A Simple Resolution to the Bowline "Front/Rear View" Conundrum

[alpineer]

I have found a simple way out of the Bowline front/rear view mess, at least for myself. Before sharing it I'd like to describe it's properties and the resolution provided for regarding Bowline aspect views, which are also inclusive of the Sheet Bend:

intrinsic to the knot
reference to tying method, personal viewing perspective, or spatial orientation is not required to define the aspect views in question
re-labelling of traditional front/rear views is not required 
resolves to satisfaction all arguments put forth in the DEAD THREAD

The Nipping Turn is the key element which can unequivocally define the two aspect views in question. We need only to refer to the intrinsic over/under-handedness of the Nipping Turn to know which view of the Bowline is being shown or referred to. All external other references are superfluous.

The terms proposed are "underhand view" and "overhand view".

[xarax]

   Surprize ! 
 
   I agree !

   Read another reason why this proposal makes sense, indeed :

  Here is an "underhand" tying  method, based on an "underhand grip" of the line before we form the nipping turn, by twisting the left hand 180 degrees  towards the ergonomically easy clock-wise direction , and feed the nipping turn with the end of the line held by the right hand.
 
   ( 0. High bar grips  : Overhand grip / underhand grip. )

   1. Palms facing you, left hand s thumb pointing left, right hand s thumb pointing right.
   2. Line laying ON the palms, held by an "underhand grip", so that the end /Tail is near the right hand - it is the right hand which is going to feed the working end into the nipping turn, because most people are right-handed ( I believe that nobody would deny this ! )
   3. The right hand s wrist makes an ergonomically easy clock-wise 180 degree turn, so the line in between the two palms goes "under" the Standing end.
   4. The right hand feeds the end of the line into the nipping turn , from "above"/"up to "below"/down. Then, it can release its grip on the line, because the end of the line can remain in place, hanging on the rim of the nipping turn, the end / Tail from the one side, the tip of the eye from the other, and  the line pointing to the left.
   5. Now the right hand is free to move and grab the line again, from the part beyond the rim of the nipping turn, i.e. the part in between the nipping turn and the end. So, it can now force the end / Tail to make a U turn around the Standing end, i.e. to form a collar.
   6. After it has formed the collar, the end / Tail can be driven by the right hand through the nipping turn again, this time from "below"/down to "above" / up,  and can be released again hanging on the nipping turn s rim, as before, but now pointing the line pointing to the opposite  direction, to the right.
   7. The right hand is again free to release its grip on the line, and it is free to move, and grab both, now, segments of the line, the Tail and the eye leg of the Tail, and start pulling them, so the collar will move towards the crossing point of the nipping turn.

  "Underhand grip view / overhand grip view" , now simplified by alpineer as "underhand view / overhand view" of the bowline. These labels can also be considered as able to describe, in the "underhand view" case, a particular tying method that forms the nipping turn by an ergonomically easy 180 degrees twist of the left hand to form the nipping turn, on the one hand, and an active participation of the right hand, which is feeding the working end into the nipping turn two times, and forms the collar in the mean time, on the other.

   Visit the Google Images to see what the "overhand grip" and the "underhand grip" is, imagine a line in place of the high bar, imagine an underhand grip, imagine the end of this line near the right hand, imagine the left hand making a clock-wise 180 degrees turn, imagine the right hand feeding the end of the line into the formed nipping turn from above/up to below/down, and then use what will be left from your imagination to figure out the rest ! 

   Congratulations, alpineer. Your previous twistings were ironed out by this straightforward idea.

[Dan_Lehman]

Except that "under-/over-hand" are terms that assume
a particular *direction* of flow of the knotted material,
and that presumes that someone will understand this
--the assumption and which direction in particular is at hand.
I don't hold out hope for such nomenclature's success.
(Tying the bowline as a climber does to tie-in could
well see the *flow* running away --as is seemingly in
agreement with the quick-tie method, then--; and it
would be odd otherwise that my preferred reach-under=
with-working-end-hand method should yield an "overhand"
view!)


