a genealogy of arborists’ climbing hitches, mark adams (isa, climbers' corner)

©2004 International Society of Arboriculture. Used with permission. Originally published in Arborist News magazine, October 2004.

A rborists’ climbing hitches haveseen tremendous changes andimprovements in the past ten

years. Techniques have been adapted andborrowed from various high-angle disci-plines, and now there are numerous knots,a variety of ways to tie them, and an assort-ment of accessory cords that alter how theknot responds when in use. Because of thewide range of resources available, some ofthe climbing hitches are well known andillustrated; some are known but have beenpublished in only a few different sources;and some are known only by word of mouth.In many cases, the terminology is confused,and discrepancies exist about the names ofand how to tie some of the climbing hitches.

One purpose of this article is to compileinformation and present standard terminol-ogy with the hope that we can achieve someuniformity in the nomenclature used for ourvarious climbing hitches. This article also isintended to help people learn some of thesimilarities and differences between the vari-ous climbing hitches, but it is not intendedto teach all of the details of how to use a knot.Descriptions of knots are to clarify the discus-sion, and photographs are for illustrative,not teaching, purposes. If you are not thor-oughly familiar with any of these climbinghitches, then you should attend an industryseminar or training session before trying toclimb with them. When you learn a partic-ular climbing hitch, practice low and slow.

As with all knots, climbing hitches needto be properly tied, dressed, and set. “Tie”means to form the knot, “dress” means toalign all of the parts of the knot, and “set”means to tighten or load the knot beforeactually using it.

For the purposes of this article, climbinghitches will be assessed by three main criteria:

• how well the climbing hitch holds theclimber in place for work positioning

• how easily the climbing hitch releasesto allow the climber to descend andthen grips once the climber hasreached the next (usually lower) workstation

• how easily the hitch breaks andadvances when pushed by a slacktender or the climber’s hand and thengrips once the climber has reached thenext (usually higher) work station

How well the knot holds refers to howsecurely and reliably the hitch stays in placeas the climber works in a particular location.Ideally, the hitch should not slide at all. Releaserefers to when the climber pulls down onthe knot to descend to a new work station.The hitch should release with minimal effortyet should grip and hold consistently andsecurely when the climber lets go of the hitchon arrival at the next work station. Breakand advance refer to when the climber slidesor pushes the knot up the climbing line withhis or her hand or with a slack tender. Thehitch should break easily and advance withminimal effort yet should grip and hold con-sistently and securely whenever the climberpauses in the ascent or reaches the next workstation. Note that, when ascending, theclimber’s hands are often above or below,and not necessarily on, the climbing hitch.

Open HitchesTautlineThe version of the tautline that is most com-monly known by tree climbers is “two under,two over” (Figure 1). Two counterclockwiseturns are formed down the line below thebridge, then two counterclockwise turnsare formed down the line above the bridge.(Note that the legs of the hitch exit the knotin opposite directions. It creates a goodmnemonic because the legs look like a Tfor “tautline.”)

The tautline holds the climber securelyin place for working, but it tends to tightenunder the load of the weight of the climber.The tautline can become difficult to releaseafter some use and often requires a great dealof manipulation for the climber to descend.Advancing the tautline can be a struggle,and usually the knot has to be loosened or“cracked” to move it up the rope. The taut-line grips fairly well, but if it has been loos-ened to advance it up the line, it must beset again when the climber needs to stopand work. The tautline also has a tendencyto roll—the bridge gradually gets longer,the tail gets shorter, and the knot eventuallyworks its way to the end of the tail andcompletely unties itself. To prevent rolling,it is necessary to put a stopper knot in thetail of the tautline.

Many people have also used a “two under,one over” version. Two counterclockwiseturns are formed down the line below thebridge, then one counterclockwise turn isformed above the bridge. The two-under,one-over releases and advances a little moreeasily than the two-under, two-over, but it

CLIMBERS’CORNER

An Overview of Climbing HitchesBy Mark Adams

Figure 1.Tautline—two

under, two over.

∂


does not grip as reliably when the climberreaches a new work station and often needsto be set by tugging up on the tail of thehitch for it to hold securely. There are othervariations in the number of turns, devisedto accommodate climbers with differentstyles and body weights. When manila ropewas used for climbing, both the number ofturns and the direction of the turns relative tothe lay of the climbing line were important.

PrusikIn the standard version of the Prusik, twocounterclockwise turns are formed downthe line below the bridge, then two clock-wise turns are formed down the line abovethe bridge. Note that the tail changes direc-tion when the turns are taken above thebridge. This change causes the legs of theknot to exit the hitch in the same direction(Figure 2), whereas the legs of the tautlineexit the knot in opposite directions.

the loop makes a turn through the bight, itcreates two coils (sometimes called “fingers”)on the climbing line. If two turns are taken,then four coils are created, and the Prusik looksexactly like the first Prusik that was formedusing a single length of rope (Figure 3). Thishitch is called a two-wrap, four-coil Prusik.

The tail is then dropped over/in front of thebridge, passed behind the climbing line, andthen up through the bottom two of the fourturns (Figure 4). It is critical that, after beingdropped over the bridge, the tail is passedbehind—not in front of—the climbing line.

Blake’s hitch has several advantages overthe traditional tautline and Prusik hitches. Itis not a rolling hitch. Thus, it does not needa stopper knot on the tail, although it is stillrecommended that one be used. Blake’s hitchholds securely, but it does not tighten andjam as much as the tautline and Prusik whenthe climber is working. It releases and advancesmore easily yet grips reliably when the climberarrives at a new work station.

Figure 2.Prusik.

The Prusik has many of the same character-istics as the tautline. It holds the climberfirmly in place but often binds so that it maybe difficult to release and difficult to advance.Although it is not considered a rolling hitch,it is recommended that a stopper knot beplaced in the tail of the knot.

