Extreme Judgement : just some spec's and a little splitting

Eric_425 said:
How? The rating scale, supported by data, is going to be data from testing other knives. Which is again, comparing one knife against others.

Why would data from a test be data from another knife? A scientific experiment does not use another experiment's data.

All reviews are comparing one thing against another. Performance is relative. Not to mention the variations that occur from test to test, substrate to substrate.

If performance is relative, what does a 1/4 mile time mean for a car? Does a car review have to mention another cars 1/4 mile time to be meaningful? Of course not. If a reader wants to compare that time with another, it is up to the reader to do so. This is why a rating scale can work. If I wanted to compare Cliff's rating of a 9 (assuming an arbitrary scale) from a knife with another knife, I could read Cliff's rating for the other knife. Cliff does not have to mention any other knife - I have to do the legwork and extract the meaning myself. Keeps the reviewer from sounding subjective.

If he just takes a knife, and it takes 15 chops to cut through a 2 x 4, what would that tell you? It's a good chopper? Give it a rating of 9/10, because it took so few chops to cut through?

A 12 year old could take the same knife, and it takes him a 100 chops to cut through. Did the same knife suddenly become a bad chopper?

Or if he finds an exceptionally tough piece of wood. The same knife might take 30 chops this time.

There's too many variables that would need to be taken into account. The only way to count those out would be to use other blades for direct comparison. A review without them would be almost completely worthless.

Not really. I am sure that Cliff will tell you that a good science experiment tries to eliminate all of the variables (except the experimental one of course). Likewise, if a reviewer wanted to do that they would know that to eliminate the unwanted variables you have to get creative. It can be done. That said, I would not expect Cliff to spend the time and energy developing a chopping device or buying a more uniform material to chop with it. After all, this isn't a job. the point is - it is possible to do.

Yeah, Cliff isn't completely objective. nobody is. But he's the most objective reviewer on this board by a landslide. Really. Nobody else comes within miles. More completely numerical and objective data, measureable and repeatable, come from his reviews than anybody else. Cliff should just rest easy knowing none of those criticizing have put out reviews as unbiased as his.

Is that your objective opinion of Cliff? You are mixing up your units. Are you measuring him in landslides or miles?
:D (that was a joke, of course)

I would agree that Cliff maintains more objectivity than most reviews (my own included) and I didn't say otherwise. My point was that there are things that can be done that may help others think he is more objective.
 
thombrogan said:
That's the problem! We only use flammable concrete on this continent.

Suddenly it all makes perfect sense! :p

BTW I am not having a "pop" at anyone, I just know what works for me and enjoy Cliffs reviews for the bits I find useful. I just keep thinking to myself, did the pioneers carry a Busse knife? Did they all die as a result? You work with what you have and if most of us are honest a good carbon steel knife will get the job done.

I have several knives by Alan Wood, a maker most of you have probably never heard of. I have used a 4" blade of his called the Woolore, made from thick O1 steel and it is a fantastic survival tool. That and my combo of a good multitool and Chirwa Kuhkri makes for an almost unbeatable package.

No Busse or Swamp Rat knife could out chop the Chirwa I think.
 
Kbog's 1/4-mile time analogy actually illustrates why Cliff puts comparisons in his reviews. It is because they are "reviews" rather than engineering reports. The comparison help those of us who don't have the statistics memorized to put the tests and numbers in some sort of perspective. For most American males you can say that Joe Blow bats .400 in the National League and it will have great significance. For European males or many American women you will have to define the terms and give them an idea of how such a batter would rank in his league. It might help if you told them how that number affects his salary. If you tell someone that a car does a 13.5 second quarter mile what does that mean and is it good? Some of us know and the rest of us are vague or ignorant. It helps if you compare it to a car that may be familiar by reputation or direct experience. For example it might help to tell an oldtimer like me that a 1969 427 L88 Corvette with auto trans (430hp) could do the quarter in around 13.56 seconds with a top speed of 111.1 mph. For one of you young whipper snappers it might be more meaningful to say that a 2002 Z28 SS Camaro with 6-speed shifter and 350 LS1 engine (325hp) will do the quarter mile in 13.5 seconds with a top speed of 107.3 mph. Direct comparisons aren't scientifically necessary, but they really make a review more accessible.

