Geometric definition of a Bowline

[agent_smith]

What is the definition of a 'Bowline'?

I started this topic so as not to derail another topic thread from Dennis Pence.

Referring to the attached image (below) - all of the knot images are 'Bowlines'.
I doubt if you will find any IGKT members who would argue this fact.

And so what do all of the knot structures have in common?

Geometric characteristics of all 'Bowlines':
1. There is a functional nipping loop (and it is loaded at both ends).
2. There is a collar - and it performs a U turn around the S.Part (it is braced upon the S.Part).
3. Both legs of the collar enter the nipping loop from the same direction.
4. The nipping loop encircles and clamps both legs of the collar
5. The structure is an 'eye knot'
6. The 'eye' is non-slipping under load (it is not a noose).

All of the knots shown in the attached photo below fulfil these requirements,
and are deserving of the title 'Bowline'.

Xarax has agreed in principle with these requirements - and it was he who
insisted on the requirement for a 'proper' collar.

Deviations from these characteristics result in something else.
For example, there are 'Anti Bowlines' and 'Quasi Bowlines'.
These structures resemble a 'Bowline' in many ways - but fall short in some aspects.

...

If we don't have a tight and well defined definition, it allows the 'floodgates' to be opened.
W-i-d-e-n-i-n-g the definition leads to ambiguity.
Ambiguity leads to confusion,.

I know that Dan Lehman is in favour of a looser definition - where he only requires
a functional nipping loop. Although it is hard to extract a tightly defined definition from him,
particularly with respect to his views surrounding the 'collar' and the 2 legs of the collar.
In my view, this is a flawed pathway that leads to confusion.

I am happy to debate this definition with my audience of one (1) - Dan Lehman.

[siriuso]

Mark

IMO, pointing to the relationship of the SP and the nipping loop, we see a essential component exists. It is a Half Hitch. Should we add to the definition.

For some bowlines such as Double Bowline and Water Bowline do have some sorts of Half Hitch.

We have explored some loop knots (eye knots) in this forum. We use Crossing Knot, Half Knot, Figure of Eight Knot etc. as its component and are not classed as Bowline.

Happy Knotting
yChan

[agent_smith]

In reply to yChan:
By definition, all 'Bowlines' have a nipping loop (not a hitch or half-hitch).
Note: Ashley's illustrated #1012 Water Bowline has 2 nipping loops (they are separated).

What is a nipping loop and what function does it perform?:
1. A nipping loop is loaded at both ends.
2. A nipping loop is a 'loop' - it isn't a half hitch.
3. A nipping loop encircles and clamps both legs of the collar.
4. A nipping loop has chirality (either 'S' or 'Z' chirality).
5. The entry leg of a nipping loop is the S.Part.
6. The exiting leg of a nipping loop becomes the outgoing eye leg of the 'eye knot'.
7. A nipping loop must be functional - it must be free to encircle and clamp the legs of the collar.
    (increasing load increases the clamping force).

What is a loop?
A loop is created when a rope traces out a curved path of at least 360 degrees.
There is an overlap formed at the point where 360 degrees has been traced out.
Contact is maintained at the overlap point.
The nipping loop in a #1013 Double Bowline has traced out 720 degrees.
A loop has chirality (either 'S' or 'Z').

With regard to your illustration at reply #1:
Your illustration can be regarded as a 'half hitch' around a post.
The 'WE' only has meaning while the 'end' is being manipulated to form a knot (it is time dependant).
Otherwise, the point marked 'WE' is a tail end.
There is no 'nipping loop' in your illustration (it is simply a turn/hitch around a post).

[siriuso]

Mark

Your definition is Clear. But some how something more in depth and be simple and easy to be understand. Or you have neglected the original source,  or you disagree

What I mentioned the Half Hitch, it is being mentioned in Ashley's Book, page 186 #1010 "To tie the knot". Ashley used the word Single Hitch (but commonly known to me is Half Hitch) to describe the steps of tying methods. So do every one who knows to tie it with a Half Hitch first in the most common way. Of course there are other methods.

