Harry Butlers Yosemite Bowline

[agent_smith]

I was on a climbing vacation recently and one of the guys I was climbing with was routinely tying-in using the presented variation to the #1010 based Yosemite Bowline.
I am fairly sure that I have not seen this particular variation before.

However, to be certain, does anyone know if this variation had been discovered previously?
If yes, I would like historical details please.

[Dan_Lehman]

I think it's news to me (though I've piles of ....),
and looks to be an exploration on the theme of
one-good-turn-deserves-another.  Actually, it's
seeing the "Yosemite" extension as making a
fig.8 and so applying a common tail-tucking
of the fig.8 eyeknot to this bowline.

Not bad, IMO, giving an extra diameter within
the nipping loop and a further tucking that would
have to come undone ... .

 

[agent_smith]

I would like to nominate Mr Harry Butler as the discoverer of this variation of the Yosemite Bowline.

At this stage, none of the big guns have come forward to claim this Bowline variation (including Xarax). Usually, by now, someone would have come forward or made some noise.

I have been in contact with Harry - and he is somewhat surprised that he could be the first to have thought of it.
I would like to add that I have known Harry Butler for many years - and he is a remarkable man.
Short in stature, but tall in character, reliability and humor
Now approaching his mid 60's, he is incredibly powerful and fit and still wonders what he will do when he grows up!

I am unclear about how long one needs to wait before it can be reasonably safe to make a claim of discovery?

[Dan_Lehman]

I am unclear about how long one needs to wait before it
can be reasonably safe to make a claim of discovery?

Forever or never!
For the former, it will be hard to surely exclude all further
discoveries of history to ensure that a claim stands (as "first");
and for the latter, others' discovering the same thing
is just irrelevant (to what the individual has done herself).

In this case, as I wrote, one can see the knot as blending
two well-known extensions to common knots; that Harry
got this and so produced a handsome knot is commendable.
Somewhere down the road Dan might see that he, too,
crossed this point in the knots universe --I do know that
I've done a YoBowl extension by just going back'n'forth
to produce a doubled collar and stuff another 2? dia.
through the turNip, and thus have substantial *fig.8*
in the bowline; I don't believe that I did THIS though.
(But, then, from time to time I find an old knot & scribble
and realize, "OMG, I was here (in knotspace) way back THEN
and ... forgot about it" --most recently re my (re-)finding
**The** answer to the bowline's insecurity, by making
an opposed-bights collar (and I just saw that I'd the same
idea --slightly different version-- another (earlier?) time,
too (2000, 2017 &  <?>) ! )

The world knows about "Blake's hitch" even though that
knot made an appearance in some Austrian? climbing journal
via Heinz Prohaska decade or more prior Jason's popularizing
it (hence my "ProhGrip" moniker).

(How much credit will anyone get if they take Harry's ...
and do it for a "double" bwl., or take an EBDB and get
an "EBSB" by using EBDB & YoBowl constructs --there's
one for YOU to figure out!)

Could we prevent claims of origination by making
the broadcast general claim of all things got by
combinations of <build a list of known constructs> ?!

Still, it's not always so simple, or just so <something>,
as it seems : e.g. one can see the progression from
the strangle / constrictor knots from having their base
1-overwrap to 2, 3, ... N overwraps, but miss the
odd fact that for 1 & 2 overwraps the latter is TIB,
but then not further (!).  The bowline & left-handed
bwl. are "six of one, half-dozen of other" in likeness
one might think, until ring-loading comes into play(!).
(Rumors of tail-snagging strike me as mere inventions
--that such is a real problem, i.e.-- of some who think
themselves clever.)


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

Just following up on this matter...

I am acting as a 'proxy' for Harry.

So this is a claim of discovery for a secure variation of the #1010 derived Yosemite Bowline.
Details:
[ ] Discoverer: Harry Butler
[ ] Discovery date: 02 August 2015 (Note: This date was simply a guess... further conversations with Harry suggest a much earlier date).
[ ] Knot category: Eye (loop) knot
[ ] Family: Bowlines (derived from #1010 ordinary Bowline)
[ ] Applications: Climbing / Mountaineering / Vertical rescue

Brief:
This is an inherently secure eye knot.
Harry's design goals were to fix the failure mode of the Yosemite Bowline and to have the tail exiting inside the eye (rather than projecting outward in parallel with the SPart which is the default form with many secure Bowlines).
Harry was experimenting with the EBSB and Yosemite Bowlines and was seeking a way to have the tail exiting inside the eye so it would not interfere when performing panic clips into protection. He wanted to achieve a distinctive symmetrical shape with inherent security.
A side benefit is that this structure has 3 rope diameters inside the nipping loop.