Many arborists are familiar with the Prusikas a friction hitch for use in the secured foot-lock. In this technique, the Prusik is tiedwith a loop of rope rather than with a lengthof rope. A bight of the loop is placed on theclimbing line, and the other end of the loopis passed through the bight, creating a wrap,or turn, around the climbing line. Each time

Figure 3.Prusik with a cord—four coils.

When used for the secured footlock, thePrusik is formed around both legs of theclimbing line, and it is necessary to form athree-wrap, six-coil Prusik. The cord that isused for the Prusik should be smaller indiameter than the host line. Because the Prusikcord is doubled, both legs of the loop sharethe weight of the climber, and the breakingstrength of the loop needs to be the same asthat required for an arborist’s climbing line(as stated in sections 3.23 and 8.7.4 of theZ133.1-2000 safety standards).

When used in this configuration, thePrusik should be used only for ascending.A climber should never attempt to descendwith the Prusik that is used for the securedfootlock. Although the single line and theloop Prusik look exactly the same, they per-form differently. Some authorities even con-sider them to be entirely different knots.

When tied with a loop, the Prusik is alsobi-directional—that is, it holds equally wellwhen pulled in either direction and thuscan be used for a two-in-one lanyard and insome rigging situations.

Blake’s HitchBlake’s hitch is tied by making four counter-clockwise turns up the rope above the bridge.

Figure 4.Blake’s hitch.

Although some frictional control is pro-vided by all of the coils, one part of thehitch—called the “hot spot”—receives adisproportionate amount of friction andtherefore burns more easily. The hot spotoccurs on the part of the tail that is tuckedunder the bottom two coils. In a long, fastdescent, this spot can be glazed to the pointof rope failure, so it is important to descendslowly and always check the rope for exces-sive wear before and after climbing on it.

The tautline, the Prusik (when tied as aclimbing hitch with a single length of cord),and Blake’s hitch are all called “open” climb-ing hitches because the tail of each hitch isleft free (Figure 5). Therefore, they may beused in a closed (traditional) or open (split-tail) climbing system and may be tied toeither a locking snap or to a double-lockingcarabiner.

In a closed, or traditional, climbing sys-tem, the climbing line is tied to a connector

Climbers’ Corner (continued)

Prusik with a loop—four coils.


(usually a locking snap), and a long tail isleft in the knot. This tail is then used to tiethe climbing hitch on the fall, or standingpart, of the climbing line (Figure 5). In theopen, or split-tail, system, the climbing lineis attached to the connector using an appro-priate endline knot or an eyesplice. Theclimbing hitch is tied using a short, separatepiece of rope called a split-tail; the split-tailis attached to a second connector, which isthen clipped to the saddle (Figure 6).

Closed HitchesWith closed hitches, the tail of the hitch isincorporated into the climbing hitch. Bothends of the cord are attached to the connec-tor—usually a double-locking carabiner. Thereis no tail coming out of the climbing hitch.

However, closed hitches can form onlyan open (split-tail) climbing system becausethe hitch is always separate from the work-ing end (the lead) of the climbing line (Fig-ure 6). As with the Prusik loop, both legs ofa closed climbing hitch share the weight ofthe climber and all of his or her equipment.

The hitches described in this section areoften referred to as high-performance hitches.When properly adjusted, they hold securely,release with just a slight touch of the handyet grip firmly after descent, break easilywhen advanced, and grip firmly and reliablywhen the climber weights them. Becausethese hitches require less manipulation, theyallow the climber to move faster and morefreely in the tree. Ascents, descents, limbwalks, and swings all become more fluidand graceful.

The hitches described below are highlyresponsive, but they have more variables toconsider than the open hitches. Where thetautline, the Prusik (when tied as a climbinghitch with a single length of cord), andBlake’s hitch are all tied with a split-tail ofthe same construction as or very similar tothe climbing line, the hitches described inthis section use a split-tail different from theclimbing line (note the wide variety of cordsthat are used for the split-tails in the high-performance knots).

The performance of each hitch is highlydependent on the length, type, diameter, andcondition of the cord that is used for the split-tail and on the type, diameter, and conditionof the climbing line. A particular split-tailmay work very well with a particular climb-ing line yet be unpredictably loose or irritat-ingly tight on another climbing line. Itis imperative that the climber be awareof this fact and always test the compat-ibility of the components of the systembefore leaving the ground. Some of thevariables of the split-tail that affect theperformance of the climbing hitch arediscussed at the end of this article.

French PrusikLike the traditional Prusik, describedin the section on open hitches, theFrench Prusik can be tied with either alength of rope or a loop of rope, and it

can be tied in several different configurations.Unlike the traditional Prusik, however, thereare different names to describe different con-figurations of the French Prusik.

When tied with a loop of rope, theFrench Prusik is called a Machard or aMachard tresse, depending on how it isformed. When tied with a single length ofrope or webbing, the French Prusik is calleda Valdôtain or a Valdôtain tresse, again depend-ing on how it is formed. The term “FrenchPrusik” includes all of these variations andis not specific to any particular one.

The vast majority of tree climbers whouse a French Prusik use a single piece ofrope or cord to tie a climbing hitch, so onlythe Valdôtain and the Valdôtain tresse arediscussed.

The Valdôtain is actually quite easy to tie.The split-tail makes seven turns around theclimbing line (Figure 7). A carabiner is thenattached to the eyes of the split-tail, and thecarabiner is pulled down so that the legs ofthe split-tail cascade into place (Figure 8).This hitch holds the climber securely, releaseswith just a gentle tug on the hitch, and gripsconsistently and reliably when the climberlets go of the hitch. It breaks easily and withlittle effort. But, if the split-tail and the hitchare not properly adjusted, then the Valdôtainmay not consistently and reliably grip theclimbing line after it has been advancedwith a hand or slack tender. It sometimes isnecessary for the climber to hold the hitchagainst the climbing line so there is contactbetween the split-tail and the climbing lineand so the hitch will then grip the line.Ways to compensate for this problem andto adjust, or “fine-tune,” a climbing hitchare discussed at the end of this article.