Some Loop knots are by using components of Cross Knot, Half Knot, Figure of Eight etc. also have nipping loops too. The nipping function comes from the part of the curvature of the knot used. They are not classed as Bowlines because they are not fulfilled with the definition of Bowline.

Attached pictures show the nipping loop function of a Half Hitch component being used in Sheepshank and Bowline, not to the pole.

You may see the nipping function of the Half Hitch does in the Sheepshank? Shall we call it the nipping loop?

In my view, it is simply and clear that a Half Hitch is formed in the Standing Part of the Bowline and acts as a nipping loop when it clamps legs or bights (whatever). Hence, I comply with Ashley's.

yChan

[agent_smith]

yChan,
I think there are language barriers here - I have to admit that
I dont really understand what you are actually attempting to claim.

You refer to Ashley as if he is the final arbiter of all knot and knotting concepts.
He is not the final arbiter.
Ashley published his book in 1944.
It is now 2025.

I am only interested in engaging with you based on objective reality - as it applies
to the known and well understood simple Bowline (as a reference, I'll cite Ashley #1010).
Attempting to cite concepts as Ashley understood them in 1944 is not my basis of objective reality.

In the first instance, Ashley did not have a clear and unambiguous concept of what a loop is,
in contrast to a turn. He also did not have a clear-cut definition of what a hitch is.
You can refer to page 18 of his book (eg at entries #31, #32, #33, #38, #40, #41, #42).

At entry #38 he provides his definition of what a 'hitch' is.

At entry #45 he again tries to provide an explanation of what a hitch is.
And again at entry #48, #49, #50 (single hitch, half hitch).

He makes another reference to half-hitches at entry #149.

What Ashley was trying to explain (and define) in terms of what a half hitch is;
is revealed at entry #149 in my view.
"... with the end finished off with two half hitches is both common and practical."
He pointed to the requirement of terminating an end. This being the defining
element - particularly where the hitches are formed around a load segment (ie S.Part).
A good example of this concept is the Round turn and 2 half hitches (Ashley #1720).
We find some clarity on what a 'turn' is at entry #1732 (which really should have been
addressed much earlier on).
...

You should focus your attention on the simple (#1010) Bowline - and try to understand what
is actually going on within the structure. Put 'Ashley' aside, and examine the structure for yourself.

Again - from an objective reality viewpoint, it is self evident that the following elements
are present in #1010:
1. There is a functional nipping loop, which encircles and clamps both legs of the collar.
    A loop has chirality (handedness - either "S' or 'Z').
2. There is a collar, and it performs a U turn around the S.Part (it is braced upon the S.Part).
3. The structure is an 'eye knot' - the 'eye' is non-slipping under load.

QUICK SUMMARY:
I assume that you recognise entry #1010 as being a 'Bowline' - yes?
If yes, then what is it about #1010 that makes it a 'Bowline'?
If you have a working model - the next step is to apply it to other 'Bowline'
entries in Ashley (and other books - eg CL Day, Budworth).
Do all of the entries share the same common elements?

NOTE:
Ashley has an anomaly at entries #1057, and #1058.
These structures are not 'Bowlines'.
It is difficulty to know why Ashley identified these entries as 'Bowlines'.
Suffice to say, if he intentionally identified these structures as 'Bowlines',
it means that he didn't have a robust definition of what a nipping loop is.

[agent_smith]

BOWLINE QUIZ

Take the quiz and challenge yourself!
The agreed reference 'Bowline' is the center image.
Few would argue that this is NOT a 'Bowline'.

NOTE:
If you are going to assign the name 'Bowline' to a knot,
this means you believe that it is has all of the geometric
elements present in the center control (reference) image.

[Dan_Lehman]

[My 'BWL' = "bowline" --fewer keystrokes
 and a conspicuous presence.]

What is the definition of a 'Bowline'?
...
Referring to the attached image (below) - all of the knot images are 'Bowlines'.
I doubt if you will find any IGKT members who would argue this fact.

