Significant Tornado Events

[AJS]

That Matador home reminds me of this residence impacted by the Parkersburg EF5 in 2008 as it passed near New Hartford. Pretty similar construction and both homes were destroyed in essentially the same fashion with extreme contextual damage nearby.
View attachment 44212
View attachment 44213
The difference is, I believe the New Hartford home was rated EF5, while the Matador home was rated EF3. While I don’t really agree with EF5 on these types of homes, EF4 is absolutely the right call. I’ve seen CMU foundation homes with little anchoring rated EF4 in multiple surveys, but for whatever reason that just didn’t apply in Matador.

I don’t know if it’s just me, but I think the EF3 rating for Matador is up there for one of the worst ratings for a tornado of all time.

 

[AJS]

That

I think it IS the worst contextual damage since either of those tornadoes, Matador is close but the problem there is movement speed, and anyways, I think Mayfield's contextuals are worse anyway.

It easily has some of the worst vehicle damage in the EF scale era dare I say, but especially after 2013, not just including mangling but far lofting as well in at least 3 different towns, vehicles fused with farming equipment, pretty much every hallmark of high end vehicle damage ever.

Insane tree and shrubbery damage, lofting of large trees consistent from the beginning to the end of the path, in multiple areas, debarking and stubbing of incredibly hearty, tough, very thick hardwood trees and the debarking, flattening and in some cases "removal" of shrubbery.

Produced large, deep trenches in plenty of different places, though theres not many if any I know of outside of the Crutchfield area, and it scoured the ground legitimately in Princeton and Bremen, along with all the crazy cycloidal markings, that I'm pretty sure have been calculated at high EF4 or even EF5 strength in some paper.

The only thing about the path is the lack of structural evidence which is really just a fault of the region, because it's not like it was failing to sweep poorly built homes, just that they can't get rated that high because of their quality.

Also forgot to mention Bassfield bc it's pretty wild but I think it's 1. Mayfield 2. Matador 3. Bassfield for contextuals since Chapman.

I’m curious, how would you rank the contextual damage Mayfield produced against tornadoes like Chapman, Vilonia, Chickasha, and Rochelle??

 

[AJS]

It also created seismic activity which I don't see many people bring up, obviously I don't think there's any scientific research to back this up being related to tornado strength but it's just another thing to bring up because it's wild, it really did everything a tornado can do.

View attachment 44199

That was relatively early on in the tornado’s path too.

 

[Aaron Rider]

So did that one house on the north side of Matador. So wouldn't saying "Alpena didn't produce EF5 structural damage" essentially invalidate what you wrote about the Matador tornado back in March?


100% hit the nail on the head here. So if I understand correctly, you're basically saying that tornadoes like Alpena and Matador can be considered EF5's by your own standard even if it's impossible for them to be officially considered as such?

Regarding your last point, we all have personal F5 lists saved on our pc, right? Or is that just me lol

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

Regarding your last point, we all have personal F5 lists saved on our pc, right? Or is that just me lol

Not only a list but also a map. Which is good, because it changes constantly (for instance Askewville and New Harmony recently joined my list).

EDIT: @Aaron Rider, what is your list btw? (Post it in EF Scale Debates, to be safe.)

 

[Asha627]

Damage from the June 8, 1995 Kellerville, TX tornado. Very rare photos!

 

[Asha627]

Damage from the June 8, 1995 Allison, TX F4! I found 10 unseen photos from this event, here are 2 of the worst ones

 

[Juliett Bravo Kilo]

Damage from the June 8, 1995 Allison, TX F4! I found 10 unseen photos from this event, here are 2 of the worst ones

View attachment 44232View attachment 44233

Where are you finding these?

 

[buckeye05]

So did that one house on the north side of Matador. So wouldn't saying "Alpena didn't produce EF5 structural damage" essentially invalidate what you wrote about the Matador tornado back in March?


100% hit the nail on the head here. So if I understand correctly, you're basically saying that tornadoes like Alpena and Matador can be considered EF5's by your own standard even if it's impossible for them to be officially considered as such?

Sorry to flip flop, but I’ve actually changed my mind on Matador again. I don’t think it would be possible to go higher than the 190s in terms of wind speed estimate. My memory of the quality of anchoring and foundation construction at the Matador house was more impressive than it was in reality. About a day after I made that post and took a closer look at the Matador photo I posted. I was like “actually….hmmm maybe not.”

But basically yes in regards to your second question. It’s in not at all unlikely that Alpena and Matador had 200+ MPH winds, but given the foundation and anchoring issues, they aren’t EF5 candidates in terms of actual modern day EF scale application.

It gets confusing, because “Was it an EF5?” and “Did it produce structural damage meeting the EF5 criteria?” are two separate questions with two separate answers in most cases, including these two specific examples.

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

Sorry to flip flop, but I’ve actually changed my mind on Matador again. I don’t think it would be possible to go higher than the 190s in terms of wind speed estimate. My memory of the quality of anchoring and foundation construction at the Matador house was more impressive than it was in reality. About a day after I made that post and took a closer look at the Matador photo I posted. I was like “actually….hmmm maybe not.”

