G&H's "Tugboat Bowline" is my Tugboat B but with "bight 2" (as Brian called it) flipped over.
Which reverses the arrangement of the crossing-knot base of this knot,
as was previously pointed out as a big, fundamental difference (to exclude the
H&G knot from real consideration as some kind of kin). Despite this simple change,
the knots are quite different in character, in the course of the S.Part.
In looking back over this thread, the only vote (so to speak) for my Tugboat A being the Tugboat Bowline was ... . Perhaps this was a case of mistaken identity?
Is no one struck (and dismayed) by the fact that there has been no
evidencefrom the field, so to speak, as to the implication of the supposed moniker??!
Shouldn't the concern (& research!) be to see what use(s) the candidate knots
have received (Paul Kruse's testimony did not point to tugs, note), and--working
from the other direction (i.e., from the nominal use)--what tugboat workers actually
use (and why)?! Think about tugs: boats intended to pull big things (bigger boats
& barges); boats that employ large cordage (hawsers/cables). Can you picture
such cordage being tied in a "flying" manner? --how large of an eye can one form
by such tying, and would that suffice in the implied application?
These thoughts raise doubts, for me.
Roy mentioned that the Tugboat Bwl is the same as the Perfection Loop, but after going back to Brion's book he changed his mind.
I don't quite see PABPRES's change of mind. Brion's book clearly shows in an IMAGE
your knot-B; but his text, as well noted above, is ambiguous at best.
(And then there should come those doubts about practicality.)
In addition, G&H's "Tugboat Bowline" is a variation of my Tugboat B.
That is a debatable assertion re what should count as a
variation, as I argue above.
But the simple change from one to the other lends some support to one having
been intended and somehow fudged by mishandling into the other. And there is
yet an in-between formation, in which the non-S.Part leg of the eye straightens
out its turn around the end, such that the S.Part makes just a broad twist/curve
through the knot. Such knots can be seen in hawsers sometimes (a bowline
capsizes into such a knot).
Taking all of this into account, and including other comments in this thread, it seems that my Tugboat B is emerging as the best candidate for the Tugboat Bwl. If that's correct, then my Tugboat A would simply be the single form of the Double Dragon, and a variation of the Artillery Loop.
Sound reasonable?
No, it sounds like some kind of popularity contest, too divorced from reality and
practical interests. Although I am inclined to your view, in a way; and knot-B
is a good one, though also as noted knot-A with a full wrap of end becomes quite
good and arguably best. (Not being much practised with the "flying" tying, I can't
speculate on which version might come most readily from that--which could be a clue,
were that method seen to be reasonable, which is questioned.)
As for the relation to the (Man)harness/Artillery loop, that seems more coincidental
than meaningful; Ashley's information points to a mid-line loopknot intended
to be loaded on all parts, or on both ends alone (dropper knot) maybe.
Maybe somewhere it came to suggest this "tugboat" phenomenon; but where
is the evidence of that, if so?
*knudeNoggin*