PM2 vs Shaman: A New Look

Sharperthansticks said:
Saying something has a thicker (beefier) tip is not a specific use case. And my asking for a specific example is legitimate. It's tiresome for me to keep responding when you don't get it and probably never will, so you keep spouting your drivel, but don't take my henceforth not replying as my saying you are right. Take it instead as my saying you aren't worh the time. Bye, Felicia.

P.S. I acknowledged the "3.6" case, though it's rather contrived.
Click to expand...
Well that is a bit unnecessary and rude.

Are you saying you need proof that a thicker tip will be stronger than a thinner tip?
 
Sharperthansticks said:
Saying something has a thicker (beefier) tip is not a specific use case. And my asking for a specific example is legitimate. It's tiresome for me to keep responding when you don't get it and probably never will, so you keep spouting your drivel, but don't take my henceforth not replying as my saying you are right. Take it instead as my saying you aren't worh the time. Bye, Felicia.

P.S. I acknowledged the "3.6" case, though it's rather contrived.
Click to expand...

I think I get it. You can't handle that other people stated an opinion (like 2 years ago) in which you disagree and they did not provide you proof. I understand wanting accurate information, I do too. If I missed your point, please do me the kindness and actually state it instead of just saying that we (I) keep missing your point over and over.

Now what I don't understand is if this were so important, why not bring it up back then and constantly until you got a response? Or since this is of the utmost importance and you cannot let it go, why not test it yourself and prove them wrong?

I dont know if you intend to block me when you say you wont respond to me further, but if you do that kind of proves my point.

Speaking of a contrived issue...
 
Last edited:
Sharperthansticks said:
We're Shaman

  1. The case must be a case where the PM2 will fail: it will chip, bend, break, or simply not accomplish the task.
  2. The case must be a case where the Shaman can perform the task without damage.
  3. The case cannot be vague. The case should be specific to the point of testability, and hopefully, even to the point of falsifiability. Here's a vague, unacceptable type of answer: cutting into really hard stuff. Here's a specific, much more testable, falsifiable case: carving figurines out of maple.
Click to expand...

I have a PM2 and a Manix 2, I do not have a Shaman and don't plan on getting one right now. The look of the Shaman just doesn't appeal to me enough, It would be nice to handle one in person. That said here's my take on your points.

  • I don't know there will be a point where I will find out if the PM2 fails. I've had it for over a year and a half but I only lightly use it. The thin blade and tip make me a little nervous to use it much at all. I still love it and think it's a good knife but I "feel" like I'd mess it up if I used freely.
  • I feel a thicker blade and sturdier tip will hold up better to my carelessness lack of choosing the right tool. I would not want to pry an industrial staple out of wood with my PM 2, carve hardwoods where you are twisting the blade, use it as a scraper or prybar. I feel the Manix 2, Benchmade Griptilian or one of the ZTs I have would stand up better to my carelessness and abuse.
 
Sharperthansticks said:
We're Shaman
Sing it, I want to Shaman with you
We're Shaman, we're Shaman
And I hope you like Shaman too.

--Bob Marley
*****************************
When the original Shaman came out, NickShabazz NickShabazz reviewed it, and if memory serves, he concluded that it could handle what the PM2 would fail at. He did not go into specifics to support that claim; instead, he simply said that the Shaman was "beefier," and he probably used the term "beefitude," (a term only he or Hanz and Franz from SNL could come up with).

At that time, I challenged people for a specific case where the Shaman would work and the PM2 would fail, but no one could give me one. All people could do was parrot "beefier." "The Shaman is beefier," they would say, which wouldn't answer the question. So, today, to make the question more precise, here's the challenge: Come up with a case that satisfies these conditions:
  1. The case must be a case where the PM2 will fail: it will chip, bend, break, or simply not accomplish the task.
  2. The case must be a case where the Shaman can perform the task without damage.
  3. The case cannot be vague. The case should be specific to the point of testability, and hopefully, even to the point of falsifiability. Here's a vague, unacceptable type of answer: cutting into really hard stuff. Here's a specific, much more testable, falsifiable case: carving figurines out of maple.
Click to expand...
Why don't you get your hands on both knives and test them? Prove your point literally, and prove the doubters wrong.
 
lieferung said:
Why don't you get your hands on both knives and test them? Prove your point literally, and prove the doubters wrong.
Click to expand...
What exactly are they doubting? There's been a lot of hot air flying about, but only one actual use case, as far as I can tell: having to stab 3.6" or deeper -- which could really be done by a Military (that is, a longer PM2, instead of a Shaman). Someone said "hard use," which isn't a use case, and others may have said, "I like the PM2/Shaman..." which is not a use case where the PM2 would break or otherwise fail to achieve the cut, while the Shaman would cut and remain unscathed.

