Talk:Constrictor knot

Ancient?

Ashley, Clifford W. (1944). Ashley's Book of Knots. Doubleday & Company, Inc. pp. 34 knot #176. ISBN 0-385-04025-3., claims the invention of this knot. In view of the meticulousness of Ashley in researching and giving credit, I think he must be given the benefit of the doubt. Unless, of course, someone can give a reference predating Ashley. Too Old 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't entirely resist giving Clifford Ashley some credit, I think for such a simple knot the issue of origin is more nuanced than one purely of first published reference. In History and Science of Knots. World Scientific. ISBN 981-02-2469-9, chapter two "Why Knot? Some Speculations on the Earliest Knots", page 28, Charles Warner writes:

My guess would be that every simple knot possible has already been tied somewhere, by someone, at some time, very likely many times. There is nothing new under the sun! Modern claims to have been the first to have invented a simple knot are difficult to sustain. Just about all that anyone can hope to claim is that the knot has not been published in any common knotting publication. Since only a very small proportion of the world's knotting activities over the millennia has ever been written down, no other claim to 'originality' is likely to be valid.

And so, regarding the specifics of this case, here's what Ashley has to say about the constrictor knot at its main entry, #1249 (caps original):

1249. The CONSTRICTOR KNOT. At the time when the sinnets of Chapter 39 were being made there was no knot that would hold secure the large number of strands that were required for some of them. For a while seizings were employed, which served the purpose well but took too much time to tie. Then the knot shown here was evolved, which proved in every way adequate...

Given the Constrictor's similarity in form and method to a number of similar binding knots, particularly the Strangle knot (#1239) and Miller's Knot(1) (#1241), it is reasonably clear why he used the word "evolved". Contrast this with his description for knot #1452, which he left unnamed but which is now universally referred to as the Ashley bend which starts out: "1452. (2/3/34) Another original bend..." It is a more complex, novel knot which he both listed the date of his invention as well as specifically claimed originality.

As far as "predating references", Geoffrey Budworth (co-founder and past president of International Guild of Knot Tyers) in The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Knots & Ropework ISBN 0-681-60694-0, says on pages 12-13:

Preserved in the medical collections of the 4th century AD Greek physician Oreibasius of Pergamum are 18 knots, originally described three centuries earlier by Heraklas as surgeons' knots. These are regrettably not illustraed but have been interpreted to include the overhand knot, reef (square) knot, the clove hitch, a noose, a fisherman's loop knot, the jug, jar or bottle sling, Tom Fool's knot, a cat's cradle, the true lover's knot, and -- quite possibly -- the constrictor knot

Budworth further expands on this and comments on Ashley's role with regard to the contstrictor knot's origin on page 159 where he's describing the constrictor itself:

...The ancient Greeks may have used it for surgical slings, and it could well be the "gunner's knot" that in later centuries seized the necks of flannel-bag gunpowder cartridges. It was re-discovered and popularized by Clifford Ashley in 1944...

I propose that origin be changed to either "Ancient, reintroduced by Clifford Ashley" or "Unknown". Personally I'd think the latter would be more appropriate, with additions to the article proper noting the information from Budworth and giving proper credit to Ashley for reintroducing it in modern times.

--Dfred 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

During a fairly major rewrite of the page I included some of the relevant info from above... --Dfred 00:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miller's knot confusion

this page was merged from Miller's knot and constrictor knot--LadyofHats 00:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--Nigelj 14:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Miller's knot is not the same thing as Constrictor knot. Here is an example of the former: http://gorp.away.com/gorp/publishers/menasha/knot0202b.htm Rracecarr 22:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Om Knutar verification request

As noted in the Notes and references section of the article, verification of the claim that the timmerknut discussed in Om Knutar is actually the constrictor is requested from a Swedish speaker familiar with knots. Om Knutar is available in photographed form at Projekt Runeberg (http://runeberg.org/knutar/) with the specific reference to the timmerknut apparently on page 78. The Constrictor knot is definitely not one of the illustrated knots, but I'm assuming the text probably describes the Constrictor and is what Budworth was referring to in his book. Thanks! --Dfred 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had this verified elsewhere and removed request in article. If someone wants to provide a complete translation of the relevant paragraph, it would still be appreciated. --Dfred 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try:

Starting translation on line 5, when talking about figur 78. ”This knot is in some places called (eg. in Stockholm Archipelago) eel-knot (eel-hitch?) and is excellent. It is in fact the same knot, which also is known as fish-hook-knot (”metkroksknut”) (Fig. 244); and it can, if you like, be regarded as a double over hand knot, tied around an object.

