convert

ARBORIST NEWS APRIL 2005

©INTERNTIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE

CLIMBERS’ CORNER

t seems that, historically, the specific name that was given to a
knot was sometimes based on its form, sometimes on its func-
tion. Yet it is frequently difficult to see when one knot becomes

a different knot and deserves a new name. Making an additional
turn around an object; tying the knot with a loop, with the end of a
line, or in a bight; terminating the tail in a different manner; or tying
the knot onto the rope’s own tail, a different rope, or another object—
all of these may or may not be reason to give a knot a new name.
There is no universally recognized taxonomy to help understand
and define knot terminology.

The practice of bestowing a person’s name on a knot seems to be

a relatively recent convention. Although many of the knots presented
here are known today by the name or initials of an individual, Ashley
(1944) reported that it was said that a man named Mathew Walker
was “the only man to have a knot named for him” (p. 118, #678; p.
265, #1465).

Tautline Hitch

For most of the past century, the majority of tree climbers in the
United States used some version of the tautline hitch as the climb-
ing hitch for their work-positioning system. Two of the most com-
mon versions of this knot are (1) two turns below the bridge, then
two turns above the bridge, and (2) two turns below the bridge, then
one turn above the bridge. Toss calls the two-under, one-over varia-
tion the simple rolling hitch and says that it “is still sometimes
called the tent-line or taut-line hitch” (1990, p. 30).

Ashley (1944, p. 265, #1465; p. 298, #1734) also says that the

two under, one over is called the rolling hitch and shows the two

under, two over as a variation of the rolling hitch. Ashley’s
taxonomy regarding this particular knot, however, is confus-
ing and sometimes contradictory. For example, he also calls
this knot the adjustable hitch and says it “is closely related to
the midshipman’s knot, the difference being in the arrange-
ment of the second turn” (1944, p. 304, #1800). But, in a
preceding section, he says that the adjustable hitch “is the
same as a midshipman’s hitch” (1944, p. 71, #431). He adds
that it formerly may have been called the Magnus hitch and
Magner’s hitch, and, if the latter is correct, it was (at that time)
the only other knot (besides the Mathew Walker knot) to
have been named after an individual (1944, p. 265, #1465).

Prusik

Another friction hitch that was used by some early tree climbers,
particularly in Europe, is the Prusik. Described in 1931 by
Austrian Karl Prusik for use in mountaineering, the Prusik
hitch has been utilized in many vertical rope disciplines.
When used as an arborist’s climbing hitch, it has many of the
same functional characteristics as the tautline.

One interesting note is that when Dr. Prusik presented this hitch,

he showed it tied with a loop. Present-day arborists use the term
“Prusik” to refer to this configuration whether it is tied with a loop
(a closed knot) or tied with the end of a line with no termination of
the tail (an open knot). Some writers consider these to be two dif-
ferent knots entirely (like the tautline and Distel, and Blake’s hitch
and the Martin), but I have not found any other name that has been
given to distinguish them. Ashley shows it tied with the end as a
two-under, one-over version and says that it is a Magnus hitch with
the final hitch “reversed” (1944, p. 298, #1736). It is shown tied
with a loop of rope with three wraps/six coils and is described
simply as “a double strap or sling for hoisting a spar at [mid]length”
(1944, p. 300, #1763).

The tautline and the Prusik were, in various forms and with vari-

ous colloquial names, the primary climbing hitches used by arborists
for most of the past century. Ashley illustrated both of these, in their
two-under, two-over versions, as “tree surgeon’s variations of the
Magnus hitch” (1944, p. 77, #480, #481), and they were still the
primary tree climbing hitches into the 1990s. At that time, however,
climbing hitches began a dramatic change.

Blake’s Hitch

In 1994, in a letter to the editor of

Arbor Age

magazine, Jason Blake

described what he called “the slip—or knot.” Although Blake certainly
is to be credited for introducing and popularizing this knot for tree
climbing, he was not the first to publish it. Ashley shows a two-coil
version of this knot (1944, p. 266, #1470) but does not name it. The
exact knot was shown in

Nylon Highway

by Heinz Prohaska (1990)

By Mark Adams

∂

This is an expanded version of an article that appeared in the October 2004
issue

of SCA Today

, the newsletter of the Society of Commercial Arboriculture.