PS. Here are some cool stats on production cars on the drag strip:
http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-50fast.shtml

The comparisons are fun and bring back a lot of memories.
 
First off, I don't know, have never met or even ever talked to Cliff Stamp.

That said, I made the purchase of what turned out to be MY favorite fixed blade after reading his reviews. I was looking for a TOUGH 7inch combat/utility fixed blade that could actually CUT. Many "tactical" fixed blades are so freakin' thick you can't do anything with them but chop or pry (which is why I own a prybar and axes and a chainsaw:)). However, after reading how the Becker BK 7 was the best 7in slicer he'd ever tested (and that on top of that it held up well to chopping concrete blocks) I had to have one, and it's easy to sharpen, I've pryed with it and cut no telling how much cardboard, in short for only 50bucks it is the best all around knife I own. I said all that to say this, I would have never bought that knife had I not read the review, I'd just stuck with my Ka-Bars, bc like I said everything else I'd seen (SOGS, some Ontarios, etc.) were all to THICK to do what I wanted, and I'd never heard of Becker before. Although it can be argued that he (Cliff) may not always be 100% objective (who ever is) and does favor Busse (heck if I were doing it Beckers would probably always win with fixed blades and Spydercos would always find a way to be the winner among folders:)). I appreciate the reviews and learn a lot from reading them. Keep up the good work.

Hey any chance of ya ever testing a TOPS Moccasin Ranger or a SOG Bowie, I'm thinking about getting one or the other and would like to see if they can survive your tests.
 
The General said:
Yes Cliff, clear knife use situation there.
Had I had one on me it would have been nicer than my fingers. Chas described the exact same situation where he had a knife (not water, but same mechanics) and he did have the knife and used it like I used my hand. Why don't you try implying he has no knife skills, it would be really amusing. Go on rec.knives and do so. It worked really well for the last guy.

I have been in many iffy situations where my tools did not fail me even though I was cold to the point where fire would stave off hypothermia and death.
Excellent. You were able to retain fine motor skills in a situation were the vast majority of people would not. That puts you in a very small minority. When exposed to extreme cold, for most people the body quickly shuts down blood flow to the limbs, with the fingers going almost immediately because the core body temp has to stay up. Your body will throw away, fingers, toes then feet hands, etc. quite rapidly to preserve the internal organs.

As an example, me and a group of friends were camping awhile back (long time back) and one of them was idiotic enough to go far out on a river where the ice level was far too thin. It cracked and he went for a swim, it was subzero. We were miles hiked inland, and didn't bring extra clothes and such (really young). What we did was get rid of his wet clothes in a hurry and swap off part of ours. Now however we were all starting to get cold fast having gotton wet getting him out and back to camp, and now only partially clothed ourselves, and it was cold out, like <-20 C ,and had to build a fire as by cold fast I mean starting to lose sensation already.

Once you go numb it isn't long after that frostbite sets in, so we had to get a fire in a hurry, so I set off getting tinder while the rest started gathering firewood and breaking it up. Now all of us grew up with axes and cutting firewood so we were far from ignorant of blade skill. But with numb fingers and a half frozen friend, and a heavy stress level, we leaned on the axes pretty hard and did things we would not do while spending saturday in the woods behind your house cutting some trees.

Yes, Busse builds his knives for extreme situations for extreme people. This doesn't mean just ignorant gorillas like you implied, but yeah they work well for them as I have first hand experience with my brother and his friends. Can I get by with lesser knives, yeah I have chopped, cut, split with everything from a fillet knife to a butter knife to learn how to make due with what I have. I also did it all without breaking the knives to. This does not mean that is what I would pick in those situations as my tool of choice or endorse them as survival knives.

I have a long puuko'ish knife that I have split wood with. All the wood I split with the Fehrman I could have used that other knife for. However it would have taken me a lot longer because the number of hits would have been much greater for each split, I would have had to split smaller sections, and completely ignore knots so chisel plank the sides around them. Now I ask myself, which of those knives would I rather have in a situation where I needed to split wood in a hurry. it isn't much of a debate for me.