And so what do all of the knot structures have in common?

Geometric characteristics of all 'Bowlines':
1. There is a functional nipping loop (and it is loaded at both ends).
2. There is a collar - and it performs a U turn around the S.Part (it is braced upon the S.Part).
3. Both legs of the collar enter the nipping loop from the same direction.
4. The nipping loop encircles and clamps both legs of the collar
5. The structure is an 'eye knot'
6. The 'eye' is non-slipping under load (it is not a noose).

All of the knots shown in the attached photo below fulfil these requirements,
and are deserving of the title 'Bowline'.

What is a "Water BWL"?!  --is it that thing you showed
which is like many (of perhaps the older literature's) images
but not the structure where the additional nipping loop
is set smack beside the first, and matches a Clove Hitch?!

Is the Mirror'd BWLs a BWL?
(It seems to have two of everything you want!)

If we don't have a tight and well defined definition,
it allows the 'floodgates' to be opened.
W-i-d-e-n-i-n-g the definition leads to ambiguity.
Ambiguity leads to confusion.

We'll have the knots, by whatever name is given,
those roses will smell as sweet.  A broad category
"BWL" can simply spawn subsets within per various
characteristics as might be desired to note --which
could be a better organizing principle than a narrower
category and then some kind of pointing-to-cousins
of not-quite-"BWL" eye knots.

I know that Dan Lehman is in favour of a looser definition
--where he only requires a functional nipping loop. ...
In my view, this is a flawed pathway that leads to confusion.

Indeed, I don't require any "proper" collar; I also might
be seen to deviate on you requirement of the loop to have
"both sides (i.p., outgoing eye leg) loaded".

I see Ashley's #1033, Carrick Loop, as a nice BWL,
at least is dressed & set to preserve a nipping loop
not setting hard by the Tail and getting a Crossing knot
--as that loop looks to be better maintained than #1010's,
which can capsize.

6. The 'eye' is non-slipping under load (it is not a noose).

Ha!  Have you no knowledge of HMPE cordage --which well
slips & spills many knots, esp. #1010.  (Is your knot a BWL
up UNTIL a capsizing (into a Pile H.) ?!

Is Ashley's #1016 a BWL?

Ah, here's a good one :: how about #1079, "Sister Loops"
(aka in 1939 at least, to H&G, "Eye BWL"; 1924?/33 in
GRShaw nameless) ?!!

There are lots of worms slithering around here,
whether one opens the can or not.


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

BOWLINE QUIZ

Take the quiz and challenge yourself!

Oh BOY !!!

NOTE:
If you are going to assign the name 'Bowline' to a knot,
this means you believe that it is has all of the geometric
elements present in the center control (reference) image.

Nonsense.  Not all of us have kissed X's ring!

Yes, I count the (inferior) Bollard Loop & Lee's
whatever (which you put in to test "proper collar", good)
as BWLs; the Eskimo BWL is a tricky case --like #1033--
in that dressing & setting can turn the nipping loop into
a crossing knot (or more nearly so, no-man's land).
Not the Twist BWL (not "loop", but that with extension
leads to my wonderful "Locktight" eye knots.
The quite entangled thing on the right looks that it
might have dressing-&-setting variations enough
... but I'm not equipped to explore.
And that OH-based nipper looks almost amenable
to achieve *loop*ness sufficient for MY needs.

--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

Quote
NOTE:
If you are going to assign the name 'Bowline' to a knot,
this means you believe that it is has all of the geometric
elements present in the center control (reference) image.

Nonsense.
Not all of us have kissed X's ring!

I call pure nonsense to this remark.
I don't think you have a robust epistemology to define what
a 'Bowline' is.
Xarax was no fool - he thought the matter through thoroughly.
His conclusions are based on objective reality (not on some spectrum).

What is a "Water BWL"?!  --is it that thing you showed
which is like many (of perhaps the older literature's) images
but not the structure where the additional nipping loop
is set smack beside the first, and matches a Clove Hitch?!