It is also a companion article to “An Overview of Climbing Hitches,” which
appeared as the Climbers’ Corner feature in the October 2004 issue of

Arborist

News

. The latter article presented—and encouraged the use of—standard

terminology for seven common climbing hitches that arborists use in their
climbing systems. The focus of that article, however, was on the technical
aspects of the use of those knots, and it included photographs and instructions
on how to tie the knots.

This article discusses the names of those seven climbing hitches and how the
names and the knots themselves have changed, developed, and been reinvented
over time and through various applications. Two other knots have been included
in this discussion of knot names, along with pictures and instructions on how
to tie them.

The climbing hitches are discussed in the order in which they were introduced
to the tree care industry in the United States. At least one reference is given
for each of the knots, and, for many of them, two or more references are given.
References are cited from various high-angle rope disciplines, in several
languages, and from several countries. Arborists will find that many of the
climbing hitches that we consider new and modern have actually been used
for many years in other types of climbing or rope work.

Son of a Hitch: A Genealogy of Arborists’

Climbing Hitches

ARBORIST NEWS APRIL 2005

©INTERNTIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE

and was published by Prohaska for the first time in 1981. Prohaska
has referred to it as

Gesteckter Wickelknoten,

or simply

Wickelknoten,

in German and as tucked coil hitch in English. Bavaresco (2000)
mentioned this hitch and called it Blake’s or Polish, but I have
found only one other source that uses the term “Polish.” A reviewer
of this article called it ProhGrip in recognition of Heinz Prohaska.

Because Jason Blake was the first to describe this knot for arborists,

the knot was shown as Blake’s hitch at various tree industry trade
shows. It was described again in

Arbor Age

magazine by Smith in

1996, but the accompanying photograph showed the knot tied
incorrectly. Oddly enough, Blake’s original letter to the editor had
cautioned against using the pictured version of the knot, which he
dubbed a “sui-slide” knot. Blake’s hitch appeared simultaneously in

Arborist News

magazine (Palmer and Lilly 1996), where it was first

pictured and described correctly for the tree care industry.

In the mid- and late 1990s, Blake’s hitch was the favorite climb-

ing hitch for some, but not all, advanced climbers. Two-time ITCC
world champion Mark Chisholm recalls that, at the ITCC competition
in Halifax in 1994, François Dussenne introduced some climbers to
a new hitch called the

Machard tresse

. Dussenne had been using and

showing the hitch for years, but it was not accepted for use in the
ITCC until 1997, after which it was introduced to a much wider
audience through a magazine article (Palmer et al. 1998).

French Prusik

In the April 1998 issue of

Arborist News

, the Climbers’ Corner feature

made its first appearance and introduced a new climbing hitch to
American climbers, the

Machard tresse

(Palmer et al. 1998). That

Climbers’ Corner actually consisted of six short articles, each of
which included the various authors’ opinions of this climbing hitch.
Although the information about the knot’s performance was consis-
tent and informative, there were discrepancies about the name of
the knot. It was variously called French Prusik,

Machard

, and

Machard

tresse

. Donzelli and Longstaff (1999) added the name

Valdôtain tresse

which they abbreviated as

, but which was (wrongly) shortened

in vernacular use to

Valdôtain

When tied with a loop of rope or webbing, a French Prusik is called

Machard

or a

Machard tress

, depending on how it is formed. When

tied with a single length of rope or webbing, a French Prusik is called
a

Valdôtain

or a

Valdôtain tresse

, again depending on how it is formed.

It is important to realize that there are distinct differences in the
way that each of these knots—

Machard, Machard tresse, Valdôtain,

and

Valdôtain tresse

—is tied and how each one performs. The term

“French Prusik” includes all of these knots and is not specific to any
particular one.