Even beyond physical stress, just think of mental stress, imagine being so angry or scared or depressed that you lose focus. I have seen acts of physical exertion from really angry people that were hell for impressive. In ideal situations I can make due with just about anything however in extreme situations it isn't ideal, this is pretty much by defination so I will take a knife which can handle what I can dish out in a high stress situation in worse case senarios, not splitting clear cedar in the backyard, but busting a piece of knotty spruce with quickly numbing fingers.

Is this common? No. However it only needs to happen once for it to matter. I have a lifejacket on when I am out on the water. I have never have had to use it. Neither has anyone else I know, with familes on both sides being fisherman, none of them ever went overboard that I can remember. Does this mean I would not wear them, or would wear one that only worked if I was conscious and the seas were calm - no, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Doesn't matter how well you can swim either if you are knocked out or the seas hell for rough.

Beyond this, just go back to the basic principle. The more a knife can take, the more productive it is at heavier work. Yes you can cut, chop and spit with anything if you go light enough. Or you can get a knife which allows work at a much heavier load. This isn't a difficult concept. If you have a wheelbarrow to move crushstone, do you get one which is made from plastic and can carry a few gallons, or a big one made of steel which can hold what you can lift. One way you spend the entire day going back and forth, another way you finish in a half an hour.

Concrete does not burn so well in our parts...
Wow, that is really funny. I get it, you are referencing the fact that since I chopped a concrete block it would obviously make sense to imply that this is what I would use to burn in a wood stove. I'll have to ask Ray how it works for him, I usually use Pine and Spruce.

kbog said:
A scientific experiment does not use another experiment's data.
You guys who try to critize based on scientific method should be at least aware of some of the basic principles. You reference and even use other peoples data all the time as it is absolutely necessary to compare what you have found with what others have found in the same field and point out agreement or disagreement, this is one of the foundation points of research. You should even learn this in high school. You will get crucified if you don't do it at the college level, and laughed at if you try to publish work with out it. The first thing you do when you calculate anything is compare it to what is to be expected, see what someone else did. Data gets more meaningful when it is compared, the more information tabulated the stronger the inferences which can be made. Work is baised when there are no comparisons because making such comparisons destroys hype. Without it you are free to exaggerate claims and make tests sound impressive when in reality any knife could do them, and many would surpass it.

-Cliff
 
Go easy on the guy Cliff. I don't think that you should expect people to really know how scientific papers are written from their high school background. When I went to school you didn't reference experimental data from the journals until you hit your junior year labs in college. I still remember having to look up Muehlschlegel's data in Zeitschrift für Physik when I did my report on the Meisner effect and the critical temperature curve for tin. (It would have been a lot easier if I had studied German instead of French.) My results did fall within his error bands as far as I went. That was the first time I ever worked with liquid hydrogen. It was pretty cool.
 
We had to do that first thing. Didn't spend a lot of time in chem labs after we set the ceiling on fire with sodium, but all physics experiments always ended in, what did you get, what did everyone else get, what are you supposed to get. How come they are different. What could you do to make this better? I have been teaching experimental physics for more than 10 years now. If I could just teach that one thing I am happy, everything else comes from that. Take off your blinders and look around you.

I had a hell of a high school physics teacher, probably why I picked it. But if you really want to see robust comparions, engineering labs are really critical in this area, doing something on your own is kind of meaningless. Yeah so you make a motor with a XXX milli second reaction torque turnover rate, that is cool, are you aware that someone in china just made one with half of that. Kind of a problem now isn't it.

Yeah your custom bowie cuts well, has great edge retention. Here is one which does the exact same thing and is half the price. Here is another which does it all better. Here is another which is almost as good but costs 1/10 the price. Doesn't all that information change the judgement of the first knife. Yeah it does. Lots of great knives, pick the one that suits you.

I carry lots of knives I would never recommend to other people. I use blades which are so fragile they would suffer serious damage if dropped and if you hit a staple in cardboard you could take a piece out of the *primary* grind. Great cutters though and edge retention in insane.