But basically yes in regards to your second question. It’s in not at all unlikely that Alpena and Matador had 200+ MPH winds, but given the foundation and anchoring issues, they aren’t EF5 candidates in terms of actual modern day EF scale application.

It gets confusing, because “Was it an EF5?” and “Did it produce structural damage meeting the EF5 criteria?” are two separate questions with two separate answers in most cases, including these two specific examples.

Understandable. Nonetheless because of contextual both Alpena and Matador are going into my books as EF5s.

 

[buckeye05]

I'm not sure, but I think that March comment was in reference to a different house than the one you're talking about. In any event, the contextual evidence seems to have been his tipping point in favor of EF5, and he compared it to Rainsville's CMU EF5 homes, where EF5 contextual evidence tipped the scales towards an EF5 rating.

Context based EF5s haven’t been a thing since 2011. When I’m discussing ratings, I’m always discussing them within the context of the current application of the scale, whether I agree with it or not.

So when it comes to recent tornadoes that produced incredible contextual damage but didn’t hit well-anchored structures built on solid foundations, and the question is “Should this have been rated EF5?”, my answer is always going to be “no”. That includes Mayfield, Alpena, Matador, and others.

Contextuals alone can no longer “tip” a rating up to a genuine, NWS-confirmed EF5 this day and age unless the foundation quality and anchoring are rock solid. Do I agree with that practice? No, but that’s the way it is now, and I think you’re asking me about EF5 candidates under 2011 standards while I’m talking about them in 2025 standards, so it’s causing some confusion between us.

Again, “was it an EF5?” and “could this have been rated EF5 by the NWS given the current standards and practices?” are two entirely different things, and it gets confusing and messy when it’s unclear which question is really being asked.

 

[CheeselandSkies]

Context based EF5s haven’t been a thing since 2011. When I’m discussing ratings, I’m always discussing them within the context of the current application of the scale, whether I agree with it or not.

So when it comes to recent tornadoes that produced incredible contextual damage but didn’t hit well-anchored structures built on solid foundations, and the question is “Should this have been rated EF5?”, my answer is always going to be “no”. That includes Mayfield, Alpena, Matador, and others.

Contextuals alone can no longer “tip” a rating up to a genuine, NWS-confirmed EF5 this day and age unless the foundation quality and anchoring are rock solid. Do I agree with that practice? No, but that’s the way it is now, and I think you’re asking me about EF5 candidates under 2011 standards while I’m talking about them in 2025 standards, so it’s causing some confusion between us.

Again, “was it an EF5?” and “could this have been rated EF5 by the NWS given the current standards and practices?” are two entirely different things, and it gets confusing and messy when it’s unclear which question is really being asked.

Good clarification there.

IMO the heydey of tornado ratings was the mid-1980s through the end of the '90s. During that period we saw about one F5 per year, skipping a year here and there (even in some years, such as 1995, that produced plausible F5 candidates that were rated F4). That was already a minuscule percentage of all tornadoes, so the fact that current standards have made a "5" rating effectively impossible to achieve doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Union]

I’m curious, how would you rank the contextual damage Mayfield produced against tornadoes like Chapman, Vilonia, Chickasha, and Rochelle??

Less contextually violent than Vilonia and Chapman IMO, but not by a huge amount, Chickasha maybe too, but I honestly don't remember much about Chickasha, just Goldsby lol. I do think it's significantly stronger than Rochelle though for sure, but I think Rochelle is overrated anyways. Id say it's easily one of the strongest EF4s since the scale was implemented.

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

I do think it's significantly stronger than Rochelle though for sure, but I think Rochelle is overrated anyways.

Counterpoint: Rochelle was an EF5. @TH2002 and @buckeye05 can probably back me up on that. That said, this topic of discussion belongs in the EF scale debates thread.

IMO the heydey of tornado ratings was the mid-1980s through the end of the '90s. During that period we saw about one F5 per year, skipping a year here and there (even in some years, such as 1995, that produced plausible F5 candidates that were rated F4). That was already a minuscule percentage of all tornadoes, so the fact that current standards have made a "5" rating effectively impossible to achieve doesn't sit well with me.

I'd throw in the early 80s as well. Every F5 in the 80s was rated appropriately (yes, even Broken Bow. The fact that it hurled a motel sign 30 miles into Arkansas is disappointingly obscure.), although some were missed (COUGHBarrieCOUGH). The 90s only had a single "fake F5" (Birmingham '98), all the others were rated appropriately, although we did start to see some "hmmmmm..." ratings, especially in 1990 (Emporia F2 -> F4, Bakersfield Valley F4 -> F5 and Stratton F4 -> F5), 1991 (Arkansas City F4 -> F5 and perhaps Red Rock as well) and 1995 (All 3 F4s on June 8 could've/should've been F5, and maybe Hoover as well (that one seems to be F4 at minimum), and Dimmitt should've been F4).

