no harm intended question

Hiding your identity while expecting others to take your public statements at face value indicates a lack of sincerity and integrity.
 
theonew said:
blow administered during these tests they are reasonably similar to most folks that don't have an agenda,
Click to expand...

I would certainly be interested in hearing what agenda you believe I might have.

If you believe my agenda is requiring tests to be accurate and objective then you have certainly hit the nail on the head.

If you believe I have some other agenda I would enjoy hearing about it.
 
theonew said:
You are such a troll.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head! Don't feed 'em, as they are specifically looking for that attention and will soak it up like a spunge.;)

DaveH and Komondor, I'm with you guys. A test is a test. It doesn't have to be 'scientific,' a term (like 'agenda') thrown out by people who wish to discredit those who are willing share information about how a product performs in a certain set of circumstances. I don't see those people testing the knives and making that information readily available. That said, don't take the word of any one tester. Do the research yourself before buying a product (and the hype).

Regards,
3G
 
LeftytwoGuns said:
Hey guys, relatively new to this forum, compared to most. And I just discovered knifetests.com last week, and was checking out some of the videos..

Not to step on anybody's toes, and not intended as a dis (I actually have checked out a few C R knives and considdered buying) but why were the green beret and that one piece so easliy broken?

Obviously, these are very nice knives, and I'm sure made of quality materials. Is that particular steel just not impact resistant, or is it due to blade shape, or what? I am just curious.

I would never hit a $300 + knife with a hammer so it doesn't really affect me, but I'm just curious. I'm sure this has been discussed before, and I just looked but could not find it. Anyone mind filling me in on the verdict?

thanks for reading,
-LeFty Guns
Click to expand...

LeFty Guns,
Be sure to check out all of the available information before deciding to (or not to) buy a particular knife. There are other knife testing/review resources available. The one you mentioned is not the only one. Here are some other tests/reviews of the Green Beret and one of the One Piece line of knives:
http://cutleryscience.com/reviews/project_I.html

Regards,
3G
 
3Guardsmen said:
Meaning, by its very definition, is subjective.
Click to expand...

Now you're arguing semantics.

The fact of the matter is that when you factor in human error and any wetware factors at all (in any field, test, or subject), you're going to have uncontrollable variables present that negate the original intention of any given activity.

Whoever it is behind the mask doing the knife tests may or may not be intending to cause a CRK failure. Whoever is behind the mask may or may not have the precise muscle control to continue to strike the knife in a consistent manner. Whoever is behind the mask may more may not have factored in various other minutiae which could in the end snowball and end up causing serious harm to the outcome data.

Besides that, there's no scientific rigour in his testing. No control group, no consistent measure, or even naming of a dependent variable in comparison to an independent variable. No actual "sample", no dispersal of testing, or anything which would normally be used in anything that would brand itself a test or experiment with any merit at all.

If you want to argue science and rigour, argue science and rigour. if you want to make ad hominem arguments at people in this forum, kindly leave since all you're doing is trolling.
 
Kilroy Higgins said:
Now you're arguing semantics.
Click to expand...
No. I was stating a fact. Whether or not a certain tester's tests are meaningful or not is up to the observer to decide. Do you disagree?
Kilroy Higgins said:
The fact of the matter is that when you factor in human error and any wetware factors at all (in any field, test, or subject), you're going to have uncontrollable variables present that negate the original intention of any given activity.
Click to expand...
Unless the intention of that given activity is to explore how far a knife can go during that given activity. I never claimed a certain tester's tests were conducted using proper scientific techniques, and you know what, neither did that tester.
Kilroy Higgins said:
Whoever it is behind the mask doing the knife tests may or may not be intending to cause a CRK failure. Whoever is behind the mask may or may not have the precise muscle control to continue to strike the knife in a consistent manner. Whoever is behind the mask may more may not have factored in various other minutiae which could in the end snowball and end up causing serious harm to the outcome data.
Click to expand...
True. Those are variables of which we cannot be sure.
Kilroy Higgins said:
Besides that, there's no scientific rigour in his testing. No control group, no consistent measure, or even naming of a dependent variable in comparison to an independent variable. No actual "sample", no dispersal of testing, or anything which would normally be used in anything that would brand itself a test or experiment with any merit at all.
Click to expand...
Again, nobody here that I know of has claimed a certain tester's tests were scientific. This is starting to sound like a broken record now. If you fail to see the value in a certain tester's tests, so be it. Others may find some value. Personally, I don't find much value in that tester's tests, but I find them significantly better than nothing.
Kilroy Higgins said:
If you want to argue science and rigour, argue science and rigour. if you want to make ad hominem arguments at people in this forum, kindly leave since all you're doing is trolling.
Click to expand...
This thread was never about "science and rigour." That isn't what the OP was asking. People jumped on the 'bash the tester' bandwagon, saying the tests were of no value, mostly because they lack science and rigour, and myself and a few others here stated that we did see some value in the tests. If you want to see anything of an "ad hominem" nature, look at the statements made about the tester.

