-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Ways to attack Cliff Stamp's reviews - A guide for the thin-skinned
- Thread starter thombrogan
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2000
- Messages
- 454
If you think American beer is bad, try Korean beer sometime .
That's why they invented kimchee, to get the taste of their beer out of the mouths and to speed it's way through the digestive system.
That's why they invented kimchee, to get the taste of their beer out of the mouths and to speed it's way through the digestive system.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2000
- Messages
- 454
Just thought I'd add that I just kegged 5 gallons of an Irish Red Ale homebrew....
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2001
- Messages
- 6,676
Cliff's reviews don't do much for me. I've found a few of them to be somewhat informative, but not the vast majority. Many of his tests fall far enough from my use of a knife that I just don't find the reviews to be worth bothering with. I guess I feel that Cliff plays to the attitudes that are driving this industry in the wrong direction. People are obsessed with whether or not their knife is indestructible, instead of whether their knife actually cuts well under skilled use. I never like to see people try to replace good habits and skills with unnecessarily robust design. The inevitable compromise is just too great.
Am I saying that Cliff is dead wrong? Not at all. Hes giving the people what they want. It just doesnt happen to be what I want. But thats just personal preference.
I guess I feel that many other Bladeforums members bring much more knowledge and common sense to the table.
Does this make me thin skinned? Got me. All I know is that I prefer Sam Adams and Killian's Irish Red. The rest is swill.
Am I saying that Cliff is dead wrong? Not at all. Hes giving the people what they want. It just doesnt happen to be what I want. But thats just personal preference.
I guess I feel that many other Bladeforums members bring much more knowledge and common sense to the table.
Does this make me thin skinned? Got me. All I know is that I prefer Sam Adams and Killian's Irish Red. The rest is swill.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2002
- Messages
- 4,131
Bos doesn't heat treat Buck's 420HC stuff. He only does their higher end stuff.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 233
'Buzz -- really some excellent comments there, and I say that as one who very much appreciates and enjoys Cliff's work.
Like yourself, my real interest is in using knives with care and precision. I've only rarely had the need to use any of the knives I've owned in ways that might be considered misuse or abuse, or risk exceeding its limits. And I've never felt good about it when this kind of situation has come up.
But it has made me accept the fact that even those of us with a deep respect for our tools sometimes have to "make do." When that happens, it's nice to have a knife that's capable of more than you would ordinarily use it for.
I also think the knife industry has way over-promoted the whole toughness and "sharpened prybar" thing. But that's what the market seems to want, so.... As a result, a lot of knives are sold on the basis of big claims that may (or may not) be nothing more than a lot of hype ... and this increases the likelihood that people are buying knives based upon performance claims they're not likely to verify for themselves, doing the normal day-to-day stuff we do with knives.
This is where I see Cliff playing an important role. I can't say whether or not his tests and reviews may actually be encouraging all the "tough knife hype" that's out there, but his tests would seem to put any hype to the test. If there were a couple dozen other people out there doing the same thing, and all acting independently (i.e. non-commercially) as does Cliff, then maybe we could say it's all part of the popular tough knife craze. But as it is, Cliff fills a somewhat unique niche, and I think his findings are useful to many, albeit in varying degrees and ways.
Another thing I'll say about Cliff, I think he genuinely tries to be helpful. I see him replying to a variety of questions posted here, and I think he often gives people something worthwhile to consider. I've also exchanged a few e-mails with him, and he has been unfailingly polite, and immensely informative. Cliff doesn't know me from Adam, but has spent a great deal of time replying to my questions and comments.
I hope you'll take no offense at this, 'Buzz, but I appreciate your contributions to these forums and your convex sharpening web page for much the same reasons I appreciate what Cliff does. I think you both are trying to share something worthwhile with others, and that's a very generous thing to do.
BTW, I've invited Cliff to come to Colorado and enjoy some of our excellent beers, such as New Belgium Trippel and Abbey. Same goes for everyone here on BFC. You'll quickly realize, the only reason Coors is so big is we Coloradoans gotta have something to clean the smell of horse and cow off our boots.
Like yourself, my real interest is in using knives with care and precision. I've only rarely had the need to use any of the knives I've owned in ways that might be considered misuse or abuse, or risk exceeding its limits. And I've never felt good about it when this kind of situation has come up.
But it has made me accept the fact that even those of us with a deep respect for our tools sometimes have to "make do." When that happens, it's nice to have a knife that's capable of more than you would ordinarily use it for.
