Conflicting Beliefs by Mike Darlow
It’s popularly believed that different techniques suit different turners. Here are three examples which illustrate that belief:
1. Keith Rowley in the New Edition of his book Woodturning: A Foundation Course describes three methods for cutting coves in axially grained workpieces. He then explains the fourth method that he uses before suggesting “you try all the above methods and settle for the one that suits you.”
2. John Kelsey in reviewing the first edition of my book Sharpening Woodturning Tools (SWT) in the February 2024 American Woodturner (AW) wrote “And thus Darlow himself is both the strength and the weakness of this book. Practices he knows and does himself, he understands and can explain to a remarkably fine degree. What he doesn’t do himself, he judges to be suboptimal. This reflects his core belief that there is indeed an optimum way of doing everything, and anything else is substandard, to be disregarded. But in fact–and I have seen this over and over again in my long career as a writer and editor—every adept craftsperson operates within a coherent system wherein all the parts fit smoothly together. An element considered in isolation might not make sense, but in context, it works perfectly well . . . for that craftsperson. Optimum for you is not necessarily optimum for me.”
John Kelsey is incorrect to state that “anything else is substandard, to be disregarded.” I am keenly interested in all the conflicting techniques promoted because as SWT demonstrates, I regard part of my role as a woodturning teacher to examine and rate the conflicting techniques for hobby woodturners who may not have the time or the knowledge to do so themselves. John is, however correct to state that I believe that there is a suite of woodturning techniques which is optimum for all those without significant mental and physical handicaps who wish to turn as well as they reasonably can.
3. The American Association of Woodturners journal American Woodturner currently promotes three conflicting sets of sharpening angles: by George Hatfield, by Alan Lacer, and by Dennis Belcher. However the journal gives no guidance about which set to adopt, and thus confuses rather than helps its members.
The attraction of the belief that different techniques suit different turners is that it allows those who promote different techniques to both avoid having to substantiate their techniques’ superiority over conflicting techniques, and avoid having to cooperate with others to continually improve and seek a consensus on the techniques which should be taught. And if questioned, these promoters can always fall back on the excuse “it works for me”, what I have called the Frank Sinatra syndrome. The beauty of this belief is that the only people who suffer by being confronted with a mass of conflicting and mostly suboptimal advices are the amateur woodturners who finance woodturning teachers, suppliers and woodturning’s media.
So what is my evidence that the belief that different techniques suit different turners is wrong?
1. No promoter of the belief has been able to or even attempted to explain which innate differences between turners which would cause different techniques to be optimum for different turners. If these innate differences are unknown, how is a turner to correctly choose or be advised which of the alternative and conflicting techniques to adopt?
Terry Martin was correct in his letter in the June 2025 AW to point out that different turners have different natural turning abilities. But my experience is that almost all who wish to become competent will if taught what I believe are the optimum techniques achieve competence in them. Obviously there are a few who are seriously handicapped, and for whom special techniques are optimum. There are also many turners who aren’t prepared to commit to learning to turn as well they reasonably can, and for whom “softer” techniques are therefore optimum. These techniques are however less efficient, usually involve more sanding, and restrict the vocabulary of forms which can be turned.
2. If two turners take a tool with an identical edge and present it to and traverse it along a similar workpiece, the results will be identical. Innate personal factors make no difference. Therefore turners who desire to turn efficiently and to possess the largest turning vocabulary (and why wouldn’t they?), should adopt the optimum techniques.
Why is the belief that different techniques best suit different turners so popular?
1. The woodturning media is reluctant to publish objective criticism and comparisons of techniques, particularly of techniques promoted by established contributors.
2. The norm is that today’s turning teachers are largely self-taught or taught by teachers who were largely self-taught. With the absence of some central authority (not that I’m suggesting there be one), there’s little pressure to cooperate to achieve a consensus on which techniques are optimum and how they could be improved. Instead teachers commonly take the approach “I turn using these techniques because they work for me. Therefore you should use them too.” However it’s unlikely that such techniques have been rigorously compared with the alternatives.