[agent_smith]

I have received notice of a disputed claim of originality for Harry Butlers Yosemite Bowline.

I have been acting as a 'proxy' for Harry - and I would emphasize that I am not the discoverer and i make no personal claim whatsoever.

I believed that due diligence had been done in relation to Harry's claim... and it wasn't disputed (until now).

...

I received an email pointing to this video link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKsvDy8WWJQ (posted by Mark Edwards Oct 12, 2014).
Harry's claim was dated Aug 2015 - although when I originally pressed Harry on the discovery date, he said it could have been earlier than August 2015 (but wasn't specific).

In my earlier research into the 'Edwards Bowline' - sources pointed to the starting base as #1034 1/2 (tail outside) Bowline.
Using #1034 1/2 as the base, the result was (in my view) non-intuitive mess.
This was the link I found for the Edwards Bowline: https://www.qubmc.co.uk/topic/knots-edwards-bowline/ (and it comes up first in my Google searches).

And also this link: https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/edwards_bowline-451834  - and here we see several unflattering comments from the legendary knudeNoggin
The issue of starting from tail inside (#1010) or tail outside (#1034 1/2) was unclear - and it is a poorly understood concept - and climbers themselves (in that thread) don't seem to understand the difference.

Using the Simple #1010 Bowline (tail inside eye) resulted in an intuitive and symmetrical geometry.

And just recently - there is another post here (from Akano) on the IGKT forum: https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4480.495

Hi, Mark,

I've greatly enjoyed reading your analysis, which was one of the sources that got me into knotting in the first place! I wanted to ask about Harry Butler's Yosemite Bowline. I've come across several images/instructions on how to tie the Edwards Bowline, and depending on the site it's the same (e.g., here and here) or the same apart from initially tying a Cowboy Bowline (e.g. here) as Harry Butler's. I haven't been able to find an "official" way to tie the Edwards Bowline, so I have no idea if the links I've provided are the standard way to tie it, but I figured I'd bring it up to see if there was a potential independent discovery occurring.

~A

https://www.rockfax.com/news/2011/12/04/knot-safety/ (again we see in this link a poorly conceived 'Edwards Bowline' with even poorer geometry).

I will personally try to contact Mark Edwards to get clarification on the matter.

[Akano]

I found another source in favor of the Edwards Bowline being of the tail-outside variety, for what it's worth. The original page no longer seems to exist, but the Internet Archive has a backed up set of instructions for it here.

~A

[Artur]

Hello

I found this resource looking for Edwards' bowline.
https://www.facebook.com/pg/compasswestclimbing/photos/?tab=album&album_id=537156909643964

These pictures look the same as in youtube video but posted with an even earlier date. As far as I can tell this is exactly the same knot as Harry Butler's knot in the "Analysis[...]". Did Mark Edwards not respond? Even if other sites presented different geometries, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume the author himself is the most reliable source?

[agent_smith]

Thanks for your post and information Artur.
In the first instance, I would like to point out and emphasize that Mark Edwards hasn't actually commented or posted a reply in this thread topic or the IGKT in general.

In corresponding with Harry Butler, he originally threw out a date - for the sake of publication - being 02 August 2015.
When I again corresponded with him (Harry) - he clarified that it could have been much earlier than August 2015 - indeed - he surmised the seeds of the concept were likely many years earlier.

So to specifically answer your question re Mark Edwards:
[ ] No - Mark Edwards has not replied or offered any commentary

In terms of your second point:

Even if other sites presented different geometries, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume the author himself is the most reliable source?

We don't have a specific discovery date.
The facebook page does not specify a discovery date.
There is a youtube video that was posted by Mark Edwards on Oct 2014.
The issue now is Harry Butlers memory; which (as I stated) points to a much earlier discovery date than 2014.

Honestly?
I don't know.

I will again correspond with Harry Butler to try to get more historical background.

Further commentary:
I find it interesting that several sources dont actually understand the difference between #1010 simple Bowline (tail inside eye) and #1034 1/2 Bowline (tail outside eye).
Harry Butlers creation most definitely begins from #1010 simple Bowline (not #1034 1/2).
Some sources found on the internet indicate #1034 1/2 as the starting base.
But, I would surmise that these sources are simply 'ignorant' that many different types of 'Bowlines' exist - and don't really understand the differences (often simply citing the word 'Bowline' - as if it means only one particular geometry exists).

I would also like to make it absolutely 100% crystal clear that I personally am making no claim whatsoever.
I am merely the messenger boy...
And I am simply trying to uncover the historical 'facts' (which may turn out to be impossible).