Dan,
You nailed it, yes Mark Adams is familiar with the scenario I have explained. Mark in fact introduced the argument about the knot being called "the Martin", and later renamed it "the Michoacan". This knot Mark describes (not the knot I describe) is tied in a split tail fashion, anchored on both ends to the climbing saddle via carabiner clips, using a cord, tied around a climbing line. Mark indicated in his 2005 article, a climbing instructor from Arbor Master began using this set-up, and named it after himself. In the 2007 article, it was a gentlemen named Morales who wanted to rename it after his home state, and in a Tree Buzz commentary, it was a climber that he had worked with in the past. Maybe they are all the same person he is describing.
Regardless of the backstory on the "Michoac?n", I think it is an adaptation of my knot, which I introduced to some involved with Arbor Master, prior to 2005. I think my knot was shown to Mark, as an adaptation into a double anchored/micro pulley system (which I don't prefer to climb on). Mark wrote articles about it, and it was called a name that they decided to call it. None of Mark's early articles discussed it as single line, which is seen as a bit ancient in tree climbing circles. I prefer ancient.
When dressed up in a modern high strength small diameter cord, double anchored and combined with a micro-pulley for easy tending, the knot looks and functions quite differently than the simple naked knot I tie on a single line. Mine would last quite longer, and doesn't glaze, but the double anchored variation will glaze under pressure, much like the Blake's. The knot I designed ties with a single line. The double anchored variation would need two lines, one of smaller diameter with eyelets, which would exit the knot and put pressure at two points of the bottom coil, versus one point. This causes higher friction at the bottom coil, mainly because when anchored at one point, the knot goes into a side bend and arcs along the four coils, distributing the friction between the four coils. When anchored at two points on the bottom, and knot compresses more vertically, and the bottom coil is offset slightly, reacting more like the Blake's. Rather than functioning as a top loaded coil, pulling down on the four coils below, the second anchor point simply changes that back to a bottom loaded coil (point of least resistance), just like the Blake's. I tied this knot because I didn't find the Blake's to be very welcoming, and it cooked a lot from the regular glazing, sometimes getting locked up, especially if I was in a sappy tree like a pine.
Therefore, I am asking for some consideration in regard to naming it the same knot, when used in single versus double anchor. After tying it, looking at it, and using it, the differences will be clear. I don't climb using a double anchor, mainly because I prefer climbing on a knot that matches the diameter of my line, and find that readily available in my climbing rope, with less moving parts. So, I use about 24" of the end of my climbing line to tie up my climbing knot with about 8" of tail. I have used a split tail of the same diameter, and used a single anchor point. That functions the same. I tried the double anchor, but didn't like the performance.
I believe that there should be some variation in the name of the knot when tied single line versus double anchored as a cord. I am proposing that when used single line, the English translation of the name be used: "Michigan". When tied double anchored, use the Mexican name; Michoacan. I happen to be from Michigan, and the climber from Mexico happened to be from Michoacan, Mexico (according to Mark). The translation of Michoacan to English is "Michigan". That's where I first swung from rope, as a kid.
A judge named Scott Profit, creator of the "Porta Wrap" for dynamic lowering, approved the knot for me to climb on in at a competition around 2004 or 2005, at Agnes Scott College, in Decatur, GA. He photographed the knot, and stated it would be sent in for strength testing and review. I used the photograph he took of me with the knot as my profile photo on Tree Buzz, but in their new website that image was recently deleted. Bob Weber was shown the knot at a Vermeer expo in Marietta, GA while there on a demonstration around 2004 (he wasn't too enthusiastic about it.) Mark's first article came out shortly after that, in 2005, introducing the knot as the "Martin". Two years later, in 2007, Mark's second article discusses the knot again, renaming it the "Michoacan". Neither of the articles demonstrates the knot in single line design, only double anchored in a cord. It's all I have climbed on for the past 16 years. Prior to that, I didn't use a friction hitch, I used mechanical ascenders, and a figure 8, because I didn't know any better, and wasn't comfortable not using some type of prophylactic to climb with.
Wayne Shannon
ISA Certified Arborist
Tree Cowboy Inc.
Atlanta, GA