Of course it is true that a secured standard bowline is better than unsecured Eskimo bowline, but I suspect that a suitable securing method could be found for the Eskimo bowline, if one were to put forth a similar effort to that which has been spent on the bowline. Am I wrong about that?
A similar effort has been done long ago - and I realised that pursuing securing methods to lock-down an
anti-Bowline were ultimately an exercise in futility (for climbing and other fall-protection applications).
You absolutely can (of course) perform the same tail maneuvers as per #1010 common Bowline to secure an anti-Bowline. For example, you can create an
anti Scotts locked Bowline and an
anti EBSB Bowline. Everything is the complete
opposite of what you would normally tie with the #1010 common Bowline as a starting base.
In the EBSB Bowline, you begin with #1010 common Bowline (tail
inside the eye). The tail finally exits through the collar and parallels the SPart.
In the
anti EBSB Bowline, you begin with the tail
outside of the eye. The tail finally exits the collar and parallels the ongoing eye leg.
Several years ago, when playing around with the
anti Bowline and its secured derivatives, I noted its inherent 'instability' - where an odd
pivoting action can be induced by alternately grasping and pulling on each eye leg. Pull down on one eye leg and the 'nub' pivots - pull down on the other eye leg and the nub pivots the other direction.
In secure Bowlines based on #1010 - this pivoting is trivial to insignificant.
Try it yourself and you will see the effect.
Climbers generally don't like tie-in eye knots that exhibit peculiar side-effects under certain loading profiles.
I concur with Scott - in that I don't like to use anti-Bowlines as a tie-in knot for rock climbing applications.