Although the

Arborist News

article from April 1998 was the first

formal mention of French Prusik in the tree industry in the United
States, these knots had been used for many years in the tree indus-
try in Europe and in various other high-angle rope disciplines in
numerous countries. Several of the authors who contributed to that
first Climbers’ Corner said that they had either seen or used a French
Prusik years before the article appeared. Geoffrey Budworth shows
an “extended” French Prusik (1999, p. 136; 2000, p. 134) and
credits Robert Chisnall for devising it circa 1981, yet the same knot
that Budworth shows is illustrated (but not named) in Ashley’s 1944
book (p. 299, #1758).

Thrun says, “The French Prusik knot is apparently one of the

older climbing knots, although I have never seen its use described
in print” (1973, p. 6). The knot that he shows and describes is
similar to the knot shown by Budworth and Ashley, but it has fewer
wraps and is terminated in a different manner. Thrun adds that “as
a method of hitching to a post, it is old and well known” (1973, p. 6).

The

Army Field Manual

(1995) calls it a telegraph hitch and shows

it inverted—presumably because it was used for raising and lowering
telegraph poles.

The word “autoblock” has been used in some English-language

knot books to refer to a French Prusik. “Autoblock,” however, is a
corruption of the French “

autobloquant

,” which means “self-jam-

ming.” It is used to refer to a group of slide-and-grip knots and is
probably better translated into the English term “friction hitch.”

Wraps, braids, and twists can be added or subtracted to form

many variations of the French Prusik to suit different styles of
climbing. Names have been given to some of these variations—for
example, the XT and the Turner twist. But many times the same

variation is fabricated by more than one
climber, so these names may not be consis-
tent and are not widely recognized.

Schwabisch

The Climbers’ Corner article in the April
1998 issue of

Arborist News

also included a

passing reference to another new knot. This
knot was referred to as a Schwabisch Prusik,
and Bernd Strasser was credited with devising
the knot. According to that article, the name
“comes from the area where Bernd lives in
Germany: the Schwabisch land near
Stuttgart” (Palmer et al. 1998, p. 45).

But Strasser was not the first to use this

configuration. The Schwabisch essentially is
an asymmetrical Prusik with the two legs
exiting the hitch at the bottom rather than at
the middle of the knot. Thrun illustrated a

Climbers’ Corner (continued)

ARBORIST NEWS APRIL 2005

©INTERNTIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE

“Prusik knot with an odd number of coils” (1973, p. 5), and his
description of how to tie, use, and adjust this knot agrees perfectly
with the Schwabisch.

On Rope

, Smith and Padgett show a Prusik tied with three,

four, and five coils, all of which are asymmetrical, but the legs exit
from the top of the hitch rather than from the bottom (1996, p. 53).
Oddly, Smith and Padgett acknowledge Thrun as their source, but
Thrun says, “More coils in the top of
the knot make it hold better in a
downward pull” (1973, p. 5).

In one paragraph, Smith and

Padgett state, “This variation provides
gripping power in the top of the
knot” but, in the next paragraph,
they say there should be more coils
“on the [bottom] of the knot. The
primary gripping takes place with the
friction in these coils” (1996, p. 53). A
reviewer of this article noted that the
text in the first edition of

On Rope

was different from what I have
quoted here from the second edi-
tion. This seems to be an editorial
mistake.

Smith and Padgett, as well as

Thrun, say that the ends of the sling
must be tied together after the hitch
is formed, implying that asymmetry
can be achieved only with a length of
cord and not with a loop. Ashley, how-
ever, shows a three-coil “Prusik” formed
with a loop, although the loop has to be
threaded onto the object first (1944, p.
311, #1864). He seems to consider it
a variation of a ring hitch (what
today’s arborists would call a girth
hitch).

Distel

Arbor lore has it that a climber
named Uli Distel attempted to tie the
Schwabisch but neglected to change
the direction of the split-tail when he made
the turns above the bridge. It turned out
that this configuration worked well for
climbing, and the knot was given the
name Distel.

Bavaresco shows a two-under, two-over

Distel and incorrectly calls it a tautline
(2000, p. 23). Although the turns above
and below the bridge are the same as those
of the tautline, the distinguishing factor is
that both legs of the Distel are terminated
on the carabiner, thus forming a closed
climbing hitch. The tautline, with various
numbers of turns above and/or below the
bridge, is an open climbing hitch.