I also think the knife industry has way over-promoted the whole toughness and "sharpened prybar" thing. But that's what the market seems to want, so.... As a result, a lot of knives are sold on the basis of big claims that may (or may not) be nothing more than a lot of hype ... and this increases the likelihood that people are buying knives based upon performance claims they're not likely to verify for themselves, doing the normal day-to-day stuff we do with knives.
This is where I see Cliff playing an important role. I can't say whether or not his tests and reviews may actually be encouraging all the "tough knife hype" that's out there, but his tests would seem to put any hype to the test. If there were a couple dozen other people out there doing the same thing, and all acting independently (i.e. non-commercially) as does Cliff, then maybe we could say it's all part of the popular tough knife craze. But as it is, Cliff fills a somewhat unique niche, and I think his findings are useful to many, albeit in varying degrees and ways.
Another thing I'll say about Cliff, I think he genuinely tries to be helpful. I see him replying to a variety of questions posted here, and I think he often gives people something worthwhile to consider. I've also exchanged a few e-mails with him, and he has been unfailingly polite, and immensely informative. Cliff doesn't know me from Adam, but has spent a great deal of time replying to my questions and comments.
I hope you'll take no offense at this, 'Buzz, but I appreciate your contributions to these forums and your convex sharpening web page for much the same reasons I appreciate what Cliff does. I think you both are trying to share something worthwhile with others, and that's a very generous thing to do.
BTW, I've invited Cliff to come to Colorado and enjoy some of our excellent beers, such as New Belgium Trippel and Abbey. Same goes for everyone here on BFC. You'll quickly realize, the only reason Coors is so big is we Coloradoans gotta have something to clean the smell of horse and cow off our boots.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2002
- Messages
- 7,636
Not to give away too many of the Secrets of Professional Polemicists, but the easiest way to insulate yourself (or someone else) from genuine criticism of your (or their) behavior is to create a list like the one at the beginning of this thread, creating categories into which those criticisms can be placed for easy dismissal. This is one of the ways in which my Field Guide to Trolls or Martial Arts Defense Mechanisms may be misused to deflect valid criticism.
Creating such a list essentially establishes straw man arguments before the fact. If, for example, Cliff really does possess an unhealthy and inappropriate need to bash cinder blocks with knives (something few people would actually do with their blades), one who wishes to shield Cliff from this criticism can anticipate it, characterize it as some sort of intellectually bankrupt attack on Cliff as a person, and then sit back and laugh as critics discover they cannot state their problems with this approach without being told they're being mean and unfair.
I am not saying this is what's going on -- I am just pointing out the possible misuse of such a laundry list.
Creating such a list essentially establishes straw man arguments before the fact. If, for example, Cliff really does possess an unhealthy and inappropriate need to bash cinder blocks with knives (something few people would actually do with their blades), one who wishes to shield Cliff from this criticism can anticipate it, characterize it as some sort of intellectually bankrupt attack on Cliff as a person, and then sit back and laugh as critics discover they cannot state their problems with this approach without being told they're being mean and unfair.
I am not saying this is what's going on -- I am just pointing out the possible misuse of such a laundry list.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 1998
- Messages
- 4,842
Buzz,
While Cliff does a lot of robustness testing, he also does a lot of cutting performance testing. So much so that I find it hard to understand why some folks latch onto the robustness testing and use it to dismiss everything else. Cliff can often be found talking about tweaking steel to squeeze out a little extra performance here or there. I think this latching on to one subset of his review methodology and ignoring the rest is incredibly unfair, and I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who occasionally ignores some of Cliff's robustness testing for the same reason you do (though some of it I feel is perfectly appropriate).
And more importantly, regarding beer, I agree the Canadian swill-level beers are better than the American swill-level (at the craft end, American beers are at least a match for Canadian). On the other hand, the Americans to get some credit: at least most of them understand the basic idea that the good Lord intended for beer to be stored in brown bottles, not green. I'd say at least two out of three Molson/Moosehead/etc. beers are skunked, and often badly. Unskunked Molson might be better than unskunked Bud, but 1. that's not saying much, and 2. finding unskunked Molson is a crap shoot at best.
Joe
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2002
- Messages
- 9,948
To my knowledge, you've never had to jump down the man's throat to disagree with him. Please don't think this post was concerning your differences with Cliff.
I thank you for stating it in that manner. You're posts are the reason why I try I learned how to convex-edge some of my pocket knives and why I don't do it to all of them. If I understand you correctly, you believe that Cliff's helping guide knife users towards Megaladon-strength folders and Busse-strength fixed blades when a Delica or vintage Marbles' Fieldcraft might handle 3 lifetimes of their cutting needs. Would that be correct?
