per yChan:
I have read Mark?s comment (the above thread, the original one, before editted).
Any edits that I make are done for very good reasons.
I have been having computer issues - and cutting and pasting typed words has sometimes gone haywire.
What is currently visible and readable is my intended post (not something that doesn't actually exist). So if it doesn't exist (or isn't currently readable) - then it is entirely irrelevant.
In my opinion, Bowline ABOK #1010 is not so secure because the leg rounds the collar and enters in the nipping loop, it will slip away from the encirclement due to shaking and of short length.
We already know this!
It is a well established fact that #1010 primary Bowline is insecure and vulnerable to slack shaking and cyclic loading.
For example, if a climber tied the rope to his/her harness using #1010 Bowline, it would be tantamount to committing suicide!
How to determine the definition of legs? Why is it necessarily that legs should come from the same collar? Why not others?
Some here in the IGKT forum consider that the 'bight' component consists of a collar and 2 legs. There is an 'entry' leg and an 'exit' leg of the collar.
If you go back and read some of Derek's posts, you will see that he likes to refer to the 'legs' as being 'bight legs'.
In the primary Bowlines (eg #1010, #1012, #1013, #1080, etc) you will see that they all share the same fundamental structural components.
They all have a
nipping structure that takes the form of a
helix/loop which is loaded at both ends, is TIB, and jam resistant.
You will also see that the
collar performs a U turn directly around the
SPart (Derek appears to refer to this as the 'bight collar').
You will also see that both legs of the
collar enter the
nipping loop from the
same side.
Once you start to deviate from these fundamental structural configurations, you move away from the primary Bowlines - and end up with 'something else'.
Its the 'something else' that generates debate amongst knot theoreticians.
There are some on this IGKT forum who rigidly refuse to acknowledge a knot as being [a] 'Bowline' if it doesn't have the same fundamental structure of the primary #1010 Bowline.
There are others who are not so rigid in their views... who might be willing to see beyond the primary Bowlines (over the horizon) - and look for other ways to classify 'Bowlines'.