And it was never an *attack* on Nick Shabazz. It was the asking of a practical question. I asked this same question 2 years ago on rhe forum, and the best I got was, "The Shaman wouldn't break if I stabbed someone with it."

So what exactly are people *doubting*? If they can't think of a case that fits the original criteria, why not say, "I can't think of one"?

My personal feeling is that the "beefitude" of the Shaman may not confer any advantage save for comfort. The length use case may be it, though that case could just as easily have been delegated to the Military (a lengthier PM2).

Except...

If the Shaman is thicker behind the edge, in the M4 steel, you *may* be able to hack at some branches for firewood, where the thinner PM2 edge would fail (even in M4).
 
For a specific example, the Shaman's beefier handle seems to fill the hand better, and that, in combination with the contoured scales, means the Shaman is more comfortable for extended use. Not that the PM2 is uncomfortable, but I suspect many find the Shaman more so.
 
In reality, I don't think the Shaman was ever supposed to be a "beefier" PM2; it was actually a beefier Manix 2. Look at the blade shapes and sizes of the Native 5, Manix 2, Shaman, and PM2. The left 3 easily identify as a family (even if they didn't all have green handles), while the PM2 clearly has a different blade shape.

PDz8xdM.jpg
 
Sharperthansticks said:
In reality, I don't think the Shaman was ever supposed to be a "beefier" PM2; it was actually a beefier Manix 2. Look at the blade shapes and sizes of the Native 5, Manix 2, Shaman, and PM2. The left 3 easily identify as a family (even if they didn't all have green handles), while the PM2 clearly has a different blade shape.
Click to expand...

There is no about that the Paramilitary 1/2 and Para 3 are part of a similarly designed "family" of Spyderco knives, just like the Manix2 and Manix2 XL.

However, based on Spyderco's own description of the Shaman, the design of the Shaman was "inspired" by the Native and any similarity to the Manix is probably just coincidental, unless (of course) the design of the Manix2 was similiarly inspired but Spyderco makes no mention of that in its description of the Manix2.

Fact is, there are a lot of similarities across model lines which may or may not have any significance but the usefulness of each knife can only be judged on its own merits or deficiencies whatever they may be.
 
Last edited:
Sharperthansticks said:
When the original Shaman came out, NickShabazz NickShabazz reviewed it, and if memory serves, he concluded that it could handle what the PM2 would fail at. He did not go into specifics to support that claim; instead, he simply said that the Shaman was "beefier," and he probably used the term "beefitude," (a term only he or Hanz and Franz from SNL could come up with).

At that time, I challenged people for a specific case where the Shaman would work and the PM2 would fail, but no one could give me one. All people could do was parrot "beefier." "The Shaman is beefier," they would say, which wouldn't answer the question. So, today, to make the question more precise, here's the challenge: Come up with a case that satisfies these conditions:
  1. The case must be a case where the PM2 will fail: it will chip, bend, break, or simply not accomplish the task.
  2. The case must be a case where the Shaman can perform the task without damage.
  3. The case cannot be vague. The case should be specific to the point of testability, and hopefully, even to the point of falsifiability. Here's a vague, unacceptable type of answer: cutting into really hard stuff. Here's a specific, much more testable, falsifiable case: carving figurines out of maple.
Click to expand...

Hah, interesting thread. Glad to hear you love the PM2 and want to stand up for your buddy.

Given that you're calling me out directly here, I should probably respond. First, I stated in my Shaman review only that: "This is the best harder use folder that's come across my desk. This absolutely bests some of my favorites in the category. For me, I would take this guy [Shaman] over the PM2 for Ergonomics alone. Yeah, you're gaining some weight here, but if you want beefy, you might as well go beefy". That's a claim as to why I prefer it, but not the thing you're saying I'm saying. Unless I'm forgetting a video where I more directly said "The Shaman will survive situations where the PM2 fails", maybe you're mixing me up with somebody else?