--dl*
====

[xarax]

   Which of the two view will be called "overhand" and which "underhand" is of secondary importance only - if it is of any importance at all ! The interesting thing is that this distinction forces us to pay attention to the "over" / "under" relation of the two limbs of the nipping turn, which is the main component of the bowline. If we wish to label the so-called "front" view as "overhand" view, we will say that this view is based on a nipping turn of such a handedness, and placed in such a orientation relatively to the viewer, that result in the eye leg of the Standing part going "over" the Standing end. If we wish to label it as "underhand view", we will say that in this view the nipping turn is such that the Standing end goes "under" the eye leg of the Standing part. Same thing with the so-called "rear" view.
  The great advantage of this nomenclature is that it uses established knotting terms, which are related to the "under" / "over" relation of some segments of the rope itself, as shown by the viewer - and that these segments are the limbs of the most important component of the bowline, the nipping turn. If we decide how we will label each of the two views, then we will see if we can add more meanings on this characterization, to make the life of the viewer easier : perhaps the Standing end goes "over" or "under" the collar, or the eye leg of the Standing part goes "over" or "under" the first rim of the nipping turn it meets, etc. The terms "over" and "under" are much better than the terms "front" and "back", which are 1. purely conventional, and , 2, denote a preference of the "front" in relation to the  "rear" view, which is a debatable issue. The "front" view is called "front" because it is seen more often by the knot tyers who tie the bowline more often in the way shown by the "front" view - the vicious-est circle of all !!  !    On the contrary, the terms "over" and "under" turn the attention to the shown knot, in general, and to its most important element, the nipping turn, in particular. If we agree to use this pair of opposite terms, it would be easy to decide which name of the two, the "over" or the "under" it would be better to connect with the so-called "front" and/or the so-called "rear" view.
   The only problem I see with this solution, is that it will force us to label the "Eskimo" bowlines in the opposite way we should had liked to do - but this is of secondary importance, because in the best forms of the "Eskimo" bowlines, in the so-called "front" view, the pair of the legs of the bight component does not hide the area around the crossing point of the nipping turn so much as it does in the "Common" bowline. Let us resolve the corundum in the case of the "Common" bowline, where the problem is much more severe, and we will see what we will do in the case of the ( four variations of the ) "Eskimo" bowlines.
   The "overhand view" / "underhand view" pair has my vote - independently of what it is meant by the "over" and/or the "under" : the Standing end "over" the eye leg of the Standing part, or the opposite, or vice versa. So, independently of which term of the pair "over" / "under" will be decided to correspond to which term of the pair " front" view / "rear" view we use till now, this distinction will make sense, and it will be easy implemented - without any need to be based on vicious cycles of "often-seen-views" seen by "often-used-tying-methods" that use those views, so the knot is seen more often as such because it is tied more often as it is seen more often, etc, ad perpetuam !

[alpineer]

   
  The only problem I see with this solution, is that it will force us to label the "Eskimo" bowlines in the opposite way we should had liked to do

It's not a problem. The state of the Nipping Turn (underhand or overhand) is the label. It is what it is. The medium is the message. 
The greater disconnect comes with such terms as "front/rear" which assume an understanding by the reader beyond any intrinsically described property of the knot.
 
     

[xarax]

   So what do you see in the attached picture ? Two "overhand" views of "Common" bowlines, and two "underhand" views of "Eskimo" bowlines ? ( Or the exact opposite, which can also be a legitimate convention ).
   If we agree on this, then the question which view we should chose for which purpose ( if we have to show one only view ) would be a debatable issue - but a well defined one ! One can say : " I prefer this view, because that is how most people tie the bowline - although I can not really explain why they do it like this..." Or one can say : "I prefer this view, because I am accustomed to this view, and the tying method(s) that correspond to this view, and I do not plan to learn new tricks in this life" ! Or, " I prefer this view, because one can easier see the area around the nipping turns crossing point in this view, rather than in the "other" view, and I believe this is important, because it is important to show the most important part of the bowline. " Or even " I prefer this view, because in my human and male brain this view is an atavistic view that has been implanted by the fearful view of snakes which curl their body like this on the ground, in order to be able to extend it and catch the mice with their mouth, which lies at the end of it, at an instant - just as in the human and female brain there is this fearful view of the mice ..." 
   Overhand view of bowline / underhand view of the bowline : sooo much better than the "front" view of the bowline  / "rear" view of the bowline ! I can not estimate the odds this nomenclature will be established or not in the future, of course, because (only) God knows what will happen in the future ! ( That is why we label Him as "God" ).