The good times ended with La Plata.

 

[Union]

Counterpoint: Rochelle was an EF5. @TH2002 and @buckeye05 can probably back me up on that. That said, this topic of discussion belongs in the EF scale debates thread.

I'd throw in the early 80s as well. Every F5 in the 80s was rated appropriately (yes, even Broken Bow. The fact that it hurled a motel sign 30 miles into Arkansas is disappointingly obscure.), although some were missed (COUGHBarrieCOUGH). The 90s only had a single "fake F5" (Birmingham '98), all the others were rated appropriately, although we did start to see some "hmmmmm..." ratings, especially in 1990 (Emporia F2 -> F4, Bakersfield Valley F4 -> F5 and Stratton F4 -> F5), 1991 (Arkansas City F4 -> F5 and perhaps Red Rock as well) and 1995 (All 3 F4s on June 8 could've/should've been F5, and maybe Hoover as well (that one seems to be F4 at minimum), and Dimmitt should've been F4).

The good times ended with La Plata.

Idk, I don't see super slam dunk EF5 in Rochelle, it's strong but it's incredibly overrated based on what I see ppl say all the time about it and it's strength

 

[buckeye05]

Counterpoint: Rochelle was an EF5. @TH2002 and @buckeye05 can probably back me up on that. That said, this topic of discussion belongs in the EF scale debates thread.

I'd throw in the early 80s as well. Every F5 in the 80s was rated appropriately (yes, even Broken Bow. The fact that it hurled a motel sign 30 miles into Arkansas is disappointingly obscure.), although some were missed (COUGHBarrieCOUGH). The 90s only had a single "fake F5" (Birmingham '98), all the others were rated appropriately, although we did start to see some "hmmmmm..." ratings, especially in 1990 (Emporia F2 -> F4, Bakersfield Valley F4 -> F5 and Stratton F4 -> F5), 1991 (Arkansas City F4 -> F5 and perhaps Red Rock as well) and 1995 (All 3 F4s on June 8 could've/should've been F5, and maybe Hoover as well (that one seems to be F4 at minimum), and Dimmitt should've been F4).

The good times ended with La Plata.

Rochelle isn’t quite as extreme or egregious as Vilonia or others, but it meets the EF5 criteria. That Ethan guy has been more dismissive of that one recently largely based on the presence of raised subfloors…. uh yeah, no.

I’d caution anyone from mirroring their opinions of specific tornado ratings based on whatever that guy says, and I’ll leave it at that.

 

[TH2002]

Rochelle isn’t quite as extreme or egregious as Vilonia or others, but it meets the EF5 criteria. That Ethan guy has been more dismissive of that one recently largely based on the presence of raised subfloors…. uh yeah, no.

I’d caution anyone from mirroring their opinions of specific tornado ratings based on whatever that guy says, and I’ll leave it at that.

Ethan Moriarty: "Questioning tornado ratings is insensitive!"
Also Ethan Moriarty: made the statement above at the end of a 17-minute video questioning tornado ratings

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

: "Questioning tornado ratings is insensitive!"

The "never question official ratings" energy is strong on this one.

Also, somewhat on topic:

I still may have missed a few

2011:
New Wren, Tuscaloosa, Ringgold, Cordova*, Ohatchee*, Chickasha, Goldsby, Berlin*

2012:
Henryville*

2013:
Granbury*, Washington*

2014:
Vilonia, Louisville, Stanton, Pilger*, Pilger East*

2015:
Fairdale, Cisco*, Holly Springs

2016:
Chapman

2017:
Perryville*

2018:
Camp Crook

2020:
Bassfield*

2021:
Mayfield*

*denotes tornadoes that are more debatable, or don't have enough information available.

How has this specific list changed since you made it in 2023? Have any tornadoes been added? Subtracted? I'd wager Ringgold would get an asterisk next to it if some of your more recent posts are any indication, and Alpena would also be an asterisked addition, but what else would be different?

As a bonus, what would a similar list look like for the 2000-2010 era?

 

[AJS]

I used to be on the fence regarding if I thought the Monette/Samburg Tri State EF4 could have achieved EF5 strength, but after seeing this image of debarking new Buckeye, AR, I fully believe this tornado was 100% capable of producing more violent damage than what it was officially rated. That tree damage is well up there with the most violent ever seen.

 

[Aaron Rider]

Rochelle isn’t quite as extreme or egregious as Vilonia or others, but it meets the EF5 criteria. That Ethan guy has been more dismissive of that one recently largely based on the presence of raised subfloors…. uh yeah, no.

I’d caution anyone from mirroring their opinions of specific tornado ratings based on whatever that guy says, and I’ll leave it at that.

Well, what I thought was ridiculous was trying to dismiss the damage to the concrete walkway. I don't remember exactly what he said - apologies - but it was frankly pretty tough to even stomach.

Anyway, coming from someone as understanding of the inherent strictness of today's standards as you are (your preceding post, explaining that, was excellent), that YOU think Rochelle "meets the EF5 criteria" tells us everything.