Knut

Another eponymous arborist is Knut Foppe, who introduced tree
climbers to the Knut hitch (not to be confused with the Knute hitch,
which attaches a lanyard or halyard to anything with a small eye).

I first learned the Knut in summer 2001, promptly forgot how to

tie it, then learned it from Knut himself in November 2001. Since then,

I have seen at least three different
people teach the Knut, each of whom
showed a knot that was different from
what the others showed and that was
different from what Knut had shown
to me. The Knut has recently been
shown in four different publications,
however, so the original version is
now more readily available for those
who wish to use it (Adams 2004a,
2004b; Fresco 2004; TCIA 2004).

Throughout 2002 and 2003, Todd
Kramer, with Kramer Tree Specialists
in Chicago, had been tinkering with
knots to devise a friction hitch for a
particular climbing system that he
was working on. In November 2003,

he showed me a knot he had fashioned
for that application. His friends had
named the knot the TK, but, with the
exception of a half twist, it was exactly
what Knut had shown two years
earlier.

The TK is formed by making four

counterclockwise turns up the climb-
ing line. The top leg is dropped in
front of the bottom leg. A bight of the
bottom leg is held in place while the
end of the leg is passed behind the
climbing line and the (now pendent)
top leg (Figure 1). The bight is twisted
from bottom to top, away from the
climbing line (Figure 2), and the end

of the bottom leg is passed through the
bight (Figure 3).

The only difference between the Knut

and the TK is that, in the last step of tying
these hitches, the bight is not twisted when
the Knut is formed, but it is twisted when
the TK is formed (Figures 1 and 2). The
bottom leg of the Knut essentially forms a half
hitch around the climbing line and the
(pendent) top leg, while the TK forms an
overhand knot around the climbing line
and the (pendent) top leg.

In use, the TK holds the climber firmly

in place for working. It releases readily and
grips reliably when the climber wishes to
descend. The overhand of the TK tends to

Figure 3. . . . and the end of the bottom leg is then
passed through the bight.

Figure 2. . . . The bight is twisted from bottom to top, away
from the climbing line, . . .

Figure 1. Tying the TK: The split-tail makes four counterclock-
wise turns up the climbing line. The top leg is dropped in front of
the bottom leg, and a bight of the bottom leg is held in place
while the end of the leg is passed behind the climbing line and
the top leg. . . .

ARBORIST NEWS APRIL 2005

©INTERNTIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE

be harder to break than the half hitch of the Knut, so the TK is not
always as easy to advance as the Knut when the climber pushes it
with a hand or slack tender. They grip equally well after being
advanced and then tensioned when the climber pulls down on the
hitch.

It should be noted that the configuration of the Knut and the TK

are both new and were developed independently of each other. I have
not found reference to any other knot that is similar in form and func-
tion to each of these. The adjustable bend (Budworth 1999, p. 52)
has some resemblance, but it has fewer turns, does not incorporate
the tail, and is shown for use only as a bend.

The TK was devised and introduced after the Knut, but Kramer

had no knowledge of the existence of the Knut nor how it was tied.
The question, then, is “Are these two separate knots or is one a
variation of the other?” They are used for exactly the same purpose,
and the difference between them is the difference between an over-
hand knot and a half hitch.

Martin

As this article was being written, Ken Palmer, president of ArborMaster

Training, Inc., related that one of their instructors had started using
yet another climbing hitch. It is a close variation of Blake’s hitch, but
it is tied as a closed climbing hitch (that is, it uses a split-tail with
two eyes, and both eyes are attached to the carabiner). It is tied by
taking four wraps around the
climbing line, then passing the tail
down and over the bottom leg
(bridge) of the split-tail and behind
the climbing line. The tail is then
tucked under only one of the
wraps instead of two (Figure 4).

