Does "blade width" matter?

shane45-1911 said:
Of course it does.

Fillet knives for example, are skinny for a reason. Ever try to fillet a fish with a cleaver?
Click to expand...

Fish can be filleted with a cleaver.
I fillet with both a thin flexible Western Fillet Knife and with Debas (in 3 sizes).
Western Fillet knives have little height because of their cultural design and development.
Chinese chefs routinely fillet fish with their Cai Daos (cleavers).
See from 0:49

 
Thinner behind the edge, and/or more subtle transition from stock thickness to edge means better cutting performance but reduced strength. Thicker behind the edge, and/or more abrupt transition to apex means reduced cutting performance but increased strength. You can put either type of geometry on a knife of any stock thickness. You can make a blade from 1/8" stock that will barely cut anything because the geometry is too thick, and another blade in 1/4" that is zero ground, and guess which one will be the better slicer.

But blade geometry increases in importance with the hardness or rigidity or the material being cut, and/or the precision required in the cuts.
 
DangerZone98 said:
For this thread, let's define blade width as the distance between the spine and cutting edge. Does width have any noticeable effect on knife function and performance?
Click to expand...
Yes it does. Form follows purpose. At extreme ends, a dagger doesn't have blade height because it doesn't need it to stab, and a Kitchen knife does because it needs it for clean cutting, separation and moving of the cut material. Most outdoor knives fall in between.
 
Different tools for different jobs. I find a blade that is +/- 1 inch wide at ~1/8" works well for general purpose work. It can fillet a fish, but isn't as well suited as a true fillet knife. Likewise, I wouldn't use a fillet knife for work on the boat with thicker line.
 
On snap cuts, such as cutting brush height puts more weight behind the cutting edge. I cut a lot of green growth away from hiking trails and like a thin blade, with some weight backing up the sharp edge. Something that's sharp and lacks weight just takes more effort to make clean cuts.
 
shane45-1911 said:
That cleaver vid is a complete mess. He is RIPPING the fish, more than cutting it.

I can cut down a tree with a surgeon's scalpel (eventually). That doesn't make it the right tool for the job.

The question was - "Does blade width matter"? And the answer is still, "of course it matters."
Click to expand...
Sorry but he is filleting the fish. I don't see any ripping. And it didn't take time at all. Not what anyone objectively would call a "mess".
There are more videos out there showing fish filleted with cleavers. In that particular cuisine the Cai Dao is the right tool for the job.

Not for me, I use Debas and Fillet knives. But Debas have blade height too.
We all fillet fish best with the type of knife have used and trained with.
Of course the answer to the OP is that blade height matters.
Your example simply was not a good one, that's all.
 
Crag the Brewer said:
I agree lots of confusing word usage.....???

Width IS Thickness.


Height defines a broad knife.

Strength comes from it's height, not it's thickness, unless Prying.....


You would never say a knife is 2" wide....haha.
It is 2" Tall.



I'm not 6'2" wide.



PS..... I love tall knives for Everything, except carving spoons.
Click to expand...
Agree on the definitions! Tall blades are no good for earmarking calves either. Ya need a short one for that! Granted a rather limited need, even in the cowboy world. Probably more folks carving spoons than earmarking calves.
 
KenHash said:
Fish can be filleted with a cleaver.
I fillet with both a thin flexible Western Fillet Knife and with Debas (in 3 sizes).
Western Fillet knives have little height because of their cultural design and development.
Chinese chefs routinely fillet fish with their Cai Daos (cleavers).
See from 0:49

Click to expand...

Forget about fish. You guys all go to your nearest store and buy a lamb rack. Then you go home and try to cut out the fillet with a cleaver ....

Note that my dogs would love it with all the meat left on the ribs :)
 
Last edited:
KenHash said:
Your example simply was not a good one, that's all.
Click to expand...

My example was perfectly fine. Just because someone has a YouTube video using a cleaver to fillet, does not validate whether or not it is the best tool for the job - because it isn't.

Granted, the cleaver's edge may have been re-profiled to a more acute bevel to allow somewhat finer cuts, but to make a broad statement that cleavers are good for filleting is asinine. You need a thin, flexible blade to get around the rib and backbones so you don't lose much meat. Try filleting a Pike with a cleaver. There is no way you could maneuver around the Y-bones and follow the contour of the backbone with any level of success with a cleaver.

Sure, maybe for that SPECIFIC type of fish in the vid, a cleaver would work. Still not ideal.

As I said, I could cut down a tree with a surgeon's scalpel if I had to. That doesn't make it the best tool for the task.
 
Last edited:
Zulus said:
I like wide blades
But it's me, sorry
Click to expand...

Yes, shame on you. What is a good penance for Zulus? If it were up to me you'd have to cut your next 77 sandwiches with an inner strand of 550 paracord strung up in a hacksaw. šŸ¤Ŗ
 
Almost said fishing line, but they both seem to have their potential pros and cons. The fishing line would be thinner and thus more fitting, but would probably push cut well enough. The paracord strand is thicker so in theory harder to cut with, but the weave might make it easier to saw with.
 
shane45-1911 said:
My example was perfectly fine. Just because someone has a YouTube video using a cleaver to fillet, does not validate whether or not it is the best tool for the job - because it isn't.