I also carry knives so heavy that they make the SHBM feel like a fillet knife in comparison. My 22" AK weighs pounds and I use it for brush work, would never recommend it for such though, hell of a wrist workout. The 3/8" MOAB is also going to be a beast, fun times ahead in the summer with that in hand.

I also carry pretty heavy duty knives for times when you want to be able to do whatever you want to do, scrap, pry, hack, etc. and not worry and then all manner of knives inbetween. I scoped out my primary carry awhile ago, mainly now I am looking for a utility folder, not just cutter, lots of them. But something which has a lock which is stronger than the blade. The Spyderco Chinook may actually fit that property but it cuts a little to well for me to actually want to do that with it. Sal should have made it uglier and jammed a few speed holes or something in it.

There is an actual bias I do have, it is when a knife performs exceptionally well at what it is designed to do, I tend to hesitate in doing the other work to show where it doesn't do well. I do it of course, but don't actually enjoy it, so often delay it as I enjoy working with the knife. This is one of the reasons I don't like reviewing knives from people that I am friendly with as it does bother me to critize their work in public. So I wish makers would stop trying to be nice to me and everyone attack me like some kind of idjit, the reviews would be a lot easier to do then.

Fortunately though, most of the guys I am friendly with are non-hype guys and their blades tend to have minor problems and major advantages most of the time. Like when I reviewed the Camp Tramp. The only problems I could find were that the handle is a bit squarish at the top and the edge could be made a bit thinner without losing functional durability, except in insane situations. Both both of these are minor issues, and the increase in cutting ability when thinning the edge down would only be minor (<15% on cutting, insignificant on choppin), and it is already on par with the better tactical blades I have used. The only problem I have found with the Chinook is that it prints badly as a "fighter" so people react badly to it. But in terms of performance, high cutting ability, excellent edge retention, nice ergonomic and versatile handle, love the index finger integral cutout in the grip, etc. .

It sucks when it goes the other way though. It is like the new Boye folders I picked up. Major disappointement. I like Boye, great guy, made a lot of great knives, but his boat folders - wow, were they ever a surprise. Low NIB sharpness, edge retention, low cutting aggression, really low for the serrated one, thick primary grinds. Nice lock and general handling characteristics though. I was going to make the serrated one a present for my mother as an EDC utility knife, but it simply doesn't cut well or fluidly. A spyderco endura outperforms it many times over at 1/5 the cost. Of course if you really want extreme salt water resistance it is a different matter.

it is never nice to tell someone that someone else makes a directly superior product. Last year I watched a friend of mine solve a torque problem in a motor responce issue in a week which another student spent two years trying to solve with no success. Different background allowed a different approach and it work. As a result all of the other guys reasearch was in one pass rendered obsolete. he didn't take that too well. But that is life.

When you compare knives only one is going to be on top, great to be that guy, sort of sucks to be everyone else if you sell based on performance (unless you are a lot cheaper). Here is a hint, don't promote performance that you don't have. Do extensive R&D so that you can not get surprised. Know where they do well, where they do badly and when they are non-functional. Say all of this in public and you will never have a problem with any review because you have already done it. Here is the thing though, this removes the possibilty for hype. You have to stand on actual performance.

-Cliff
 
kbog said:
Why would data from a test be data from another knife? A scientific experiment does not use another experiment's data.


kbog said:
If performance is relative, what does a 1/4 mile time mean for a car? Does a car review have to mention another cars 1/4 mile time to be meaningful? Of course not. If a reader wants to compare that time with another, it is up to the reader to do so. This is why a rating scale can work. If I wanted to compare Cliff's rating of a 9 (assuming an arbitrary scale) from a knife with another knife, I could read Cliff's rating for the other knife. Cliff does not have to mention any other knife - I have to do the legwork and extract the meaning myself. Keeps the reviewer from sounding subjective.