Although I have used the Martin

only a few times, its performance
has been promising. The most
notable drawback has been that,
like Blake’s hitch, the part of the
split-tail that is tucked under the
bottom coil experiences more fric-
tion and heat than the rest of the
hitch and therefore may be prone
to burn prematurely. As with any
climbing hitch, one needs to
consider the many other variables
that may affect the knot’s perfor-
mance. The name Martin (accent on the second syllable) comes
from the instructor who has been using it. Ironically, he thought
that he had been using a Knut.

Arborists tend to think of climbing hitches as either “new” or “old.”
In reality, these knots are either “old” or “older” and have been used
for years in different fields and different applications.

Literature Cited

Adams, Mark. 2004a. An overview of climbing hitches.

Arborist News

13(5):29–35.

Adams, Mark. 2004b. Son of a hitch, I’ve seen that knot somewhere

before.

SCA Today

8(3):1, 4–5.

Army Field Manual

N 5-125. 1995. atiam.train.army.mil/portal/atia/

adlsc/view/public/296944-1/fm/5-125/CH2.PDF (accessed
2/21/05).

Ashley, Clifford W. 1944.

The Ashley Book of Knots.

Doubleday, New

York, NY.

Bavaresco, Paolo. 2000. Practical arboriculture—Friction hitch

fundamentals.

Landscaper Magazine

, March 3.

Blake, Jason. 1994. The slip—or knot (letter to the editor).

Arbor

Age

14(5):40–41.

Budworth, Geoffrey. 1999.

The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Knots and

Ropework.

Hermes House, London, UK.

Budworth, Geoffrey. 2000.

The Complete Book of Sailing Knots.

Lyons

Press, New York, NY.

Donzelli, Peter S., and Stanley Longstaff. 1999. The French Prusik

revisited: More than just a climbing hitch.

Arborist News

8(2):49–50.

Palmer, Ken, and Sharon Lilly. 1996. Innovations in climbing tech-

niques and equipment.

Arborist News

5(3):9–14.

Palmer, Ken, Dwayne Neustaeter, Paul Sisson, Kay-Olaf Busemann,

François Dussenne (with Frederic Mathias), and Mark J. Chisholm.
1998. The

Machard tresse

Arborist News

7(2):41–45.

Prohaska, Heinz. 1990. Two jamming knots for thick cord and

webbing.

Nylon Highway

30:3.

Prusik, Karl. 1931. Ein neuer knoten und seine anwendung.

Oster-

reichische Alpenzeitung

1116.

Smith, Bruce, and Allen Padgett. 1996.

On Rope

(new revised edition).

National Speleological Society, Huntsville, AL.

Smith, Ken. 1996. It’s “knot” as

easy as it looks.

Arbor Age

16(6):10–14.

Thrun, Robert. 1973.

Prusiking.

National Speleological Society,
Huntsville, AL.

Toss, Brion. 1990.

Knots: Chapman’s

Nautical Guides.

Hearst Marine

Books, New York, NY.

Tree Care Industry Association

(TCIA). 2004. Climbing
hitches.

The Tree Worker

267:4.

www.treecareindustry.org/
D93XLF5372416/TWNOV04.
pdf (accessed 2/23/05).

Additional References and
Personal Communications

American National Standards

Institute. 2000. American
National Standard for Tree Care

Operations—Pruning, Repairing, Maintaining, and Removing
Trees and Cutting Brush—Safety Requirements (Z133.1). Inter-
national Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL.

Chisholm, Mark. Personal communication.

Confection du noeud machard tressé.

www.ffme.fr/technique/corde/

noeud/autobloquant/machardt.htm (accessed 2/21/05).

Foppe, Knut. Personal communication.
Fresco Arborist Supplies. Product catalog 2004.
Knut Climbing Hitch Variation (the TK Hitch). TreeBuzz.com dis-

cussion group thread. www.treebuzz.com/forum/showflat.php?
Cat=&Board=UBB2&Number=15286&page=1&view=
collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 (accessed 2/21/05).

Climbers’ Corner (continued)

Figure 4. Tying the Martin: The split-tail makes four counterclock-
wise turns up the climbing line. The top leg is dropped in front of the
bottom leg, behind the climbing line and up through the bottom turn.