The Valdôtain tresse (also called the Vt) istied in a similar manner as the Valdôtain butwith one significant difference: Four turnsare made around the climbing line, then the

Figure 5.Open climbinghitch (note the tailfrom the climbnghitch) in a closed(traditional)climbing system.

Figure 6.Closed climbinghitch (no tail) inopen (split-tail)

climbing system.

Figure 7. Forming the Valdôtain.

∂


legs are braided down the line, below thewraps/turns. “Braided” means that, as thelegs are passed around the climbing line,each leg alternates between being on top of,then under, the other leg. After the first fourturns are taken around the climbing line,the top leg continues around the line butmoves down (rather than up) the line andis first on top of, then under, then on top ofthe other leg. A carabiner is then attachedto the eyes of the split-tail and the knot isset (Figure 9). When completed, the Valdô-tain tresse looks much like the Valdôtain(compare Figures 9 and 8).

The Valdôtain tresse holds the climber inplace, releases easily and grips reliably, andthen advances easily and grips reliably aswell. But, while the Valdôtain may becomeloose after being advanced up the climbingline, the Valdôtain tresse stays together andmore consistently maintains contact withthe climbing line, which means that it gripsmore reliably after it has been moved upthe line.

When first formed, the Valdôtain is simplya series of turns around the climbing line.At this point, the hitch could be formed byattaching a carabiner and moving the legseither up or down the line—that is, theValdôtain is bi-directional (Figure 10). Thisfeature probably would not be used in anyclimbing system, but it may have some usesin certain rigging situations. Knowing thatthe Valdôtain is bi-directional also helps oneunderstand how the knot functions. Whenthe legs of the split-tail are pulled down toform the hitch, the leg that forms the top turn

is the top leg all the way downthe hitch. When the hitch isadvanced and pushed up the linein quick succession (as whenascending to a new work sta-tion), one leg stays at the bottomof the hitch, and the otherloosens all the way to the top ofthe hitch. The coils open, andthere is no overlap to maintainsome contact with the climbingline (Figure 11).

When the Valdôtain tresse isformed, it is a series ofturns and braids.“Tresse” means “braid”in French, and thebraids create a dramaticchange in the way theknot functions. Whenthe Valdôtain tresse ispushed up the line, theshape of the hitch isretained, and, if thehitch is properlyadjusted, both legs areheld close to the climb-ing line and have somecontact with it (Figure12). This arrangementallows the Valdôtaintresse to grip morequickly, reliably, andfirmly than the Valdôtain.It must be emphasized,however, that theclimber might have to experiment withdifferent types, lengths, and diameters ofthe split-tail in order for the Valdôtain tresse

to perform to this degree. If,for example, the split-tail istoo long, then the hitch maybecome loose after a longascent and not grip immedi-ately when it is pulled down.

The Machard is tied exactlyas the Valdôtain (a series ofturns), but the turns areformed using a loop ratherthan a single length of line.The Machard tresse is formedexactly as the Valdôtain tresse(a series of turns and braids),but the turns and braids areformed using a loop ratherthan a single length of line.

The word “autoblock”has been used in some

English-language knotbooks to refer specificallyto the French Prusik,but this terminology isincorrect. “Autoblock”is a corruption of theFrench “autobloquant,”which means “self-jamming.” It is used torefer to a group of slide-and-grip knots and isprobably better trans-lated into the Englishterm “friction hitch.”

Schwabisch The Schwabisch isformed by making onecounterclockwise turnbelow the bridge, thenmaking three clockwiseturns down the line

above the bridge. This forms, in essence, anasymmetrical Prusik (Figure 13). Both legs

Figure 8.Valdôtain.

Figure 9.Valdôtaintresse.

Figure 10. With a carabiner attached, thelegs could be pulled either up or down toform the Valdôtain hitch.

When theValdôtain isadvancedquickly, oneleg stays atthe bottomof the hitch(arrow onthe right),while theother legloosens allthe way tothe top ofthe hitch(arrow onthe left).

Figure11.

Figure 12.When theValdôtaintresse isadvanced, thebraid helps

maintain theshape of thehitch and keepboth legs incontact withthe climbingline, asindicatedby thearrows.



exit at the bottom of the knot, whereas, inthe conventional Prusik, both legs exit fromthe middle of the knot (Figure 14). Thisone-down, three-up version was the onethat was first shown in the United States foruse in trees. Depending on the split-tail thatis used, however, many climbers are nowtying four turns above the bridge to createmore friction so that the hitch will grip afterit has been broken and advanced up theclimbing line. If the legs of the hitch are toolong, the hitch will become loose and notgrip when the climber stops his or her ascent.

The Schwabisch holds securely. It releasesmuch more easily than the tautline but notquite as smoothly as the French Prusik, andit grips reliably after descent. It can bindenough that it has tobe hit more than onceto break it, but, onceloosened, it advanceseasily. Breaking andadvancing are partlya matter of techniqueand proper placementof the slack tender.Because both legsexit the Schwabischin the same directionand from the sameplace, the hitch iseasily broken bypushing both legsback into the knot toloosen it. Generallyspeaking, the

Schwabisch performs smoothly over a widerange of variables. Its best performance isprobably not as fluid as the French Prusik,but it is not as temperamental and does notrequire as much fine-tuning.

DistelTo form the Distel, one counterclockwiseturn is made below the bridge, then fourcounterclockwise turns are made down theclimbing line above the bridge (Figure 15).The difference between the Distel and theSchwabisch is that to form a Distel, the split-tail continues in the same direction whenthe turns are taken above the bridge; to formthe Schwabisch, the split-tail changes direc-tion when the turns are taken above the bridge.Note that this is the same difference thatdistinguishes the tautline from the Prusik.

