So now people who never post online with no cyber cred know exactly nothing about what works, so how could someone with 9 posts know anything. That sounds like something someone would say who seen a YouTube video and thought it would be cool to get into knives because of it and started at zero knowledge with post number one would say.
Here is what I see happening. Someone gets a thick long heavy flat or saber ground blade and try to do some fine work an agile blade does easily. They realize it sucks pretty bad at them tasks but man, it chops decent. So that's all it gets used for. Somewhere along the line of posts and people repeating things they've never done it becomes true. Wait a second, it is true! Them heavy thick saber and flat grind blades do suck at the finer work, but they do chop decent. So how could anything be better? Well I have a long thick saber ground knife and it is horrible at finer details. I have a slightly shorter just as heavy hollow ground blade that weighs the same and it chops much better, in fact it chops almost as good as the twice the weight semi hollow ground SCHF37 I got.
You clearly aren't getting some people get better chopping results from a hollow grind. Just because other grinds are decent at it and suck for other tasks don't mean that grinds best suited task will be better than other grinds for chopping.
I haven't seen any supporting evidence of what the anti hollow grinders are saying. All I see is you're wrong, you don't get it, I'm right, listen to me. Even when people do try to give supporting evidence all it does is help the hollow grind show it's better for chopping. No one has came along to support their axe comments yet. I want to see them explain why the axes I've shown are better suited for chopping than axes ground for splitting. Maybe if one of the guys trying to prove a point can take an 8lb splitting maul and a 2ld Michigan double bit axe to two similarly sized trees and time how long it takes to fell them. You'll get it then.
