, perform the same tasks, and arrive at their own opinion. Try it.

Yeah, I know about hitting hardened steel with hardened steel hammers. Nothing new there - another statement of little weight. Such actions are mentioned in numerous books and some papers have been written on such - I like the ones that show pictures of a hammer's face separating.

Repeatable test of hitting an object with a hammer head is easy to configure in multiple ways - the cheapest probably being attaching the hammer dead to a lever arm attached to a fixed rotation point. We had one in a physics lab. Grade school stuff, actually.
Click to expand...

Only someone with no grasp of toughness and impacts would say it is "grade school stuff". It is not.

The fact that you can do the same bad "test" over and over again is not how one defines that a test is repeatable. :D!!

Repeatability is if you do the test 10 times, do you get the same results every time. I thought some of the basic definitions were understood, but I guess not.

How much you like a knife, how it fits in your hand, or your opinion of how it has performed for you in normal duty has absolutely nothing to do with why a knife breaks when hit with a steel hammer.

There is a big difference between a review and a test - a review is subjective, and a test should be repeatable. If it is not repeatable, it is a review (or a stunt), not a test.

A review will tell what the reviewer thinks of the knife. A test should measure some characteristic or property of the knife or steel. And if you do it 10 times, and you get scattered results, the test is not repeatable. Pretty simple concept.

I get the impression that the fanboys think watching a knife break and what causes it is a matter of conjecture & opinion. And then they are offended when someone tells them they are making bad conclusions. Your comments sure give me that impression. Opinion and subjective characteristics have nothing to do with failure. What causes something to fail is something that can be determined with knowledge, inspection, and testing. Your or my opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I have been civil in these discussions until your buddy noss4-y started talking smack. I long ago realized the videos did more harm than good after all the fanboys blew the roof off by stating all kinds of ridiculous and incorrect conclusions based on watching a video. And cry, then attack anyone who tells them their "opinion" is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Not sure about the whole "test" issue, but, from what I've seen, I'd say the videos offer something possitive that can be taken away from them. And I'm personally glad they are avalible to watch. I can see something being done to a knife that will give me a basic idea of how the knife will handle and react to that perticular abuse. I wont necessarily be duplicating anything I see, and I may or may not agree with the "scoring" that is used or the opinions I hear; but what you are able to see by watching the videos is hard to argue with. What anyone else takes or concludes from these videos is up to them.
 
Guyon:
I read a lot of reviews here at BFC. I don't see anyone else calling these impressionistic endeavors "tests."
Click to expand...

You are kidding, right?

The name of this Sub-forum is Knife Reviews & TESTING

Testing is when you put your knife through some paces. That's all it is. Nothing scientific needs to be applied to it.

It just shows how irrational the opponents' point of view is on this topic.


Def.

test, n. -- A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something; a trial
 
Broos said:
Only someone with no grasp of toughness and impacts would say it is "grade school stuff". It is not.

The fact that you can do the same bad "test" over and over again is not how one defines that a test is repeatable. :D!!

Repeatability is if you do the test 10 times, do you get the same results every time. I thought some of the basic definitions were understood, but I guess not.

How much you like a knife, how it fits in your hand, or your opinion of how it has performed for you in normal duty has absolutely nothing to do with why a knife breaks when hit with a steel hammer.

There is a big difference between a review and a test - a review is subjective, and a test should be repeatable. If it is not repeatable, it is a review (or a stunt), not a test.

A review will tell what the reviewer thinks of the knife. A test should measure some characteristic or property of the knife or steel. And if you do it 10 times, and you get scattered results, the test is not repeatable. Pretty simple concept.

I get the impression that the fanboys think watching a knife break and what causes it is a matter of conjecture & opinion. And then they are offended when someone tells them they are making bad conclusions. Your comments sure give me that impression. Opinion and subjective characteristics have nothing to do with failure. What causes something to fail is something that can be determined with knowledge, inspection, and testing. Your or my opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I have been civil in these discussions until your buddy noss4-y started talking smack. I long ago realized the videos did more harm than good after all the fanboys blew the roof off by stating all kinds of ridiculous and incorrect conclusions based on watching a video. And cry, then attack anyone who tells them their "opinion" is wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is grade school stuff (at least when I graduated, but perhaps your education was to a lower standard :)).


"I have been civil in these discussions until your buddy noss4-y started talking smack." All you do is write degading names and unsubstantiated allegations, you provide not one iota of proof that the conclusions of NOSS4 are in fact inaccurate. Where are your tests and results - as previously alluded to. If you find the "tests" to be inaccurrate, do your own. Not an overly hard concept.