Thus, the Distel is very similar to thetautline (Figure 16). For both hitches, aturn or turns are taken below the bridge;the tail moves above the bridge and contin-ues to make turns in the same direction asthe turn(s) below the bridge. The differencebetween the Distel and the tautline is thatthe Distel attaches both ends of the split-tailonto the carabiner, thus forming a closedclimbing knot. The tautline leaves one endof the split-tail off of the connector andtherefore is an open climbing knot.

The Distel holds the climber securelyand reliably in place for working. It releaseseasily and grips reliably when the climberstops his or her descent. In some situations,it may become a little snug and not advancesmoothly. The legs of the Distel exit thehitch in opposite directions, making itnecessary to push them in opposite direc-tions to loosen the hitch. Some split-tails

may not do thiswithout somemanipulation.

In general, theSchwabisch and theDistel are easier to tieand untie than theFrench Prusik. Oncetied, the Schwabischand the Distel stayon the climbing line,which makes it easierto attach a carabinerand slack tender.The French Prusikhas to be held on theline while the hard-ware is attached. The

Schwabisch and the Distel are not as finickyin their performance as the French Prusik,but neither are they as smooth and fluid.

KnutThe Knut hitch should not be confused withthe Knute hitch, which attaches a lanyard orhalyard to anything with a small eye. I learnedthe Knut from Knut Foppe in November2001. I have never seen the Knut describedin a publication, but I have seen at leastthree different people teach the Knut, eachof whom showed a knot that was differentfrom what the others showed and that wasdifferent from what Knut had shown to me.

The Knut is formed by making fourcounterclockwise turns up the climbingline. The top leg is dropped in front of thebottom leg. A bight of the bottom leg isheld in place while the end of the leg forms

Figure 13.Schwabisch.

Prusik—two under,

two over.

Figure 15.Distel—oneunder, fourover.

Figure 16.Distel—oneunder, fourover.

Tautline—two under,two over.

Figure 14.Schwabisch—one under,three over.

∂


a clockwise turn downthe climbing line,around the climbingline and the (nowpendant) top leg.Finally, the bottom legis passed through thebight (Figure 17). Thesplit-tail that is used inthis photograph islonger than normal sothat it can easily showhow to form the Knut.The split-tail in Figure18 is a length thatwould typically beused for climbing.

The Knut holds securely when the climberis working, releases easily, and grips consis-tently after descending. It breaks easily,advances smoothly, and grips reliably whenthe climber pauses to work or rest. An addedfeature is that slack can be tended without amicropulley. The bottom turn through thebight acts as a slack tender and advancesthe hitch along the climbing line. It is not assmooth as a micropulley, but it can be usefulif a micropulley is not available.

The Knut is somewhat more complicatedto tie and untie than any of the previousknots. Like the Schwabisch and the Distel,it stays on the rope after it is tied and, inthis respect, is a little easier to manage thanthe French Prusik.

Fine-Tuning: Variationsand ConsiderationsThere are many variations on these high-performance knots. A climber could add orsubtract wraps, braids, or twists to fine-tuneany of these hitches to fit his or her ownparticular style, body weight, climbingrope, or split-tail. Doing so may in fact bedesirable because each climber can tailor ahitch to fit his or her own personal needs,but it can be dangerous if the climber is notaware of how subtle changes can drasticallyalter a knot’s performance. The followingare some of the variables to consider.

Generally speaking, for a given length ofcord, a split-tail formed with a stiff cordadvances more easily but, once loosened,retains its open form and does not readilygrip the climbing line. A split-tail formed

with a softer, loosercord may not advanceas easily, but it tends tomaintain some contactwith the climbing lineand thus grips morereliably after it is movedup the climbing line.

Using a slightlylonger cord for the split-tail results in a hitchwith longer legs. Longerlegs prevent the hitchfrom breaking as quicklywhen hit with a slacktender or the climber’shand. Once the hitchdoes loosen and open,however, it may not

have enough friction with the climbing lineto instantly grip and tighten when the hitchis pulled down. Using a shorter length ofcord for the split-tail results in a hitch withshorter legs, which helps keep the knottight and compact. The hitch grips the linemore readily after the hitch has been advanced.However, if the legs are too short, the hitchmay bind and be difficult to release and dif-ficult to break. Adding or subtracting wrapsor braids has similar effects by increasing ordecreasing friction and making the hitchtighter or looser on the climbing line. Ifwraps (or twists or braids) are added orsubtracted, the knot’s performance also mayvary depending on whether the changes aremade at the top or bottom of the knot(above or below the bridge).

The eyes of the split-tail for the closedclimbing hitches may be formed by tyingdouble fisherman’s loopson each end of the split-tail, or the eyes may bespliced. If the eyes aretied, then the end knotsmay make it a little moredifficult to tie the climb-ing hitch. If the eyes arespliced, however, thetaper of the splice mayaffect the performance ofthe climbing hitch. If thesplices of both eyes aretapered together in themiddle of the split-tail,then the diameter of theentire tail will be slightlyexpanded, which mayaffect the performance of

the hitch. Similarly, a knot’s performance maybe changed simply by changing the diame-ter of the cord that is used for the split-tail.

When properly adjusted, these hitchesperform well and can be used for variousother climbing and rigging applications.Lanyards, false crotches, and mechanicaladvantage systems can be improved andmade more efficient through the proper useof a suitable climbing hitch.

These hitches can be seen on variousWeb sites; at trade shows and training semi-nars; and in videos, books, and magazines.Regardless of where the knots are seen ortaught, it is up to the individual arborist tolearn and use them safely.

ReferencesAmerican National Standards Institute.

2000. American National Standard forTree Care Operations—Pruning, Repairing,Maintaining, and Removing Trees andCutting Brush—Safety Requirements(Z133.1). International Society ofArboriculture, Champaign, IL.