That's a good desire to have. I guess the desire for overbuilt knives replacing skills and safety sense is similar to an over-reliance on GUI's to make up for basic math and grammar skills in the computer world.
Buzzbait, your manner of conducting yourself is a pleasure and a rarity. You're able to disagree with someone or not need to read their posts when they're not applicable to your wants or needs without flipping out at the author. When, say, Cliff states something you disagree with, you write your disagreement with what he said. To my knowledge, you haven't resorted to the mechanisms listed in the first post of the thread.
Steven,
When your previous screen name was "im2smart4u" (sp?), I didn't know you meant me in specific. Thanks for the correction. So maybe an ATS-34/King Cobra analogy maybe better?
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2002
- Messages
- 9,948
Well put, Phil, but I must state that you're off-base in this one. Point 3 states:
That would leave innappropriate free-lance block cutting open to challenge, but, when the lender of said cutlery asks said Mr. Stamp to test the knife by cutting a concrete block, it is not appropriate to dismiss Cliff's concrete block test. So if Ray Kirk says "please cut a cinder block with this knife and write about it's effects" should not draw criticism of the eager tester's method but arbitrary concrete block cutting would not be above criticism if it was actually done in the test in question. If a knife is tested in food prep, sharpness testing on strings, woodworking, and carpet slicing; and the reader disagrees with the findings; I am saying it's innappropriate (though not uncommon) to complain that Cliff only tests knives by cutting concrete blocks.
Does that help further demarcate my list from the habits of trolls or does it help further condemn me as a troll?
Verrry interesting thread! I too find Killians Irish Red one FINE brew.
WRT Cliff's testing though, I've gotta submit my $.02 worth. Having spent many years in the field of physics of failure determination and analysis of the statistical probabilities of failure, I'm concerned with the application of the term "scientific" to Cliff's evaluations. His results, normally referenced to a single example of a particular knife type which may or may not have a documented history prior to his testing is frankly totally UNscientific and statistically moot. Further, the often lack of substantiation of his results by other testers is troubling from a scientific point of view.
I have no particular quarrel with Mr. Stamp's methods or his conclusions. However they are NOT scientific....AND.....perhaps even dangerous when presented to an impressionable and somewhat uninformed audience such as is found in these forums. To some, Cliff's conclusions take on the aura of FACT. Recognition of that issue is Mr Stamp's responsibility in my view, and should be uppermost in his thinking when his results are published and quoted. True science applied to "test to destruction" evaluations demands statistically valid sample sizes, a through awareness of the device(s) history and a significant level of testing control to assure that the tests can be repeated without disruption of the statistical validities.
Admittedly, these requirements are not practically possible for Mr. Stamp to achieve. The consequence however is that his results MUST be taken with a LARGE grain of salt and he should say so in no uncertain terms in his publications.
WRT Cliff's testing though, I've gotta submit my $.02 worth. Having spent many years in the field of physics of failure determination and analysis of the statistical probabilities of failure, I'm concerned with the application of the term "scientific" to Cliff's evaluations. His results, normally referenced to a single example of a particular knife type which may or may not have a documented history prior to his testing is frankly totally UNscientific and statistically moot. Further, the often lack of substantiation of his results by other testers is troubling from a scientific point of view.
I have no particular quarrel with Mr. Stamp's methods or his conclusions. However they are NOT scientific....AND.....perhaps even dangerous when presented to an impressionable and somewhat uninformed audience such as is found in these forums. To some, Cliff's conclusions take on the aura of FACT. Recognition of that issue is Mr Stamp's responsibility in my view, and should be uppermost in his thinking when his results are published and quoted. True science applied to "test to destruction" evaluations demands statistically valid sample sizes, a through awareness of the device(s) history and a significant level of testing control to assure that the tests can be repeated without disruption of the statistical validities.
Admittedly, these requirements are not practically possible for Mr. Stamp to achieve. The consequence however is that his results MUST be taken with a LARGE grain of salt and he should say so in no uncertain terms in his publications.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2002
- Messages
- 7,636
Thom,
I think you've made your case fairly well, actually.
I think you've made your case fairly well, actually.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2002
- Messages
- 9,948
Revmic,
In case I misunderstand you, you're saying that Cliff's testing and recording of known variables is good for what he's trying to accomplish, but you don't want his testing to be considered scientific until the tests can be and are repeated with enough samples of the works in question and by a large enough group of test folks so that his findings may be either invalidated or validated in a statistically significant number?