One can also see it as a result of a clove hitch, allowing the two free parties take on each other (– and form an overhand knot) in the cross and in the same direction as this, before they leave the knot. If this is done in the opposite direction, another knot will raise, (my strengthening) that in some places is called timber knot, not to be confused with the timber steak [...]. It would be safer than the clove hitch, but hardly as safe as the eel-knot (sv. ”ålstek”), in which the parties are better placed next to each other and could be formed closer.”

– Xauxa (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I'd almost forgot I'd made this request. It is interesting that Öhrvall wrote that the eel-knot, in English the strangle knot, is safer (meaning more secure? stronger?) than the constrictor.

BTW, just to clarify: I don't see the strengthened text in the original, so I assume the comment "my strengthening" is your comment on the bold text rather than a translation of "(Se detta!)", which appears to mean "(See this!)"? Also is the "[...]" in the translation there due to omitted text, or some other reason? Regards, --Dfred (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#1253 considered Constrictor variation?

I removed the following text from the article as I was not exactly sure how it should be interpreted. It was added by 216.194.229.6.

The most robust form is #1253, which begins with an Overhand hitch oriented like the Clove hitch (sometimes a mistaken illustration for this).

Though similar in structure, I'm not sure whether #1253 qualifies as a variation of the Constrictor.. I may be mistaken, but since it is based on the "overhand hitch" it can only be tied with access to an end of the line unlike the other members of the constrictor family... --Dfred 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Letter from to Lester"?

I understand that many of the references in the History section of this article were apparently discussed in an issue of Knotting Matters (the IGKT's official publication) under the title "Letter from Lester". The author was apparently Lester Copestake. If anyone has access to this periodical, please flesh out the comment about "research suggests" to give proper credit for collecting many of the references later discussed. --Dfred (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To follow-up on my old query; I was wrong on practically all the details about this this work! The proper title is actually "A Letter to Lester" (emphasis mine). It is a collection of (mostly) correspondence written by Pieter van de Griend, co-editor and author of History and Science of Knots. It was privately published in 1992, ISBN 8798398504 -- not published in Knotting Matters. It provides significant additional context for the History section. I will be working to integrate some additional information from this source soon... --Dfred (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tying, Instructions and Tone

While I understand that Wikipedia is designed to simply be a reference about things, I think that based on the nature of the knots and the WikiProject the only way to fully explain a knot is to explain how to tie it. As for the subject of Tone, I think that simply stating how the knot is constructed would lead to more confusion about the knot than it would answer any questions. However, I do agree that by the letter of the law it is technically wrong, I feel that the removal of the instructional part would detract too greatly from the article to be justified. ThePhigment (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Cross constrictor's" relation to constrictor knot

As noted in the section above ("#1253 considered Constrictor variation"), it is my feeling that binding knots that cannot be tied in the bight are not true constrictor knot variation. Below is information I included on Talk:Cross constrictor knot:

And although it is a binding knot with superficial similarity to the double constrictor, the so-called "cross constrictor" should probably not be considered a true constrictor variation. In particular, it requires the line to be tied in an overhand knot as the first step. This means access to at least one end of the rope is required and therefore it cannot be tied in the bight by any method. All the variations listed in constrictor knot can be tied in the bight. Several years ago an editor added ABOK #1253, a knot similar to the so-called "cross contrictor", to the constrictor article as a variation. While also superficially similar to the constrictor, #1253 starts with an "overhand hitch" and also cannot be tied in the bight. It was removed from the article on similar grounds.

--Dfred (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your informative comments.

I was not aware of "on the bight" requirement to qualify for the name constrictor. In that light, may be the name should have been "constricting strangle" or even better "cross strangle". Since cross constrictor knot is a marriage between the constrictor knot and the strangle knot and since Strangle knot can not be tied on the bight either, it is only normal that the cross constrictor knot can not be tied on he bight.

I think it is sad that ABOK#1253 was excluded. That is a much better looking knot than other triple turn knots such as the cross constrictor knot, double constrictor knot, double clove hitch, or triple overhand knot: It is symmetrical, more flat, and relatively easy to tighten. In fact ABOK #1200 is the same knot; Ashley suggests to use #1200 for fencing off parts of the garden during a formal party. I practiced and enjoyed tying it for several weeks. I found it to my dismay to be time consuming to set, and very easy to forget how to tie. The cross constrictor knot and the other 3 knots are not as good looking but much more memorable, and therefore more likely to be used. Making the tying instructions for ABOK #1253 / #1200 easily available (such as here in the wikipedia) could overcome the weak memorability problem.

Cobanyastigi (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boa knot is just another name for the Constrictor knot

I noticed, that the Boa knot is just another name for the Constrictor knot. I did the two knots and they are the same! What do you think? Der Barbar (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]