Ashley, Clifford W. 1944. The Ashley Book ofKnots. Doubleday, New York, NY.

Bavaresco, Paolo. 2000. Practical arboricul-ture—Friction hitch fundamentals.Landscaper Magazine, March 3.

Blake, Jason. 1994. The slip—or knot (letterto the editor). Arbor Age 14(5):40–41.

Budworth, Geoffrey. 1999. The UltimateEncyclopedia of Knots and Ropework.Hermes House, London, UK.

Budworth, Geoffrey. 2000. The CompleteBook of Sailing Knots. Lyons Press, NewYork, NY.

Chisholm, Mark. Personal communication.Confection du noeud machard

tressé. www. ffme.fr/technique/corde/noeud/autobloquant/marchardt.htm(accessed 8/24/04).

Donzelli, Peter S., andStanley Longstaff.1999. The FrenchPrusik revisited: Morethan just a climbinghitch. Arborist News8(2):49–50.

Les noueds. membres.lycos.fr/climbrok/Sommaire%20noeuds.htm (accessed8/25/04).

Figure 17.Knut—tied, ready tobe dressed and set.

Figure 18.Knut withtypical-lengthtails.

Climbers’ Corner(continued)


Palmer, Ken, Dwayne Neustaeter, Paul Sis-son, Kay-Olaf Busemann, FrançoisDussenne (with Frederic Mathias), andMark J. Chisholm. 1998. The Machardtresse. Arborist News 7(2):41–45.

Prohaska, Heinz. 1990. Two jamming knotsfor thick cord and webbing. Nylon High-way 30:3.

Prusik, Karl. 1931. Ein neuer knoten undseine anwendung. Osterreichische Alpen-zeitung 1116.

Raleigh, Duane. 1998. Knots and Ropes forClimbers. Stackpole Books, Mechanics-burg, PA.

Sherrill Arborist Supply. Product catalogs2002, 2003, 2004.

Smith, Bruce, and Allen Padgett. 1996. OnRope (new revised edition). NationalSpeleological Society, Huntsville, AL.

Thrun, Robert. 1973. Prusiking. NationalSpeleological Society, Huntsville, AL.

Thrun, Robert. Personal communication.Toss, Brion. 1990. Knots: Chapman’s Nauti-

cal Guides. Hearst Marine Books, NewYork, NY.

Mark Adams is a Certified Arborist withDowney Trees, Inc., based in Atlanta,Georgia. He would like to thank thereviewers for their many helpful com-ments.

Photos by Dorothy Payne and MarkAdams. Illustrations by Bryan Kotwica.

ARBORIST NEWS APRIL 2005 ©INTERNTIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE

CLIMBERS’ CORNER

I t seems that, historically, the specific name that was given to aknot 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 additionalturn around an object; tying the knot with a loop, with the end of aline, or in a bight; terminating the tail in a different manner; or tyingthe 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 understandand define knot terminology.

The practice of bestowing a person’s name on a knot seems to bea relatively recent convention. Although many of the knots presentedhere are known today by the name or initials of an individual, Ashley(1944) reported that it was said that a man named Mathew Walkerwas “the only man to have a knot named for him” (p. 118, #678; p.265, #1465).

Tautline HitchFor most of the past century, the majority of tree climbers in theUnited 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, thentwo turns above the bridge, and (2) two turns below the bridge, thenone turn above the bridge. Toss calls the two-under, one-over varia-tion the simple rolling hitch and says that it “is still sometimescalled the tent-line or taut-line hitch” (1990, p. 30).

Ashley (1944, p. 265, #1465; p. 298, #1734) also says that thetwo under, one over is called the rolling hitch and shows the two

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

PrusikAnother friction hitch that was used by some early tree climbers,particularly in Europe, is the Prusik. Described in 1931 byAustrian Karl Prusik for use in mountaineering, the Prusikhitch has been utilized in many vertical rope disciplines.When used as an arborist’s climbing hitch, it has many of thesame 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 ofthe tail (an open knot). Some writers consider these to be two dif-ferent knots entirely (like the tautline and Distel, and Blake’s hitchand the Martin), but I have not found any other name that has beengiven to distinguish them. Ashley shows it tied with the end as atwo-under, one-over version and says that it is a Magnus hitch withthe final hitch “reversed” (1944, p. 298, #1736). It is shown tiedwith a loop of rope with three wraps/six coils and is describedsimply 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 arboristsfor most of the past century. Ashley illustrated both of these, in theirtwo-under, two-over versions, as “tree surgeon’s variations of theMagnus hitch” (1944, p. 77, #480, #481), and they were still theprimary tree climbing hitches into the 1990s. At that time, however,climbing hitches began a dramatic change.

Blake’s HitchIn 1994, in a letter to the editor of Arbor Age magazine, Jason Blakedescribed what he called “the slip—or knot.” Although Blake certainlyis to be credited for introducing and popularizing this knot for treeclimbing, he was not the first to publish it. Ashley shows a two-coilversion of this knot (1944, p. 266, #1470) but does not name it. Theexact 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 2004issue of SCA Today, the newsletter of the Society of Commercial Arboriculture.It is also a companion article to “An Overview of Climbing Hitches,” whichappeared as the Climbers’ Corner feature in the October 2004 issue of ArboristNews. The latter article presented—and encouraged the use of—standardterminology for seven common climbing hitches that arborists use in theirclimbing systems. The focus of that article, however, was on the technicalaspects of the use of those knots, and it included photographs and instructionson how to tie the knots.

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

The climbing hitches are discussed in the order in which they were introducedto the tree care industry in the United States. At least one reference is givenfor 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 severallanguages, and from several countries. Arborists will find that many of theclimbing hitches that we consider new and modern have actually been usedfor many years in other types of climbing or rope work.