I am done with your ignorant behind. As the great Admiral Adama said, "Grow a pair".

ASA - hey Phil, you were right that the Coyote being a decent EDC,
 
komondor said:
Guyon:

You are kidding, right?

The name of this Sub-forum is Knife Reviews & TESTING

Testing is when you put your knife through some paces. That's all it is. Nothing scientific needs to be applied to it.

It just shows how irrational the opponents' point of view is on this topic.


Def.

test, n. -- A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something; a trial
Click to expand...

Most people call their reviews "reviews." Instead of fixating on the subforum title, you might just look down the thread titles on page 1.

Your point is irrelevant anyway. No matter what the subforum might be named, noss4 is conducting stunts to sustain attention.

A means of determining presence? Well, I guess he figures out the knives are made of metal when those sparks fly. :p

A means of determining quality? My Becker BK-9 is a quality knife no matter how many Swords of Doom TGHM assigns it.

A means of determining truth? [jack nicholson] THE GREAT HOCKEY MASK CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! [/jack nicholson] :D
 
Sharp Phil said:
If the name of the website was "hockeymaskedknifestunts.com," nobody would care. The word "test" implies a reproducible, quantifiable method. Making conclusions about a knife's ability to perform as a knife based on its ability to perform as a sledgehammer also implies a reproducible, quantifiable method, stupid as the premise is.

Don't call something a test if it's a stunt. Pretty simple.
Click to expand...

I think there is a little mix-up. He is not testing the knives. He is simply testing different methods of breaking knives. The methods are what he tests, not the knives. The knives are data points for how well his disturbed (:foot:) knife-breaking methods work -and they work quite well.

From the few tests I have seen, he does not stop until the knives are broken -which seems to be his true goal -the title "knifetests.com" is misleading. A more appropriate title would be "methodsforbreakingnicethings_tests.com"
 
Last edited:
The Government said:
I think there is a little mix-up. He is not testing the knives. He is simply testing different methods of breaking knives. The methods are what he tests, not the knives. The knives are data points for how well his disturbed(:foot:) knife-breaking methods work -and they work quite well.
Click to expand...

Brilliant.

knifetests.com = whackingtests.com :thumbup:
 
Ahh, you caught me before the edit, LOL I didnt want to piss anyone off.:D Well since you liked it, I will change it back:thumbup: Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Everybody who bother to see Noss's video may clearly see value of his testing. Not so far ago I did transcription of what he is doing on video time stamp by time stamp and it was clear that he do real scientific testing.

BTW scientific does not mean that you have degree - most of people with degree learn from books, but do not perform science. Noss does.

Result of his tests surprised many. This is happened because in Knife World there is no information on how knives get tested if they even does. Real testing many times does not back up promotional writings done by marketing drons so in some cases you face dilemma - accept Noss's results which expose certain expensive and highly rated knives, you own and pray on for years, poor performance (or even not completely perfect) or reject his result.

Many people decide to reject, however no one really try to do same test to prove their point. Instead most just get angry and start calling him "Hockey Mask" or something like this. I do not think this is right way to deal with this.

I think only way to show that Noss is wrong (I would say scientific way) is to do testing may be with different procedure and report results. However this mean to spend some effort. So far no one really try to do anything like this.

What surprise me is that R&D and QA departments of involved companies never really say anything so far. It looks like they do not even exist, so far there are only evidence of marketing departments. R&D and QA did not get exposed for so many months.

I am sure that in case of for example Car industry on results similar to what Noss reported we will have answers from R&D and QA pretty fast.

This is more alarming then Noss test results.

Regards, Vassili.
 
I'm not getting all this anti-Noss stuff yet.

So far I hear that you guys hated whatever Noss was saying on the forums several years ago, hate his use of the word "test", feel that someone somewhere is mislead by Noss, and some fixation on the value of repeatable science as regards the word "test" above, and the occasional outrage that anyone would ever hurt a knife.

I don't get it. You're not convincing me. All the arguments and posturing seem lame and weak to me.

What else have you got ? C'mon, seduce me to the dark side of Noss hating with some decent arguments. So far, you've got nothing, nada, zip, convincing. Surely you can do better than this. I realize some of you haven't actually watched a video all the way through or aren't even familiar with what's on his website, but he's over 2 million hits on youtube, and his kungfu is way better than your kungfu so far. So if you're going to do the hate thing and expect us all to agree with you, show us something we can get behind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top