A quarter mile time is pure data, like what cliff supplies with stating how many grams of force it takes to cut through thread. But when you try to translate that to a rating scale, that's where you are forced to compare it to others, and it becomes relative. A car runs 12's. So you give it a 9, meaning it's fast. But is it fast in comparison to a sport bike? How about someone running on foot? How about 2000 hp funny cars? A 9 means it's fast in comparison to other cars. You are comparing it to other cars. Just saying it's a 9, without comparing, is completely worthless.

kbog said:
I am sure that Cliff will tell you that a good science experiment tries to eliminate all of the variables (except the experimental one of course). Likewise, if a reviewer wanted to do that they would know that to eliminate the unwanted variables you have to get creative. It can be done. That said, I would not expect Cliff to spend the time and energy developing a chopping device or buying a more uniform material to chop with it. After all, this isn't a job. the point is - it is possible to do.


Yes. One way he eliminates these variables is by using a standard. Lets go back to the car example. A modded z06 might run 11's (a 10) at sea level. But you could only run mid-high 12's somewhere up in the mountains. Did the same car suddenly change, and have it's performance become a 9? No. To compare it against a known standard, say a viper that's a 10, regularly runs 11's (a 10) at sea level, running it at the same place, also gets mid-high 12s. Then you'd know the vette is just as fast as the 10 viper, so it gets the same rating.
 
Jeff Clark said:
Kbog's 1/4-mile time analogy actually illustrates why Cliff puts comparisons in his reviews. It is because they are "reviews" rather than engineering reports. The comparison help those of us who don't have the statistics memorized to put the tests and numbers in some sort of perspective. For most American males you can say that Joe Blow bats .400 in the National League and it will have great significance. For European males or many American women you will have to define the terms and give them an idea of how such a batter would rank in his league. It might help if you told them how that number affects his salary. If you tell someone that a car does a 13.5 second quarter mile what does that mean and is it good? Some of us know and the rest of us are vague or ignorant. It helps if you compare it to a car that may be familiar by reputation or direct experience. For example it might help to tell an oldtimer like me that a 1969 427 L88 Corvette with auto trans (430hp) could do the quarter in around 13.56 seconds with a top speed of 111.1 mph. For one of you young whipper snappers it might be more meaningful to say that a 2002 Z28 SS Camaro with 6-speed shifter and 350 LS1 engine (325hp) will do the quarter mile in 13.5 seconds with a top speed of 107.3 mph. Direct comparisons aren't scientifically necessary, but they really make a review more accessible.

PS. Here are some cool stats on production cars on the drag strip:
http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-50fast.shtml

The comparisons are fun and bring back a lot of memories.

And your baseball analogy further reifines my point.
:D

Let me be clear, my point is simply this: if you are being critiqued for objectivity, there are ways to be more objective. One of those ways is leave it up the the researcher to determine what comparison they wish to make with what. Baseball cards do NOT have other players stats on them (unless they have changed since I collected them 15 years ago, in which I will yield. :footinmou )The collector may use the stats as they see fit to extract the meaning that they see fit when they do the comparisons THEMSELVES.

A reviewer is capable of bringing anything they wish into the review - same with a scientist, but certainly if a review is being hammered for subjectivity, my point is one to ponder.

Do not mistake this post for immflamatory. I am intending discussion ( I hate to have to say that, but these things are often unclear on a forum :) ).
 
Cliff Stamp said:
You guys who try to critize based on scientific method should be at least aware of some of the basic principles. You reference and even use other peoples data all the time as it is absolutely necessary to compare what you have found with what others have found in the same field and point out agreement or disagreement, this is one of the foundation points of research.
Cliff, you made my point. You say YOU reference and YOU use other peoples data all the time...exactly - it is in the hands of the researcher to do this. If I want to figure out a comparison between two knives that YOU reviewed I would do it based on what I want to learn. It doesn't need to be done by YOU. Am I making any sense here?

You should even learn this in high school. You will get crucified if you don't do it at the college level, and laughed at if you try to publish work with out it.
lol. Thanks for that.

The first thing you do when you calculate anything is compare it to what is to be expected, see what someone else did. Data gets more meaningful when it is compared, the more information tabulated the stronger the inferences which can be made.

True. So why not leave that comparison up to me so that when you do it in your reviews, everyone doen't cry foul? Again, I have NOT cried foul here, I am merely suggesting a course of action based on your response about few people being constructive with you.

[/QUOTE]
Work is baised when there are no comparisons because making such comparisons destroys hype. Without it you are free to exaggerate claims and make tests sound impressive when in reality any knife could do them, and many would surpass it.