Son of a Hitch: A Genealogy of Arborists’Climbing Hitches


and was published by Prohaska for the first time in 1981. Prohaskahas 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 havefound only one other source that uses the term “Polish.” A reviewerof 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 tradeshows. It was described again in Arbor Age magazine by Smith in1996, but the accompanying photograph showed the knot tiedincorrectly. Oddly enough, Blake’s original letter to the editor hadcautioned against using the pictured version of the knot, which hedubbed a “sui-slide” knot. Blake’s hitch appeared simultaneously inArborist News magazine (Palmer and Lilly 1996), where it was firstpictured 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 ITCCworld champion Mark Chisholm recalls that, at the ITCC competitionin Halifax in 1994, François Dussenne introduced some climbers toa new hitch called the Machard tresse. Dussenne had been using andshowing the hitch for years, but it was not accepted for use in theITCC until 1997, after which it was introduced to a much wideraudience through a magazine article (Palmer et al. 1998).

French PrusikIn the April 1998 issue of Arborist News, the Climbers’ Corner featuremade its first appearance and introduced a new climbing hitch toAmerican climbers, the Machard tresse (Palmer et al. 1998). ThatClimbers’ Corner actually consisted of six short articles, each ofwhich 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 ofthe knot. It was variously called French Prusik, Machard, and Machardtresse. Donzelli and Longstaff (1999) added the name Valdôtain tresse,which they abbreviated as Vt, but which was (wrongly) shortenedin vernacular use to Valdôtain.

When tied with a loop of rope or webbing, a French Prusik is calleda Machard or a Machard tress, depending on how it is formed. Whentied with a single length of rope or webbing, a French Prusik is calleda Valdôtain or a Valdôtain tresse, again depending on how it is formed.It is important to realize that there are distinct differences in theway 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 anyparticular one.

Although the Arborist News article from April 1998 was the firstformal mention of French Prusik in the tree industry in the UnitedStates, these knots had been used for many years in the tree indus-try in Europe and in various other high-angle rope disciplines innumerous countries. Several of the authors who contributed to thatfirst Climbers’ Corner said that they had either seen or used a FrenchPrusik years before the article appeared. Geoffrey Budworth showsan “extended” French Prusik (1999, p. 136; 2000, p. 134) andcredits Robert Chisnall for devising it circa 1981, yet the same knotthat Budworth shows is illustrated (but not named) in Ashley’s 1944book (p. 299, #1758).

Thrun says, “The French Prusik knot is apparently one of theolder climbing knots, although I have never seen its use describedin print” (1973, p. 6). The knot that he shows and describes issimilar to the knot shown by Budworth and Ashley, but it has fewerwraps and is terminated in a different manner. Thrun adds that “asa 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 showsit inverted—presumably because it was used for raising and loweringtelegraph poles.

The word “autoblock” has been used in some English-languageknot books to refer to a French Prusik. “Autoblock,” however, is acorruption of the French “autobloquant,” which means “self-jam-ming.” It is used to refer to a group of slide-and-grip knots and isprobably better translated into the English term “friction hitch.”

Wraps, braids, and twists can be added or subtracted to formmany variations of the French Prusik to suit different styles ofclimbing. Names have been given to some of these variations—forexample, the XT and the Turner twist. But many times the same

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

SchwabischThe Climbers’ Corner article in the April1998 issue of Arborist News also included apassing reference to another new knot. Thisknot was referred to as a Schwabisch Prusik,and Bernd Strasser was credited with devisingthe knot. According to that article, the name“comes from the area where Bernd lives inGermany: the Schwabisch land nearStuttgart” (Palmer et al. 1998, p. 45).

But Strasser was not the first to use thisconfiguration. The Schwabisch essentially isan asymmetrical Prusik with the two legsexiting the hitch at the bottom rather than atthe middle of the knot. Thrun illustrated a



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

In On Rope, Smith and Padgett show a Prusik tied with three,four, and five coils, all of which are asymmetrical, but the legs exitfrom the top of the hitch rather than from the bottom (1996, p. 53).Oddly, Smith and Padgett acknowledge Thrun as their source, butThrun says, “More coils in the top ofthe knot make it hold better in adownward pull” (1973, p. 5).

In one paragraph, Smith andPadgett state, “This variation providesgripping power in the top of theknot” but, in the next paragraph,they say there should be more coils“on the [bottom] of the knot. Theprimary gripping takes place with thefriction in these coils” (1996, p. 53). Areviewer of this article noted that thetext in the first edition of On Ropewas different from what I havequoted here from the second edi-tion. This seems to be an editorialmistake.

Smith and Padgett, as well asThrun, say that the ends of the slingmust be tied together after the hitchis formed, implying that asymmetrycan be achieved only with a length ofcord and not with a loop. Ashley, how-ever, shows a three-coil “Prusik” formedwith a loop, although the loop has to bethreaded onto the object first (1944, p.311, #1864). He seems to consider ita variation of a ring hitch (whattoday’s arborists would call a girthhitch).

DistelArbor lore has it that a climbernamed Uli Distel attempted to tie theSchwabisch but neglected to changethe direction of the split-tail when he madethe turns above the bridge. It turned outthat this configuration worked well forclimbing, and the knot was given thename Distel.

Bavaresco shows a two-under, two-overDistel and incorrectly calls it a tautline(2000, p. 23). Although the turns aboveand below the bridge are the same as thoseof the tautline, the distinguishing factor isthat both legs of the Distel are terminatedon the carabiner, thus forming a closedclimbing hitch. The tautline, with variousnumbers of turns above and/or below thebridge, is an open climbing hitch.