Obfuscation in the extreme.
I simply copied directly from Ashley at entry #1012.
Presumably you are calling him out?
He will be rolling in his grave.
Obviously one can marry-up the 2 nipping loops to form a
Clove hitch. Its topologically the same.
Whether the nipping loops are separated or married-up is
an exercise in obfuscation - it doesn't alter the fact-of-the-matter.

We'll have the knots, by whatever name is given,
those roses will smell as sweet.  A broad category
"BWL" can simply spawn subsets within per various
characteristics as might be desired to note --which
could be a better organizing principle than a narrower
category and then some kind of pointing-to-cousins
of not-quite-"BWL" eye knots.

This is a word salad.
What subsets can be spawned - please provide clear photographic examples.
And what characteristics are you referring to? Again, nothing to back
up your narrative.
Presumably your characteristics will be in direct conflict with Xarax?

Indeed, I don't require any "proper" collar; I also might
be seen to deviate on your requirement of the loop to have
"both sides (i.p., outgoing eye leg) loaded".

Oh BOY and WOW!!!
By that loose definition, I would say any alleged 'eye knot' is on the
spectrum of what could be regarded as a 'Bowline'.

Quote
6. The 'eye' is non-slipping under load (it is not a noose).
Ha!  Have you no knowledge of HMPE cordage --which well
slips & spills many knots, esp. #1010.  (Is your knot a BWL
up UNTIL a capsizing (into a Pile H.) ?!

Obfuscation.
This is an outlier - any claim can be made about any knot when
tied in super slippery/slick material.
What does that prove exactly?
You're simply making the claim that you can confound any knot simply
by using some exotic new age material to get it to slip.

Outliers are, by definition, not typical.
It's way more likely a debater didn't consider how inconsistent the outlying
claim is than what the physical characteristic normally attributed
to a thing is capable of. In this case, an eye knot has the characteristic
of not being a noose. If it were a noose (or noose like in character) we might
consider it to be something else - or something went wrong.
Analogy:
2 trained and experienced MMA fighters enter the UFC ring.
1 biological male fighter versus 1 biological female fighter.
Both are equal body weight and age.
It is more likely than not that the male will defeat the female.
Now, you could make the claim that it is possible that the female can
defeat the male. This would be an outlier, because men and women
are separated in physical combat sports for obvious reasons.
If the female defeated the male, some anomalous event likely
occurred that caused the male to lose.
But a win result by a female does not prove that biological females
can ordinarily defeat biological males in a UFC contest.

There are lots of worms slithering around here,
whether one opens the can or not.

Indeed there is - I see you being the chief worm here 

I have laid out my case for what a 'Bowline' is.
You have failed to do the same - because your definitions
are variable, and on a spectrum.

REFER TO MY ATTACHED IMAGE BELOW:
If I showed you the knot image at far left, how would you
describe it? What name would you assign to it?
Be honest in your answer.
Lets say for the argument, that you agree it is a 'Bowline'.
Okay - the question now becomes why?
What is it about that knot structure that persuades you to
assign a particular name to it (eg 'Bowline').

If I show you knot 'D' - would you regard it as being a
knot deserving of the title 'Bowline'?
If no, why?

Presumably you might regard 'A' as deserving of the title 'Bowline'?
If yes, why?
And with 'B' and 'C', how would you define these structures?
Are they deserving of the title 'Bowline'?

[siriuso]

Mark

I appreciate your "Definition of Bowline", and most of the points. I wrote to this post because I saw a point that I and other readers would be mixed up if the definition is not clear to us. That is the NIPPING LOOP.

I know the nipping function in the bowline, and the geometric structure (SP, collar, nipping loop and legs).

I have no intention to claim anything, but I want to know which part is the nipping loop.

I have made illustrations in the previous threads and hereunder. I colored the rope in green this time as the nipping loop.