I'm not sure that Mr. Stamp refers to himself as a scientist. I like that he describes his tests, the known (or believed to be known) variables, and the actual outcome of the tests in a warts-and-all manner. It's not identical to studies published in peer-reviewed journals (which can be a good thing in terms of no need to tip-toe through corporate and political minefields and less readers preferring to jump into a chipper rather than read said tiptoed studies), but I don't think that was a claim of Cliff's, anyways.
In case I misunderstand you, you're saying that Cliff's testing and recording of known variables is good for what he's trying to accomplish, but you don't want his testing to be considered scientific until the tests can be and are repeated with enough samples of the works in question and by a large enough group of test folks so that his findings may be either invalidated or validated in a statistically significant number?
I'm not sure that Mr. Stamp refers to himself as a scientist. I like that he describes his tests, the known (or believed to be known) variables, and the actual outcome of the tests in a warts-and-all manner. It's not identical to studies published in peer-reviewed journals (which can be a good thing in terms of no need to tip-toe through corporate and political minefields and less readers preferring to jump into a chipper rather than read said tiptoed studies), but I don't think that was a claim of Cliff's, anyways.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2002
- Messages
- 4,131
On other forums I post under "im2smrt4u," a nickname I selected long ago. Since I've started learning to make knives, I've changed my screen name to my real name, so I don't seem so full of myself. :footinmou
As far as the analogy goes, it isn't far off. Buck does some great things with cheap steel and keeps costs low. I think the analogy is sound, but Buck does its own heat treating for their more inexpensive knives.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2001
- Messages
- 6,676
Not exactly. I just think that people are easily misled by some of Cliffs findings. I wont point and blame Cliff for people drawing wrong conclusions, but authors should be partially responsible for their words.
A grossly exaggerated example would be to take two fillet knives into testing. Fillet knife #1 proves to have a 5% better overall cutting efficiency. Fillet knife #2 proves able to cut through a steel sink with no edge damage. Fillet knife #1 miserably failed the sink test, busting in half under force. While the better fillet knife is (obviously to me at least) Fillet Knife #1, many people might assume that Fillet Knife #2 is the supreme fillet knife. At the cost of only 5% cutting efficiency, you can now cut sinks. The day has now dawned on the era of the survival fillet knife.
This is the trend I see in todays knives. We initially give up some cutting efficiency to gain a reward in durability. A new benchmark is set, only to be toppled by a new model. The new model yields yet another loss of 5% in cutting efficiency for a substantial gain in durability. And now comes the millennium, and we have tactical utility folders that cant even come close to the cutting efficiency of a Buck 110. But at least we know that they can be bent 90 degrees with a cheater bar JUST IN CASE.
To make matters worse, we complain that were still busting the tips off of our tactical Uber-folders. Weve essentially tossed out the idea of skill in making cuts, and adopted a ham-fisted approach to forcing our way through cuts. This has become a never-ending chain of events.
Have the materials we normally cut changed so much over the years, that we need an uber-folder? Nope. We still cut cardboard, rope, meat, vegetables, wood and hide. These are the same substrates that our grandfathers cut with a large slipjoint. Our grandfather just didnt need an ultra-lock because the thin slipjoint blade cut with very little applied force. Our grandfather also knew how to finesse a cut so he didnt bust the blade.
Again, do I blame Cliff for this turn of events? No. The manufacturers are to blame. Giving a 1/2 thick bladed folder to a ham-fist isnt the answer to not busting the tips on his knives. The answer is to teach the poor slob how to cut a piece of cardboard without breaking the damn tip off. But . Destructive testing beyond a knifes intended use, and reporting this testing to the poor slob, only hurts the situation further. Is it Cliffs intention to support the thick prybar knife concept? I strongly doubt it. He just wants to learn more about steel properties and blade geometry, and hopes to share his findings with others. But the way he presents his findings has misled the poor slob to buy a knife that may be entirely inappropriate for his uses.
And all I wanted was a friggin fillet knife.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2002
- Messages
- 9,948
Strangely, it was by reading Cliff's work (and Steve Harvey's and Joe Talmadge's) that I figured out that my knives were too thick for my cutting needs. Among others, those folks convinced me that the best feature of a 'super steel' is that you can run the edge thinner than other steels with a reduced risk of chipping it out.
Here are some examples:
My Benchmade 921 Switchback, which has a rough, tough, axis lock and S30V steel for its main blade is the best slicer I own. It's edge chipped when I used it to cut through my shed (narrow guage sheetmetal, probably any knife not made of unhardened clay could have cut it open), but now it sports a much thinner edge that I wouldn't have dared use had I not been a reader of Cliff's works.