KnutAnother eponymous arborist is Knut Foppe, who introduced treeclimbers 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 totie it, then learned it from Knut himself in November 2001. Since then,

I have seen at least three differentpeople teach the Knut, each of whomshowed a knot that was different fromwhat the others showed and that wasdifferent from what Knut had shownto me. The Knut has recently beenshown in four different publications,however, so the original version isnow more readily available for thosewho wish to use it (Adams 2004a,2004b; Fresco 2004; TCIA 2004).

TKThroughout 2002 and 2003, ToddKramer, with Kramer Tree Specialistsin Chicago, had been tinkering withknots to devise a friction hitch for aparticular climbing system that hewas working on. In November 2003,

he showed me a knot he had fashionedfor that application. His friends hadnamed the knot the TK, but, with theexception of a half twist, it was exactlywhat Knut had shown two yearsearlier.

The TK is formed by making fourcounterclockwise turns up the climb-ing line. The top leg is dropped infront of the bottom leg. A bight of thebottom leg is held in place while theend of the leg is passed behind theclimbing line and the (now pendent)top leg (Figure 1). The bight is twistedfrom bottom to top, away from theclimbing line (Figure 2), and the end

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

The only difference between the Knutand the TK is that, in the last step of tyingthese hitches, the bight is not twisted whenthe Knut is formed, but it is twisted whenthe TK is formed (Figures 1 and 2). Thebottom leg of the Knut essentially forms a halfhitch around the climbing line and the(pendent) top leg, while the TK forms anoverhand knot around the climbing lineand the (pendent) top leg.

In use, the TK holds the climber firmlyin place for working. It releases readily andgrips reliably when the climber wishes todescend. The overhand of the TK tends to

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

Figure 2. . . . The bight is twisted from bottom to top, awayfrom 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 ofthe bottom leg, and a bight of the bottom leg is held in placewhile the end of the leg is passed behind the climbing line andthe top leg. . . .


be harder to break than the half hitch of the Knut, so the TK is notalways as easy to advance as the Knut when the climber pushes itwith a hand or slack tender. They grip equally well after beingadvanced and then tensioned when the climber pulls down on thehitch.

It should be noted that the configuration of the Knut and the TKare both new and were developed independently of each other. I havenot 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 incorporatethe tail, and is shown for use only as a bend.

The TK was devised and introduced after the Knut, but Kramerhad 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 avariation 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.

MartinAs this article was being written, Ken Palmer, president of ArborMaster®

Training, Inc., related that one of their instructors had started usingyet another climbing hitch. It is a close variation of Blake’s hitch, butit is tied as a closed climbing hitch (that is, it uses a split-tail withtwo eyes, and both eyes are attached to the carabiner). It is tied bytaking four wraps around theclimbing line, then passing the taildown and over the bottom leg(bridge) of the split-tail and behindthe climbing line. The tail is thentucked under only one of thewraps instead of two (Figure 4).

Although I have used the Martinonly a few times, its performancehas been promising. The mostnotable drawback has been that,like Blake’s hitch, the part of thesplit-tail that is tucked under thebottom coil experiences more fric-tion and heat than the rest of thehitch and therefore may be proneto burn prematurely. As with anyclimbing hitch, one needs toconsider the many other variablesthat may affect the knot’s perfor-mance. The name Martin (accent on the second syllable) comesfrom the instructor who has been using it. Ironically, he thoughtthat 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 usedfor years in different fields and different applications.

Literature CitedAdams, 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 (accessed2/21/05).

Ashley, Clifford W. 1944. The Ashley Book of Knots. Doubleday, NewYork, NY.

Bavaresco, Paolo. 2000. Practical arboriculture—Friction hitchfundamentals. Landscaper Magazine, March 3.

Blake, Jason. 1994. The slip—or knot (letter to the editor). ArborAge 14(5):40–41.

Budworth, Geoffrey. 1999. The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Knots andRopework. Hermes House, London, UK.

Budworth, Geoffrey. 2000. The Complete Book of Sailing Knots. LyonsPress, New York, NY.

Donzelli, Peter S., and Stanley Longstaff. 1999. The French Prusikrevisited: 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 andwebbing. 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” aseasy as it looks. Arbor Age16(6):10–14.

Thrun, Robert. 1973. Prusiking.National Speleological Society,Huntsville, AL.

Toss, Brion. 1990. Knots: Chapman’sNautical Guides. Hearst MarineBooks, New York, NY.

Tree Care Industry Association(TCIA). 2004. Climbinghitches. The Tree Worker 267:4.www.treecareindustry.org/D93XLF5372416/TWNOV04.pdf (accessed 2/23/05).

Additional References andPersonal CommunicationsAmerican National Standards

Institute. 2000. AmericanNational Standard for Tree Care

Operations—Pruning, Repairing, Maintaining, and RemovingTrees 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).


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 thebottom leg, behind the climbing line and up through the bottom turn.


Kramer, Todd. Personal communication.Lehman, Dan. Personal communication.Les noueds. membres.lycos.fr/climbrok/Sommaire%20noeuds.htm

(accessed 2/21/05).Palmer, Ken. Personal communication. Prohaska, Heinz. Personal communication.Raleigh, Duane. 1998. Knots and Ropes for Climbers. Stackpole

Books, Mechanicsburg, PA.

Sherrill Arborist Supply. Product catalogs 2002, 2003, 2004.Sherrill, Tobe. Personal communication.Thrun, Robert. Personal communication.

Mark Adams is a Certified Arborist with Downey Trees, Inc., based inAtlanta, Georgia. He can be reached at [email protected].

Photos by Mark Adams.

52 www.isa-arbor.com ARBORIST•NEWS

This article provides additions to and corrections (addendaand corrigenda) of two previous articles on climbing hitchesthat appeared in earlier issues of Arborist News. The additions

and corrections are based on suggestions and comments receivedsince the publication of those articles.