1.) Does the green part is nipping loop?
2.) Re: Reply #8, Knots B, C and D. Do these knots have nipping loops or nipping function mechanism?

yChan

[agent_smith]

Greetings yChan,

With specific regard to your image at reply #9 above:
I can only assess what is laid out before me.
By strict definition, you have drawn a loosely tied Sheet bend.
It isn't a 'Bowline'.
A 'Bowline' is a type of 'eye knot'.

Does this make sense to you yChan?
I can only assess what you draw.
You have drawn a loose Sheet Bend core.

In fact, in your supplied image, it is not possible to determine which side
of the red rope is the opposite S.Part.

There is no nipping loop in a Sheet bend.

A nipping loop must be loaded at both ends.

NOTE:
You made a note in your image:
"Coloured ropes are of the same rope"
Due to language issues, I can interpret this in different ways.
I think you are attempting to explain that it is all one continuous rope?
BUT, this does not help your case.
You are asking technical questions about a drawing that is disjointed.

If you are going to use 2 tone colourisations, why not just do it in the
same way as my attached image below?
I can assess this image because it is complete and shows all segments.
The nipping loop is blue and it encircles and clamps
both legs of the collar.
Where the blue S.Part enters the collar - at the point where it enters, it becomes
the nipping loop.
Then, the point where the blue nipping loop exits out of the core, it becomes
the outgoing eye leg.
In my completed attached image (which is an eye knot), the nipping loop
is loaded at both ends.

[Dan_Lehman]

Greetings yChan,

With specific regard to your image at reply #9 above:
I can only assess what is laid out before me.
By strict definition, you have drawn a loosely tied Sheet bend.
It isn't a 'Bowline'.
A 'Bowline' is a type of 'eye knot'.

Does this make sense to you yChan?
I can only assess what you draw.
You have drawn a loose Sheet Bend core.

Egadz, you're going off the charts in grot here:
yChan quite perspicuously illustrated --he so
states in the image-- "part of a bowline" !!
And anyone with at least half a brain cell can figure
out which part (the tangle/"nub" part & its 4 ends),
and how that relates to a BWL and i.p. to the part
called "central nipping loop".

To actually answer yChan's question,
>> "Does the green part is nipping loop? " <<,
yes, the nipping loop is in your green part.

And I think what you have been thinking, given
your prior posts, Is this *loop* like a half-hitch?.
Yes, at least at times the loop's angle can be like
this with the loop's closing at its "crossing point"
having the S.Part & Outgoing Eye Leg ends bearing
into each other.  But, in practice, this loop's angle
to tension can be such that it doesn't even touch
at the crossing point; and it can go further in this
change of helix angle to where one must consider
whether "loop" should be replaced then by "helix"
--and capsizing into a Pile-Hitch noose around
the S.Part.  (These things can be seen in BWLs
tied in trawler dock lines.)


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

Egadz, you're going off the charts in grot here:
yChan quite perspicuously illustrated --he so
states in the image-- "part of a bowline" !!

Your trademark Ad Hominem remarks are misplaced.

I politely (without resorting to Ad Hominem remarks) pointed
out that the supplied image was actually a Sheet Bend.
This was a factual statement.

And anyone with at least half a brain cell can figure
out which part (the tangle/"nub" part & its 4 ends),
and how that relates to a BWL and i.p. to the part
called "central nipping loop".

An Ad Hominem remark back to you is that anyone with at
least half a brain can see that the issue boils down to what
yChan perceives to be a half-hitch.
He supplied his drawing with a desire to show that a nipping
loop looks (and perhaps is) identical to a half-hitch.
In order to show this similarity, yChan needed to have a
cookie-cut simple (#1010) Bowline.
A previous post by yChan shows his position:
Quote:

IMO, pointing to the relationship of the SP and the nipping loop, we see a essential component exists. It is a Half Hitch. Should we add to the definition.

yChan believes something - and he trying to show it.
He has been supplying drawings to support his belief.
The cookie-cut Bowline (ie Sheet Bend) is useful if one desires to show a 'half-hitch'.
But it is not useful if one desires to show a nipping loop.