3. The support given to the belief that different techniques suit different turners by establed turners. For example, on page 65 of issue 395 of Woodturning magazine Richard Findley wrote “professional production turners, all of whom use a skew extensively, all opt for a different version.” I suggest that the adoption of these different skews was mainly because these turners were apprenticed to different master turners, not because these British production turners have different innate qualities.
4. With the decline in trade woodturning, teaching is now focussed on short, project-based courses for hobbyists. The content of these courses is therefore unlikely to be stringently vetted. And although I guesstimate that at least 80% of the turning produced annually are spindle turnings (most turned on automatic lathes), the focus of teaching seems to be on turning bowls and other vessels for which the techniques are typically easier while the products are typically less useful.
5. Many turners have already achieved competence in suboptimal techniques. Whether they are prepared to put in the effort to upgrade their techniques to the optimum is their choice. It is a choice which would be unnecessary if turning teachers all taught the optimum techniques, and if the woodturning media promoted them.
6. It is impossible to quantify the differences in efficiency (I can think of no other single relevant criterion) between alternative techniques for performing the same operation. But if it were, the difference would have to be, say, at least 20% before differences become realisable through trials. However as proved in SWT, objective analysis can often differentiate between competing techniques which are much closer together. And if for a particlular operation the difference in efficiency between the optimum technique and the next-best were only about 5%, shouldn’t turners be able to grab that benefit?
The belief that there is a suite of optimum techniques is not narrow. For example for bowl turning the optimum techniques will vary according to the turner’s objectives. The optimum technique for sanded bowls required to be produced as rapidly as possible is different to that for bowls which won’t be sanded. And although bowls are best turned outboard, the optimum technique for those who have to turn bowls inboard is different.
I’ll conclude by repeating a student’s quote from Bruce Boulter’s book Woodturning in Pictures: “you know, it is much more simple to do it the right way.”
Mike Darlow, Aug 2025.
It’s popularly believed that different techniques suit different turners. Here are three examples which illustrate that belief:
1. Keith Rowley in the New Edition of his book Woodturning: A Foundation Course describes three methods for cutting coves in axially grained workpieces. He then explains the fourth method that he uses before suggesting “you try all the above methods and settle for the one that suits you.”
2. John Kelsey in reviewing the first edition of my book Sharpening Woodturning Tools (SWT) in the February 2024 American Woodturner (AW) wrote “And thus Darlow himself is both the strength and the weakness of this book. Practices he knows and does himself, he understands and can explain to a remarkably fine degree. What he doesn’t do himself, he judges to be suboptimal. This reflects his core belief that there is indeed an optimum way of doing everything, and anything else is substandard, to be disregarded. But in fact–and I have seen this over and over again in my long career as a writer and editor—every adept craftsperson operates within a coherent system wherein all the parts fit smoothly together. An element considered in isolation might not make sense, but in context, it works perfectly well . . . for that craftsperson. Optimum for you is not necessarily optimum for me.”
John Kelsey is incorrect to state that “anything else is substandard, to be disregarded.” I am keenly interested in all the conflicting techniques promoted because as SWT demonstrates, I regard part of my role as a woodturning teacher to examine and rate the conflicting techniques for hobby woodturners who may not have the time or the knowledge to do so themselves. John is, however correct to state that I believe that there is a suite of woodturning techniques which is optimum for all those without significant mental and physical handicaps who wish to turn as well as they reasonably can.
3. The American Association of Woodturners journal American Woodturner currently promotes three conflicting sets of sharpening angles: by George Hatfield, by Alan Lacer, and by Dennis Belcher. However the journal gives no guidance about which set to adopt, and thus confuses rather than helps its members.