Granted, the cleaver's edge may have been re-profiled to a more acute bevel to allow somewhat finer cuts, but to make a broad statement that cleavers are good for filleting is asinine. You need a thin, flexible blade to get around the rib and backbones so you don't lose much meat. Try filleting a Pike with a cleaver. There is no way you could maneuver around the Y-bones and follow the contour of the backbone with any level of success with a cleaver.

Sure, maybe for that SPECIFIC type of fish in the vid, a cleaver would work. Still not ideal.

As I said, I could cut down a tree with a surgeon's scalpel if I had to. That doesn't make it the best tool for the task.
Click to expand...

You stated:
shane45-1911 said:
Of course it does.
Fillet knives for example, are skinny for a reason. Ever try to fillet a fish with a cleaver?

Your above question suggests that it is difficult or impossible to fillet a fish with a cleaver.
You are the only one who made a broad blanket statement which is obviously incorrect.
I showed you that fish are filleted with a cleaver, just not in your part of the planet. This is not a one-off oddball video,
there are plenty of them. And I have seen it done with my own eyes.
Comparing the act of filleting a fish with a cleaver, to cutting down a tree with a scalpel is quite frankly, "asinine".

Nobody is saying that a cleaver is the "best tool" for the job.

You do not need a flexible blade to do fine work. I know because I have used them and I have used Debas. In fact, the flexibility accounts for more meat loss from "lifting" than a solid blade. Just watch the deckands on a Fishing Party Boat clean fish on the trip back, very fast, verty sloppy, probably 20-25% meat loss. But, in their defense, they have to do hundreds of fish in a limited time. I can do cleaner job with my Debas, but of course I am not under time or volume pressure.

Members of the Pike family are unique in their Y-bone structure, and people familiar with those fish have developed their own methods. I personally do a complete lengthwise top removal from the backbone up first. But those methods are just that, methods. The same can be done with any type of fish knife in the hands of a person trained in it.

I repeat again, the "best" fish fillet knife is the one/type that you are trained or experieced with. Having trained with one type of knife makes it the "Right Tool" for that person, not everyone in the world. I speak from over 50 years of filleting fish with various knives. And I am still learning.

Have a nice day.
 
KenHash said:
I repeat again, the "best" fish fillet knife is the one/type that you are trained or experieced with. Having trained with one type of knife makes it the "Right Tool" for that person, not everyone in the world. I speak from over 50 years of filleting fish with various knives. And I am still learning.
Click to expand...

And I repeat again, I could cut down a tree with a scalpel if I wanted to. But I don't. Just as I would not use a cleaver to fillet fish.

50 years experience here, too.

We will agree to disagree on this one, so no point in continuing this discussion.
 
If you use "just one" knife for various tasks you can, indeed, get extremely efficient with it.
The Cai Dao pattern (a very thin cleaver blade) was for centuries the one and only authorized Chinese kitchen knife, for cultural and political reasons (a pointed weapon was for military only, and then it turns into tradition...).
However, I doubt you could skin a duck from the inside (like shown in a movie with Michelle Yeoh, "Final Recipe", I believe). But, hey, skills,...
Cutting down a tree with a SAK is a show of skills (but at heights of inefficiency), filleting fish with an axe would be equally funny and not recommendable.
 
Last edited:
KenHash said:
You stated:
shane45-1911 said:
Of course it does.
Fillet knives for example, are skinny for a reason. Ever try to fillet a fish with a cleaver?

Your above question suggests that it is difficult or impossible to fillet a fish with a cleaver.
You are the only one who made a broad blanket statement which is obviously incorrect.
I showed you that fish are filleted with a cleaver, just not in your part of the planet. This is not a one-off oddball video,
there are plenty of them. And I have seen it done with my own eyes.
Comparing the act of filleting a fish with a cleaver, to cutting down a tree with a scalpel is quite frankly, "asinine".

Nobody is saying that a cleaver is the "best tool" for the job.

You do not need a flexible blade to do fine work. I know because I have used them and I have used Debas. In fact, the flexibility accounts for more meat loss from "lifting" than a solid blade. Just watch the deckands on a Fishing Party Boat clean fish on the trip back, very fast, verty sloppy, probably 20-25% meat loss. But, in their defense, they have to do hundreds of fish in a limited time. I can do cleaner job with my Debas, but of course I am not under time or volume pressure.

Members of the Pike family are unique in their Y-bone structure, and people familiar with those fish have developed their own methods. I personally do a complete lengthwise top removal from the backbone up first. But those methods are just that, methods. The same can be done with any type of fish knife in the hands of a person trained in it.

I repeat again, the "best" fish fillet knife is the one/type that you are trained or experieced with. Having trained with one type of knife makes it the "Right Tool" for that person, not everyone in the world. I speak from over 50 years of filleting fish with various knives. And I am still learning.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
And there you explained to me the purpose of the Deba. Which I never quite understood. But I'm not that great on fish. I grill and cook fish, though. But without filleting first. Would I live on another sea border, though, this could be interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top