[alpineer]

   So what do you see in the attached picture ? 

From left to right: underhand view, overhand view, underhand view, overhand view.
 

[James Petersen]

   So what do you see in the attached picture ? Two "overhand" views of "Common" bowlines, and two "underhand" views of "Eskimo" bowlines ? ( Or the exact opposite, which can also be a legitimate convention ).
 

I must be missing something, because I don't see any "common/right-handed" bowlines. The blue ones look to me like left-handed bowlines.

What I do see is four knots where, starting from the tag end, you see the the line descend through the TurNip (the bunny dives into the hole), pass around a leg of the loop or the standing end (the bunny goes around a root),  and emerge back out of the turNip ( the bunny comes back out of the hole). This is what I referred to in the other thread, may it rest in peace, as the descending/root view (as opposed to the ascending/tree view). In other words, four knots where the crossing point of the TurNip is closest to the viewer.

-- J:P

[xarax]

So what do you see in the attached picture ? 

From left to right: underhand view, overhand view, underhand view, overhand view.

So be it.
At the end of the day, we had not called the "Eskimo" bowlines "anti"-bowlines for nothing !
The so-called "front" and "rear" views are dead. Long live the "overhand view" and the "underhand view" !

[xarax]

I don't see any "common/right-handed" bowlines.

The clock-wise and the counter-clockwise directions the working end forms the collar ( in relation to a particular view ) do not alter the "over"- or the "under"- handedness of the knot - and that is right to be so.

What I do see is four knots where ...you see ...the bunny dives into the hole...the bunny goes around a root),... the bunny comes back out of the hole

   If I were the bunny, I would nt be so glad with all those pythons hanging around ! 

What I do see is four knots where...the crossing point of the TurNip is closest to the viewer.

  This is another way to see those knots, indeed, which is also unambiguously defined, and does not denote a preference for the one or the other view. We have first to label the two views in a knot / knot-viewer depended way ( and not in a knot / knot-tyer depended way ), and only afterwards to proceed to the next step, where we will discuss which of the two twin views we will prefer, in the case we will have to marry only one of them.
   It is true that the ascending view / descending view labelling/distinction describes in a perhaps more easily recognizable way the relation between the nipping turn and the bight component - but if we wish to label the knots based on the handedness / orientation of the nipping turn only ( from which the nipping turn / bight component relation follows automatically ), because it is the nipping turn which is the main component of the bowline, the overhand view / underhand view labelling/distinction is better.
     

[James Petersen]

So what do you see in the attached picture ? 

From left to right: underhand view, overhand view, underhand view, overhand view.

So be it.
At the end of the day, we had not called the "Eskimo" bowlines "anti"-bowlines for nothing !
The so-called "front" and "rear" views are dead. Long live the "overhand view" and the "underhand view" !

As much as I hate to marginalize the rabbit, I have to agree that the OP's solution works, and works well.

However I am not sure that the terms "overhand" and "underhand" are the best due to the potential confusion about what constitutes an "overhand" and an "underhand" knot. I think it might be best to keep "hand" out of it. Since from each of the perspectives of the bowline commonly photographed, moving into the knot from the standing end, the line passes either over or under itself to create the TurNip, might something like "overpass" (intentionally avoiding "passover") and "underpass" (intentionally not using "passunder" because I avoided "passover"), while not sounding as nice, be clearer?

This small issue aside, count me in.

Well done alpineer.