My point is this:
If you are going to try to explain (or understand) what a
nipping loop is, it is preferred to show an intact, holistic
image of a simple Bowline.
You can then shade in 2 tone colours the various segments
to illustrate concepts (as I had done).
Its hard to work with a cookie-cut disjointed image because
it doesn't contain key defining elements.

A nipping loop is loaded at both ends - it is one of the key
defining elements - and is what distinguishes it from a simple
half hitch. Half-hitches are normally and generally formed around
an S.Part in order to terminate an end.

And I think what you have been thinking, given
your prior posts, Is this *loop* like a half-hitch?.
Yes, at least at times the loop's angle can be like
this with the loop's closing at its "crossing point"
having the S.Part & Outgoing Eye Leg ends bearing
into each other.

Again, a half-hitch is not loaded at both ends.
The nipping loop within a 'Bowline' is not a termination
element. Its principal function is to encircle and clamp
both legs of the collar - and it has a stabilising role within the
structure of a Bowline.

But, in practice, this loop's angle
to tension can be such that it doesn't even touch
at the crossing point; and it can go further in this
change of helix angle to where one must consider
whether "loop" should be replaced then by "helix"
--and capsizing into a Pile-Hitch noose around
the S.Part.  (These things can be seen in BWLs
tied in trawler dock lines.)

These observations may occur but might obfuscate
the real differences between a half-hitch and a
nipping loop.

[Dennis Pence]

I have some trouble in this discussion accepting the term "nipping loop" and requiring this for the family of bowlines.  I just re-read Mark's most recent Bowline Analysis, v. 3.0.  There he has a very restrictive definition of what constitute a "loop" which the simple Bowline [#1010] does have.  But then later he accepts into his bowline family many nipping structures that are much more complicated than a simple loop, including a round turn [#1013], a Clove Hitch [#1012], and even a Girth Hitch.  Then he rejects other nipping structures and calls these virtual bowlines, including a crossing hitch (Karash) and a Marlinspike hitch.

I think that the definition of the bowline family needs to specify a nipping structure, and then it needs to be more specific about just what else is expected for this nipping structure to qualify.  This probably needs to be PET, but there are other restrictions.

Below are two examples to consider.  Both are eye knots that are related to known bends.  Mark always includes into his bowline family the Round Turn Bowline [#1013] which is related to the most common Double Sheet Bend [#1434].  But Ashley also gives a variation of the Double Sheet Bend in [#1435].  The first attachment shows the most obvious related eye knot that has the structure of [#1435].  This is not the same as a round turn, but it also is a structure that involves two loops.  I have shaded the nipping structure in all of the diagrams.  I think that this eye knot related to [#1435] should be included in the bowline family.

The second attachment shows the next bend in Ashley [#1436] which is usually called a Tucked Sheet Bend (or a One-way Sheet Bend). [See also the partial transposition bend [#1438].} The most obvious related eye knot with this structure is then given.  It has a nipping structure which is a Figure Eight.  I think that this eye knot related to [#1436] should not be accepted into the bowline family (partly because it is not PET).

[agent_smith]

In reply to Dennis:

Dennis, before picking apart your arguments in detail, we must first get our 'world view' of 'Bowlines' in order.
You should also post what your 'world view' is.

My world view of 'Bowlines' in general:
I advocate for a restrictive definition of what a 'Bowline' is.
I believe that a 'Bowline' does not fall on an identity spectrum.
I don't believe that any knot can make the claim of being a 'Bowline'.
Loose and/or poorly defined definitions of a what a 'Bowline' is results
in ambiguity - which leads to confusion.

For example, I can distinguish between a domestic cat and a dog.
Both are animals, have 4 legs, fur, sharp teeth, and a tail.
A cat does not make the sound 'woof woof'.
A dog does not make the sound "meow meow".
All animals appear to make their own unique sounds.
We have criteria for what constitutes a cat.
And we have criteria for what constitutes a dog.
A cat is not on an identity spectrum - a cat can't be a dog.
Some humans act like a cat, and call themselves 'furries'.
However, regardless of what exists in the humans mind, they are still a
member of the human race (they are human, not a cat).
Link: https://www.oursaferschools.co.uk/2023/04/24/furries/
A human can't change their DNA from human to cat.