My Benchmade 806D2 AFCK (advanced folding Christmastree knife) was a perfect example of what you're talking about: rock-solid lockup, smoot action, g-10 scales, axis lock, D2 steel, couldn't cut a 1/3 as well as a just as new Delica. It was Cliff's stuff that lead me to realize the edge was too thick, Steve Harvey's advice (followed several months after he gave it) to eschew esthetics and start filing away, Joe Talmadge's writing to make me feel confident that D2 and similar steels are made for thin edges, and your writings convinced me to make the edge convexed. Now, after several hours of reading and grinderless stock removal, it now cuts just as good as a NIB Delica!
Most folding knives will either break at the steel or break out of the handle should such a test be conducted. Incidentally, that flex test is one of the blade quality requirements for Journeyman in the American Bladesmith Society according to Wayne Goddard and Ed Caffrey. Spyderco makes a folding fillet knife that seems to be very flexible.
The example you mentioned actually came from a fan of a man who hand-forges fixed blades and doesn't appear to be that influenced by Mr. Stamp.
I know what you mean, but I'm not sure that Cliff's writings reinforce that market trend. At least not to the extent your post implies.
Buzz,
Your last post strikes me as specious. Up until then, you were staying reasonable, even in the instances I disagreed with you. Now you're bordering on taking hollow, cheap shots, and using this unseemly "maybe" rhetoric to get away with insinuations.
Cliff's writing is not obscurantist, nor difficult to decipher or interpret.
"Maybe Cliff's writing leaves so much to the imagination, ten people will draw ten totally different conclusions from his work."
And maybe his writing imparts the information which allows ten people to better draw their own conclusions of what is suitable to their ten totally different needs.
In my case, Cliff's posts have lead to both more appropriately heavy-duty emergency survival knives for my possible outdoor exigencies, and more everyday use of x-acto knives and boxcutters for pure cutting performance, in cases where durability is not an issue.
"that's not good, IMHO."
You're right, it's not good. It's excellent.
--Mike
Your last post strikes me as specious. Up until then, you were staying reasonable, even in the instances I disagreed with you. Now you're bordering on taking hollow, cheap shots, and using this unseemly "maybe" rhetoric to get away with insinuations.
Cliff's writing is not obscurantist, nor difficult to decipher or interpret.
"Maybe Cliff's writing leaves so much to the imagination, ten people will draw ten totally different conclusions from his work."
And maybe his writing imparts the information which allows ten people to better draw their own conclusions of what is suitable to their ten totally different needs.
In my case, Cliff's posts have lead to both more appropriately heavy-duty emergency survival knives for my possible outdoor exigencies, and more everyday use of x-acto knives and boxcutters for pure cutting performance, in cases where durability is not an issue.
"that's not good, IMHO."
You're right, it's not good. It's excellent.
--Mike
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2001
- Messages
- 6,676
No, I'm not taking cheap shots at all. I just wonder if his reviews might benefit from more conclusions drawn on his findings, instead of merely presenting the facts. It's easy to get lost amongst all of those charts and numbers, and lose focus of the reasons for doing the tests and comparisons.
Buzz,
Conclusions have their place. And, sometimes, Cliff shares his conclusions. Certainly, he does so quite often when he is talking more about principles of geometry, steel choice, etc.
But sometimes conclusions are a poor idea. This is the case when they are imparting your own value, based on your own use and needs, when they are likely to differ significantly from others.
Look at the thread I started, here:
http://www.swampratknifeworks.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000287
I didn't come right out and say "Trioaxane is best", even though trioxane is certainly the best for me, because I think it is perfectly legitimate that other people's needs might make trioxane's toxicity or tendency to evaporate more important issues than for me.
There are times when a lack of conclusion--instead simply presenting the facts about varying performance over multiple factors, and letting people decide for themselves--is best.
I think that Cliff does a good job at striking this balance.
--Mike
Conclusions have their place. And, sometimes, Cliff shares his conclusions. Certainly, he does so quite often when he is talking more about principles of geometry, steel choice, etc.
But sometimes conclusions are a poor idea. This is the case when they are imparting your own value, based on your own use and needs, when they are likely to differ significantly from others.
Look at the thread I started, here:
http://www.swampratknifeworks.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000287
I didn't come right out and say "Trioaxane is best", even though trioxane is certainly the best for me, because I think it is perfectly legitimate that other people's needs might make trioxane's toxicity or tendency to evaporate more important issues than for me.
There are times when a lack of conclusion--instead simply presenting the facts about varying performance over multiple factors, and letting people decide for themselves--is best.
I think that Cliff does a good job at striking this balance.
--Mike