-- J:P

[DDK]

Could someone succinctly describe the conundrum that has been solved? 

In the meantime, I would like to suggest that the use of the concept of handedness to differentiate views is confusing since "views" do not have a handedness.  What I mean by this is that every view of a right-handed screw shows a right-handed screw, be it the top, bottom, front or back view.

Every view of a right-handed Right Hand Bowline shows a right-handed Right Hand Bowline, be it the top, bottom, front or back view.
Every view of a   left-handed Right Hand Bowline shows a   left-handed Right Hand Bowline, be it the top, bottom, front or back view.

It appears that what you call handedness is actually, whether the SPart at the crossing point of the round turn is closest to the viewer (back view) or not (front view).  You have picked different names.  I would suggest Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, but, thats just me, just kidding.  Abbott and Costello on the other hand(edness) . . .

DDK

[xarax]

   I would like to suggest that the use of the concept of handedness to differentiate views is confusing since "views" do not have a handedness. 

  I think it might be best to keep "hand" out of it.

  I believe that nobody had spoken about the handedness of the nipping turn alone, per se, but only about its handedness AND its orientation relatively to the viewer. The handedness does not change, and the "front-ness" does not change, either - but how the nipping turn looks like is related to its handedness AND its orientation ( "front"-ness / "rear"-ness ), in relation to the viewer. In fact, I was very careful to state this explicitly, because I know how easily people misunderstand what other people say in this Forum :

... a nipping turn of such a handedness, and placed in such a orientation relatively to the viewer, that result in the eye leg of the Standing part going "over" the Standing end.

[xarax]

However I am not sure that the terms "overhand" and "underhand" are the best due to the potential confusion about what constitutes an "overhand" and an "underhand" knot.

  There is no confusion whatsoever about this among knot tyers - or there should not be any confusion about this among knot tyers ! 
  If/when the python coils itself so its head and the part of its body after the head which forms the first wrap is placed "over"  / on top of the other wraps, the python is an "overhand" python !  ( We should mention that, evidently, an "overhand" python catches the mouse more easily, because it is easier for the snake to un-coil, straighten and extend this first wrap at an instance, and swallow the mouse - if the wrap with the head was lying "under" the other wraps of its body, i.e. if it was adjacent to the ground, it would be more difficult, because moving the head and the first wrap which would have been squeezed under the weight of the other wraps, would be more difficult, too ...)
   Personally, I like the "knotting" terms "overhand" / "underhand" be used also in the case of the nipping turn of the bowline, as they are used in the case of the overhand knot ! I see it as an advantage of the proposed nomenclature, that removes the ambiguity of the terms "front" and "back". Topology does not play any role here, it is the relation of the continuation of the Standing end to the continuation of the eye leg of the Standing part, and their meeting at the crossing point of the nipping turn that is described by this, not the topology of the nipping turn itself.

[DDK]

   I would like to suggest that the use of the concept of handedness to differentiate views is confusing since "views" do not have a handedness. 

  I think it might be best to keep "hand" out of it.

  I believe that nobody had spoken about the handedness of the nipping turn alone, per se, but only about its handedness AND its orientation relatively to the viewer. The handedness does not change, and the "front-ness" does not change, either - but how the nipping turn looks like is related to its handedness AND its orientation ( "front"-ness / "rear"-ness ), in relation to the viewer. In fact, I was very careful to state this explicitly, because I know how easily people misunderstand what other people say in this Forum :

... a nipping turn of such a handedness, and placed in such a orientation relatively to the viewer, that result in the eye leg of the Standing part going "over" the Standing end.

Oh I see.  When the round turn is oriented such that one is looking at the front view, the SPart at the crossing point is in the background.  If one turns the knot to its back view, then the SPart at the crossing point is in the foreground.  So by rotating the knot 180 degrees that which was in the background comes to the foreground and vice versa and things look different (fore vs. back).  What I'm missing is that this sounds rather similar to the situation prior to the proposal of the new labels (under vs. over).  I'll be interested to hear what the conundrum is and how this solves it. 

DDK