-Cliff[/QUOTE]

I don't understand this part.
:confused:
 
Eric_425 said:
A quarter mile time is pure data, like what cliff supplies with stating how many grams of force it takes to cut through thread. But when you try to translate that to a rating scale, that's where you are forced to compare it to others, and it becomes relative. A car runs 12's. So you give it a 9, meaning it's fast. But is it fast in comparison to a sport bike? How about someone running on foot? How about 2000 hp funny cars? A 9 means it's fast in comparison to other cars. You are comparing it to other cars. Just saying it's a 9, without comparing, is completely worthless.

Yes. One way he eliminates these variables is by using a standard. Lets go back to the car example. A modded z06 might run 11's (a 10) at sea level. But you could only run mid-high 12's somewhere up in the mountains. Did the same car suddenly change, and have it's performance become a 9? No. To compare it against a known standard, say a viper that's a 10, regularly runs 11's (a 10) at sea level, running it at the same place, also gets mid-high 12s. Then you'd know the vette is just as fast as the 10 viper, so it gets the same rating.


This is a strong point you make about the scale. Perhaps I should refine my thoughts on this and say stick to the data and let the reader make the comparisons.
 
Jeff Clark said:
Go easy on the guy Cliff. I don't think that you should expect people to really know how scientific papers are written from their high school background. When I went to school you didn't reference experimental data from the journals until you hit your junior year labs in college. I still remember having to look up Muehlschlegel's data in Zeitschrift für Physik when I did my report on the Meisner effect and the critical temperature curve for tin. (It would have been a lot easier if I had studied German instead of French.) My results did fall within his error bands as far as I went. That was the first time I ever worked with liquid hydrogen. It was pretty cool.

Thanks for that Jeff, but I don't feel beat up yet!

*edit*I just realized how to quote mulitiple people in one post. Never really dawned on me that I should until I just reread my last barrage of posts. I will fix that in the future. :rolleyes:
 
Cliff Stamp said:
Wow, that is really funny. I get it, you are referencing the fact that since I chopped a concrete block it would obviously make sense to imply that this is what I would use to burn in a wood stove. I'll have to ask Ray how it works for him, I usually use Pine and Spruce.


-Cliff

You will of course noted that I used the ;) smillie when I said that. The ;) smillie indicated I was not being sarcastic or having a go, rather having a little fun. If you can't understand such a basic concept... :rolleyes:

The :rolleyes: smillie means I am being sarcastic... :rolleyes:

Otherwise an interesting post Cliff, conditions in Wales are not quite as extreem as you get in Canada. You certanly can die when exposed to the weather and people do, but with the equipment I use, fine moter skills are not needed to chop and cut wood. As long as you can grip the handle and use your arms... hell if I had too I would let the lanyard help me, as a proper thumb lanyard will! :p

Tinder... cotten wool, antiseptic wipes, rubber, Doan firestarter, Blast match, turbo flame lighter, sweedish firesteel, ALL I CARRY. A fire is not a problem, even in the wet, cold, snow and stuff.

Perhaps I am a superbeing then? Perhaps not.
 
What is a thumb lanyard? Could you describe how you use it? I've used lanyards around my wrist, but not around my thumb. (no sarcasm in this post, only honest curiosity)
 
Cliff, I have followed this thread with great interest and amusement. I had managerial responsibility for about 10 years for a materials testing laboratory at a large electric utility. We did acceptance testing and competitive product evaluation on a wide variety of electric system components. Our lab did electrical loss, capacities, insulating, mechanical strength, and impact testing. Our test standards calibrations were directly traceable to NIST, and we followed test protocols published by nationally recognized standards and trade organizations. Unlike you, we had the resources to do statistically significant tests on multiple samples.

The amusing thing is that the responses to our tests by equipment manufacturers on the unfavorable end of them were almost identical to those I have seen commonly leveled at you. Did manufacturers take our results and suggestions and improve their products? Some did, but the more common response was to attack our methodology, our test equipment, our motives, and sometimes even our integrity.
 