We can examine a simple Bowline (#1010) and assess its structural elements.
Few would argue that #1010 is NOT a 'Bowline'.
Presumably, (Dennis) - you would agree that #1010 is a 'Bowline'?
I would also make the argument that #1013 is also a "bowline'.
You might argue that #1013 is NOT a 'Bowline'?

Lets proceed on the assumption that you agree that #1010 and #1013
are both deserving of the title 'Bowline'.

What do both structures have in common?
I argue that they both have a 'nipping loop', and a 'proper collar'.
And they are both 'eye knots' (the 'eye' is non slipping under load).
NOTE: Using an outlier argument that the 'eye' will slip/shrink when
tied in dyneema is invalid. This is the exception rather than the rule.
We know that some super slick/slippery material will confound
otherwise secure knots.

The obvious question to ask is okay; what exactly is a nipping loop
and a proper collar? (Note: Xarax used the term 'proper collar').
Definitions:
Nipping loop
1. It is TWATE (Tiable without access to an end).
2. It is based on a helix - being circular in shape or circularised.
3. It is loaded at both ends.
4. It encircles and clamps both legs of the collar.
5. It is functional (clamping force of a nipping loop increases in direct proportion to load).

Collar
1. It performs a U turn around the S.Part
2. It is braced upon the S.Part
3. The S.Part has a stabilising effect on the collar
4. There are two legs of the collar
5. Both legs of the collar pass through the nipping loop.
6. Both legs enter the nipping loop from the same side.

If these definitions are met, an 'eye knot' can be deserving of
the title 'Bowline'.
If some but not all criteria are met, the structure might be
deserving of the title 'Quasi Bowline'.
A quasi Bowline is almost a Bowline - it just falls short of the required elements.
For example, the only difference might be that the legs of the collar
enter the nipping loop from different sides. If so, it would be a quasi Bowline.
If the nipping loop isn't based on a helix/circle, but it is nevertheless 'TWATE',
it would also be a quasi Bowline. Another example is a nipping structure based
on a Crossing hitch (Munter hitch) - it is 'TWATE', but falls short of being
based on a helix. An 'eye knot' that has met all the criteria with the one exception
of having a nipping structure based on a Crossing hitch - would be a quasi Bowline.

These definitions are not mine alone.
That is, I did not formulate these definitions in isolation.
Xarax played a major role in the formulation of what defines a 'Bowline'.
There were others too.
Dan Lehman played a role - although he did not agree with Xarax's
requirement for a 'proper' collar.
The term 'proper' captures all of the requirements as listed above.

Dennis, its a free world - and free speech is allowed (well - in the West,
free speech does have certain restrictions - eg 'hate speech' is generally not permitted).
We are not North Korea or China (as far as I am aware!) - and so there aren't too
many restrictions on free speech.

Merely because someone disagrees with you does not constitute hate speech.
We can have world views that are in disagreement - but that's not hate speech.
I can for example announce and identify what I believe is a nipping loop.
I can set boundaries so that some structures fall outside of the definition of what
a nipping loop is.

You might (for example) prefer that the definition of what constitutes a 'Bowline'
should be on an identity spectrum.
You may dislike and disagree with definitions that are too restrictive or limiting.
For example, you might allow all sorts of geometric structures to be deserving
of the title of 'nipping loop'. You might disagree with the requirement to be 'TWATE'.

I prefer certainty over anarchy.
For example, I prefer laws that create certainty, rather than anarchy or uncertainty.
I know that if I drive through a red stop light or a stop sign, its wrong.
The stop light and the stop sign is not on a spectrum.
I also prefer that others also stop at a red stop light or stop sign and give way.
But this implies that others have the same understanding/interpretation of the rules
surrounding traffic signals.