The bigger thing here is that you're trying to prove or disprove a very subjective feeling, expressed as such, using scientific methods. If all statements made in product reviews needed to be rigorously testable and falsifiable hypotheses, well, they'd be a very different beast indeed. And frankly, although I don't know about you, when I click a link to a product review, I'm looking for a person's opinion, rather than pretending there's any science about it. And let's be real: For most knife people, this is an emotionally experienced hobby, rather than situation where a marginally lesser tool experiences direct failures we're trying to avoid.

Perhaps there's a future for you in logically evaluated, internally consistent and empirically verifiable reviewing. But that's sure not what I'm doing, and I suspect that you're not going to find scientific answers to matters of marketing or emotion any time soon!
 
Sharperthansticks said:
In reality, I don't think the Shaman was ever supposed to be a "beefier" PM2; it was actually a beefier Manix 2. Look at the blade shapes and sizes of the Native 5, Manix 2, Shaman, and PM2. The left 3 easily identify as a family (even if they didn't all have green handles), while the PM2 clearly has a different blade shape.

PDz8xdM.jpg
Click to expand...
Anyone who claims the Shaman is hardier than the PM2 can easily point to the "cases" of the PM2 tip breaking off. It's a thinner blade, so by virtue of physics the Shaman is better for hard use. If you want hard evidence so bad produce it yourself, I'm sure most are content with anecdotes and common sense.

BTW the Shaman is not related to the Manix in any way, no other knife is (well, Manix XL obvi). The Shaman is derived from the Native.
 
OP, no sane mind would carry an ugly ass shaman over a masterace PM2, regardless of which is better at prying.
 
Sharperthansticks said:
What exactly are they doubting? There's been a lot of hot air flying about, but only one actual use case, as far as I can tell: having to stab 3.6" or deeper -- which could really be done by a Military (that is, a longer PM2, instead of a Shaman). Someone said "hard use," which isn't a use case, and others may have said, "I like the PM2/Shaman..." which is not a use case where the PM2 would break or otherwise fail to achieve the cut, while the Shaman would cut and remain unscathed.

And it was never an *attack* on Nick Shabazz. It was the asking of a practical question. I asked this same question 2 years ago on rhe forum, and the best I got was, "The Shaman wouldn't break if I stabbed someone with it."

So what exactly are people *doubting*? If they can't think of a case that fits the original criteria, why not say, "I can't think of one"?

My personal feeling is that the "beefitude" of the Shaman may not confer any advantage save for comfort. The length use case may be it, though that case could just as easily have been delegated to the Military (a lengthier PM2).

Except...

If the Shaman is thicker behind the edge, in the M4 steel, you *may* be able to hack at some branches for firewood, where the thinner PM2 edge would fail (even in M4).
Click to expand...
So even in your own opinion, you disprove your op proposition. Good to know.
 
NickShabazz said:
Hah, interesting thread. Glad to hear you love the PM2 and want to stand up for your buddy.

Given that you're calling me out directly here, I should probably respond. First, I stated in my Shaman review only that: "This is the best harder use folder that's come across my desk. This absolutely bests some of my favorites in the category. For me, I would take this guy [Shaman] over the PM2 for Ergonomics alone. Yeah, you're gaining some weight here, but if you want beefy, you might as well go beefy". That's a claim as to why I prefer it, but not the thing you're saying I'm saying. Unless I'm forgetting a video where I more directly said "The Shaman will survive situations where the PM2 fails", maybe you're mixing me up with somebody else?

The bigger thing here is that you're trying to prove or disprove a very subjective feeling, expressed as such, using scientific methods. If all statements made in product reviews needed to be rigorously testable and falsifiable hypotheses, well, they'd be a very different beast indeed. And frankly, although I don't know about you, when I click a link to a product review, I'm looking for a person's opinion, rather than pretending there's any science about it. And let's be real: For most knife people, this is an emotionally experienced hobby, rather than situation where a marginally lesser tool experiences direct failures we're trying to avoid.

Perhaps there's a future for you in logically evaluated, internally consistent and empirically verifiable reviewing. But that's sure not what I'm doing, and I suspect that you're not going to find scientific answers to matters of marketing or emotion any time soon!
Click to expand...
I apologize if I've misquoted you; I'll go back and watch your original video (at some point, anyway). If, though, as you say, the reviews reflect "very subjective feelings," and you don't want to pretend that "there's any science about it," why watch someone's review for any reason other than entertainment? I want to watch reviews to make educated, wise choices to spend my limited funds; it seems like you are all but saying, "Nope. Reviews are not for that." Is the purpose of your reviews to help people make educated choices, or is it something else, like entertainment? (I thought it was 70% the former and 30% the latter.) When you say that the Shaman is much more comfortable in the hand than the PM2, is that "very subjective" and hence not useful to a wide audience, or is it something that isn't so subjective after all, and hence is useful information to disseminate? I was hoping the latter, but in your response, you seem to indicate it may be the former.
 