The General said:
... fine moter skills are not needed to chop and cut wood.
That was my point, in such conditions you replace technique with power. In ideal conditions you can minimize stress on the blade by making cuts track well, smooth follow through, avoid knots, or really cut back on power and slowly remove them. In extremes though you may not have time for any of this, nor may not have the ability to get the angles exactly right, or the grip stability to prevent twisting, etc. . You also may have to work with wood which you would usually avoid, ring knots, severe grain twisting, etc. .

kbog said:
If I want to figure out a comparison between two knives that YOU reviewed I would do it based on what I want to learn. It doesn't need to be done by YOU.
When you evaluate a product, in order for the evaluation to make sense you have to put the data into perspective with broad spectrum comparisons. You share this data with the public. Why would you require them to do the exact same research you did, science would preceed at extremely slow speeds if every time I read a paper I had to do a literature survey.

If you feel the comparisons are misleading in that one group of knives are misreprestened, they are for example always compared when they do well, but never where they would fare poorly, then by all means point that out. Or if you feel that other comparisons would be more relevant point that out as well.

So why not leave that comparison up to me so that when you do it in your reviews, everyone doen't cry foul?
Because it doesn't bother me when they do so, if anything it is mildly entertaining, mainly because the irony is huge when people keep crying bias and unscientific and they keep getting basic principles wrong.

[Work is baised when there are no comparisons because making such comparisons destroys hype. Without it you are free to exaggerate claims and make tests sound impressive when in reality any knife could do them, and many would surpass it.]

I don't understand this part.
There are lots of "tests" use to showcase superior performance when in reality if other knives were used alongside the one being showcased they would also pass the tests readily and thus the promoted knife doesn't then look nearly as good. This is why your first question in regards to performance when a maker or reviewer is promoting a product is to ask "What else can do that, and what can't do that."

For example if I come on and say "XXX is the best survivial/emergency knife I have every used, it has done everything I needed without fail." Your first question should be "Which knives have you used which have not been able to do what you needed, where did they fail to perform." If my answer is "Well that is the only knife I have actually used." Doesn't this make a huge effect on how you interpret my promotion. It should.

Mike, you either sell on performance or hype. If it is performance you always want harsh critism as it will allow you to make a better product. If it is hype it is your worst enemy. You also can't admit problems so you have no choice but to attack the guy pointing out the flaws. There will always be those of both types, they are trivial to spot, some however just don't want to look.

-Cliff
 
Cliff - Actually, you can sell on more than just performance and hype. For example, value sells. A knife may not be the best performer across the board, or the best in a particular category, and the maker will admit as much, but it still sells because its fairly inexpensive and for the most part does the job. Even when it fails, replacement is no big deal. Yes, you can say this is still a type of performance, maybe acceptable level of performance to price, but it is different from performance at any cost, or performance as best of its kind. Value sells too when a particular maker's knives begin to appreciate in value because collectors drive the prices up. This has nothing to do with hype or performance, but everything to do with a person's expectations that a product may either hold or increase in value like any other commodity.

Also, aesthetics sells. A knife may be a poor performer, and the maker may not hype it at all, but it sells because it looks cool, or beautiful, or mean, or whatever intangible characteristic appeals to someone.
 
Steelhed said:
A knife may not be the best performer across the board, or the best in a particular category, and the maker will admit as much, but it still sells because its fairly inexpensive and for the most part does the job.
That is just performance with a different ranking system, per dollar rather than just absolute.

Also, aesthetics sells.
This is also performance, as is buying for investiment. You expect the knife to perform by increasing in value, or it performs by simply being pleasing to look at. Both of these can be overhyped as well. It is hard to argue the former though as it all just subjective, but again you can ask for comparisons.

Much like for example if you asked someone what XXX steak house was like and they replied it was the best they had every tried, but then admitted with further questioning that the only other "steak" they had tried was from McDonalds.

-Cliff
 
Just wanted to add my two cents here and say I don't always agree with the way Mr. Stamp test's these knives but I do understand the reasoning behind them. Add to that his writing skills are top draw as well. His article's are if nothing else entertaining especially when some other members decide to attack or bash his work in some way.

Keep it up Cliff we love it!!
 
Back
Top