The attraction of the belief that different techniques suit different turners is that it allows those who promote different techniques to both avoid having to substantiate their techniques’ superiority over conflicting techniques, and avoid having to cooperate with others to continually improve and seek a consensus on the techniques which should be taught. And if questioned, these promoters can always fall back on the excuse “it works for me”, what I have called the Frank Sinatra syndrome. The beauty of this belief is that the only people who suffer by being confronted with a mass of conflicting and mostly suboptimal advices are the amateur woodturners who finance woodturning teachers, suppliers and woodturning’s media.
So what is my evidence that the belief that different techniques suit different turners is wrong?
1. No promoter of the belief has been able to or even attempted to explain which innate differences between turners which would cause different techniques to be optimum for different turners. If these innate differences are unknown, how is a turner to correctly choose or be advised which of the alternative and conflicting techniques to adopt?
Terry Martin was correct in his letter in the June 2025 AW to point out that different turners have different natural turning abilities. But my experience is that almost all who wish to become competent will if taught what I believe are the optimum techniques achieve competence in them. Obviously there are a few who are seriously handicapped, and for whom special techniques are optimum. There are also many turners who aren’t prepared to commit to learning to turn as well they reasonably can, and for whom “softer” techniques are therefore optimum. These techniques are however less efficient, usually involve more sanding, and restrict the vocabulary of forms which can be turned.
2. If two turners take a tool with an identical edge and present it to and traverse it along a similar workpiece, the results will be identical. Innate personal factors make no difference. Therefore turners who desire to turn efficiently and to possess the largest turning vocabulary (and why wouldn’t they?), should adopt the optimum techniques.
Why is the belief that different techniques best suit different turners so popular?
1. The woodturning media is reluctant to publish objective criticism and comparisons of techniques, particularly of techniques promoted by established contributors.
2. The norm is that today’s turning teachers are largely self-taught or taught by teachers who were largely self-taught. With the absence of some central authority (not that I’m suggesting there be one), there’s little pressure to cooperate to achieve a consensus on which techniques are optimum and how they could be improved. Instead teachers commonly take the approach “I turn using these techniques because they work for me. Therefore you should use them too.” However it’s unlikely that such techniques have been rigorously compared with the alternatives.
3. The support given to the belief that different techniques suit different turners by establed turners. For example, on page 65 of issue 395 of Woodturning magazine Richard Findley wrote “professional production turners, all of whom use a skew extensively, all opt for a different version.” I suggest that the adoption of these different skews was mainly because these turners were apprenticed to different master turners, not because these British production turners have different innate qualities.
4. With the decline in trade woodturning, teaching is now focussed on short, project-based courses for hobbyists. The content of these courses is therefore unlikely to be stringently vetted. And although I guesstimate that at least 80% of the turning produced annually are spindle turnings (most turned on automatic lathes), the focus of teaching seems to be on turning bowls and other vessels for which the techniques are typically easier while the products are typically less useful.
5. Many turners have already achieved competence in suboptimal techniques. Whether they are prepared to put in the effort to upgrade their techniques to the optimum is their choice. It is a choice which would be unnecessary if turning teachers all taught the optimum techniques, and if the woodturning media promoted them.
6. It is impossible to quantify the differences in efficiency (I can think of no other single relevant criterion) between alternative techniques for performing the same operation. But if it were, the difference would have to be, say, at least 20% before differences become realisable through trials. However as proved in SWT, objective analysis can often differentiate between competing techniques which are much closer together. And if for a particlular operation the difference in efficiency between the optimum technique and the next-best were only about 5%, shouldn’t turners be able to grab that benefit?
The belief that there is a suite of optimum techniques is not narrow. For example for bowl turning the optimum techniques will vary according to the turner’s objectives. The optimum technique for sanded bowls required to be produced as rapidly as possible is different to that for bowls which won’t be sanded. And although bowls are best turned outboard, the optimum technique for those who have to turn bowls inboard is different.
I’ll conclude by repeating a student’s quote from Bruce Boulter’s book Woodturning in Pictures: “you know, it is much more simple to do it the right way.”
Mike Darlow, Aug 2025.