Sharperthansticks said:
When you say that the Shaman is much more comfortable in the hand than the PM2, is that "very subjective" and hence not useful to a wide audience, or is it something that isn't so subjective after all, and hence is useful information to disseminate? I was hoping the latter, but in your response, you seem to indicate it may be the former.
Click to expand...

I hate to disappoint, but "this feels good in my hand" is, by definition, specific to my hand. Whether people find my work useful is really up to them, and has little to do with the truth of the universe. Some folks seem to appreciate my work, others don't. For those who watch, maybe it's because my view of the world seems to match up well with theirs. Maybe they find my judgements to mostly mirror their own. Or maybe it's just all for entertainment. That, too, alas, is subjective!

But with the possible exception of folks like Pete at Cedric and Ada who do quantitatively-based steel testing, you're not going to find science in the world of product review. You've gotta either make your peace with that, or, if you prefer, find a different kind of video to occupy your time! :)
 
NickShabazz said:
I hate to disappoint, but "this feels good in my hand" is, by definition, specific to my hand. Whether people find my work useful is really up to them, and has little to do with the truth of the universe. Some folks seem to appreciate my work, others don't. For those who watch, maybe it's because my view of the world seems to match up well with theirs. Maybe they find my judgements to mostly mirror their own. Or maybe it's just all for entertainment. That, too, alas, is subjective!

But with the possible exception of folks like Pete at Cedric and Ada who do quantitatively-based steel testing, you're not going to find science in the world of product review. You've gotta either make your peace with that, or, if you prefer, find a different kind of video to occupy your time! :)
Click to expand...
(I do like that about Pete's videos.) Anyway, fair enough. I'm outta here, people; have fun continuing the debate (or not).
 
Sharperthansticks said:
I apologize if I've misquoted you; I'll go back and watch your original video (at some point, anyway). If, though, as you say, the reviews reflect "very subjective feelings," and you don't want to pretend that "there's any science about it," why watch someone's review for any reason other than entertainment? I want to watch reviews to make educated, wise choices to spend my limited funds; it seems like you are all but saying, "Nope. Reviews are not for that." Is the purpose of your reviews to help people make educated choices, or is it something else, like entertainment? (I thought it was 70% the former and 30% the latter.) When you say that the Shaman is much more comfortable in the hand than the PM2, is that "very subjective" and hence not useful to a wide audience, or is it something that isn't so subjective after all, and hence is useful information to disseminate? I was hoping the latter, but in your response, you seem to indicate it may be the former.
Click to expand...
You are now painting yourself in a corner that will be difficult to get out of. You want science from YouTube? You want specific examples of things? But, you are unwilling to do said things....

Good luck with that.
 
Sharperthansticks said:
I apologize if I've misquoted you; I'll go back and watch your original video (at some point, anyway). If, though, as you say, the reviews reflect "very subjective feelings," and you don't want to pretend that "there's any science about it," why watch someone's review for any reason other than entertainment? I want to watch reviews to make educated, wise choices to spend my limited funds; it seems like you are all but saying, "Nope. Reviews are not for that." Is the purpose of your reviews to help people make educated choices, or is it something else, like entertainment? (I thought it was 70% the former and 30% the latter.) When you say that the Shaman is much more comfortable in the hand than the PM2, is that "very subjective" and hence not useful to a wide audience, or is it something that isn't so subjective after all, and hence is useful information to disseminate? I was hoping the latter, but in your response, you seem to indicate it may be the former.
Click to expand...

What is he going to do? Go around and ask random people on the street to grab the knife? Of course it's subjective and personal. I mean let's say you get Michael Jordan reviewing a Smart Car? Do you think he's gonna give glowing reviews? Of course not, he can get two and wear them as roller skates. He's still able to review it. He can objectively say "Oh it's gonna be excellent in the city to park and get gas mileage, but the ergos for me are crap because 50% of my body sticks out the sun roof."
Same with Nick, he has the hand size he's stuck with for better and worse, and even with my big hands I prefer the Shaman over the PM2 in hand, rounded corners feel better than the blocky PM2 scales. Do I dislike my PM2? No. Is the Shaman a better knife (for me at work) ? Yes. They are different knives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top