Regards,
3G
 
Kilroy Higgins said:
If you want to argue science and rigour, argue science and rigour. if you want to make ad hominem arguments at people in this forum, kindly leave since all you're doing is trolling.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to go on record as saying that I can see why many people don't like a certain tester's 'tests,' as I myself find them lacking in anything that doesn't relate to extreme abuse and ultimately the destruction of a knife. I see them as nothing more than a way of finding out what one particular knife can endure one time when subjected to fairly random hard use/abuse.

One-time, hard/survival usage of a knife is never going to be exact or repeatable, and for that reason, I don't expect the methods a certain tester employs to be so either. I think that is the primary hang-up with this tester's 'tests.' They're not designed to be scientific and repeatable, they're just designed to torture and abuse the heck out of a piece of gear and find out when it gives up the ghost. That is why I don't place any value on his rating system, as there really is no good basis for comparison.

Just because I've defended the tester's 'tests,' though not for the reason most here seem to think (I'm NOT in any way saying his 'tests' are scientific, I'm just NOT willing to say they're completely useless), it doesn't mean I think the knives that broke fairly early on aren't good products. I'm just saying people should take the 'tests' for what they are.

Regards,
3G
 
pvicenzi said:
This is starting to sound like a Strider thread.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the truth. Whenever Strider or a certain 'tester' (using the term very loosely here) come up, the battle lines tend to show. In this case though, I don't know if they're warranted. That 'tester' is going to do what he does and people are either going to find some value to it or they are not. Complaining about his 'tests,' just like defending them, doesn't seem to serve a purpose, and for that simple reason, I'm no longer going to defend them.

Regards,
3G
 
3Guardsmen said:
Complaining about his 'tests,' just like defending them, doesn't seem to serve a purpose, and for that simple reason, I'm no longer going to defend them.

Regards,
3G
Click to expand...

Isn't that a metaphor for all Bladeforums discussions? What else do we do but complain or defend?
 
As a retired knifemaker who regularly tested his knives I will say that you can destroy any knife if you try hard enough. For example while holding the tang you can put pressure in a certain way as to help in breaking the knife also while batoning, if you hit the spine from a side angle instead of straight down as it should be done, you are increasing the likelyhood of a breakage. Combine both and you increase the chance for disaster. Did the tester do this? The twisting part is almost impossible to see in a video. The batoning is also hard to tell in the video but it appears as he was hitting the spine incorrectly. If you look at the video you will see how the angle of the strikes are up to about 8:35 into the clip and how they change at about 8:45 until it breaks at about 8:50. On purpose? Only he knows, I guess.
 
Last edited:
My intention was not to start an argument between all of you guys. Considder my origional question answered, and dropped.

To the guy who said all the tests do is confuse newbies, I may not have 3,000 posts on blade forums, but I have been carrying knives all of my life. From the time I was playing in the woods as a child, right through my time in the military, construction work, up until now where I work at a prison and deal with home-made knives that would make you guys scream. :eek:

I agree that those "tests" were not all even and standard, but what cutting or chopping chore, in the field would be? And I could not imagine why that guy would have a personal vendetta against one company, unless you guys know him personally and know a reason why he would then fine.

Personally, I watched those videos for a little entertainment value. Seeing him breaking some of the knives I own didn't cause me to get all angry and worked up and come on the blade forum yelling at guys asking why knife A or knife B broke so easily during "test" X or Y. It's just about learning the capabilities and limitations of your equipment.

I was shocked when my Sog seal knife cut through some metal wire. Who would have guessed right?? not me. But I smiled when he snapped the blade, thinking thats what I don't need to do with that knife, if it ever came down to it. When my $15 dollar Cold Steel machetti was able to survive all of that crap I thought, "dang, I need to get another one of those"

But, guys, it's nothing to get all worked up over. As I stated if I bought a Chris Reeve knife it would be for collector value because I like that knife, it would not be to chop concrete with, and there is a 99.9 % chance that knife would never come into contact with a hammer.

Considder the OP's question answered:
Tests are subjective, all knives can be good for their intended purpose. And some people are still sore over the subject, so lets drop it.
Like comparing a racecar with a tow-truck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top