The first article, “An Overview of Climbing Hitches,” appeared asthe Climbers’ Corner feature for October 2004. The article focusedon the technical aspects of approximately seven climbing hitches andincluded instructions and photographs on how to tie the variousclimbing hitches. The second article, “Son of a Hitch: A Genealogyof Arborists’ Climbing Hitches,” appeared as the Climbers’ Cornerfeature for April 2005. It discussed the history of the names of thosevarious climbing hitches and included photographs and descrip-tions of two additional climbing hitches.

PrusikThere were several comments about the open (Figure 1) and closed(Figure 2) forms of the Prusik. In the genealogy article, it wasstated:

. . . when Dr. Prusik presented this hitch, he showed it tied with aloop. Present-day arborists use the term “Prusik” to refer to thisconfiguration whether it is tied with a loop (a closed knot) or tiedwith the end of a line with no termination of the tail (an open knot).Some writers consider these to be two different knots entirely (p. 51).

Some of the comments were that there should have been astronger statement that these knots were in function, if not in

CLIMBERS’ CORNER

Climbing Hitches: Addenda and CorrigendaBy Mark Adams

name, two different knots. A hitch that is loaded on one strandbehaves much differently from a hitch that is loaded on both strands.The difference between the tautline and Distel, and Blake’s and theMichoacán (which I incorrectly called the Martin; see below) is thatthe tautline and Blake’s are open knots, while the Distel and theMichoacán are closed knots. Thrun refers to the open version of thePrusik (tied with the end of the line) simply as a “hitch series” andemphasizes that Karl Prusik’s original article showed the Prusik tiedwith a closed loop.

French PrusikThe overview article stated that “there are different names to describedifferent configurations of the French Prusik.” The article mentionedfour versions of French Prusik, describing two in detail. The geneal-ogy article mentioned the same four variations (Machard, Machardtresse, Valdôtain, and Valdôtain tresse) and said that Geoffrey Budworthshowed an “extended” French Prusik. The “extended” French Prusik,however, was not described or shown in the genealogy article. An“extended” French Prusik is simply a series of braids formed downthe line; that is, it could be thought of as a Valdotain tresse without the

turns. A commentator men-tioned that the book AlpineCaving Techniques uses the name“French Prusik” for yet anotherknot that the commentatordescribed as “a single-strandBachman.”

SchwabischThe genealogy article (pp.52–53) pointed out that theSchwabisch (which may bethought of as an asymmetricPrusik, Figure 3) appears in thebook On Rope, which showsthe knot tied with three, four,and five turns.

After some correspondence,it was determined that the firstedition of On Rope describes andillustrates the knot correctly. Inthe new revised edition, how-ever, there was a mistake in boththe text and the line drawings.The text incorrectly describeswhere the primary grippingtakes place, and the line drawingsshow the knot upside down.

Figure 3. When using theSchwabisch, the primarygripping takes place in the topof the knot. The Schwabischshould be tied so that themajority of the coils are inthe top of the knot.

Figure 1. The form of the Prusik can be tiedas either an “open” climbing hitch. . .

Figure 2. . . . or as a “closed” climbinghitch. The open and closed versionsrespond differently, and some considerthe open and closed versions to betwo different knots.

APRIL 2007 www.isa-arbor.com 53

It was thought that the genealogy article was not clear enoughabout the (potentially fatal) errors in On Rope. When using theSchwabisch, the primary gripping takes place in the top of theknot—and the Schwabisch should be tied so that the majority ofthe turns are in the top of the knot. Both the text and the drawingsin the new revised edition of On Rope are incorrect.

On Rope also states that an asymmetric Prusik “. . . is a variationused when endless loop wrapping is not possible” (p. 53). But anendless loop is not necessary to make a symmetric Prusik. A symmetricPrusik can be formed with a length of cord and then the ends can betied-off, or with the end of a line as when used to form a climbinghitch on the end of a climbing line.

MichoacánThe genealogy articleshowed and described aclimbing hitch that hadrecently been intro-duced and with which Ihad not had a lot ofexperience. The namethat was used for theknot in the article wasMartin (pronouncedMar-TEEN) after MartinMorales, the climberwho introduced theknot.

Since publication ofthe article, I have had anopportunity to talk withMartin, who stated thatit was his desire to havethe knot called the Michoacán, after the state where he lived in Mex-ico. Other arborists had dubbed it the Martin because they haddifficulty pronouncing Michoacán. I will follow Martin’s wishes andcall it Michoacán (pronounced Mee-cho-a-CAN) (Figure 4).

I also have been able to use the knot extensively in varioussettings and with various combinations of hitch cord and climbingline. In the original article from April 2005, I showed the knot tiedwith four turns and the top leg tucked under one (the bottom) turn.I have found this to be fluid, responsive, and reliable. Some people,however (including Martin), have commented that the knot holdsbetter if there are five turns around the climbing line.

I have not experienced any problem with the knot slipping if itis properly tied, dressed, and set, but performance can vary dramat-ically depending on the length, type, diameter, and condition of thecord that is used for the split-tail, and on the type, diameter, andcondition of the climbing line. For example if the legs of the knot(indicated by the arrows in Figure 4) are the length shown in Fig-ure 4, the knot will be very loose and unpredictable.

The legs are long in Figure 4 only so that it is easy to see thewhole knot tied and “exploded.” In practice, I tie the cord so thatthe legs are very, very short. Every climber needs to check the com-patibility of the components of his or her own system before leavingthe ground (some other variables are discussed in the overviewarticle, p. 34).

On July 7, 2005, in a thread on the discussion forum of the Website TreeBuzz, Paolo Bavaresco mentioned that he was experiment-ing with a new hitch, which he called the Eye-Tie. On August 18,he described the hitch in detail and provided a link to his Web sitewhere a video gave step-by-step instructions for tying the knot(called the Eyetie on the Web site). The Eyetie hitch is exactly thesame as the Michoacán except that Bavaresco uses six turns for theEyetie instead of the four or five that are normally used for theMichoacán.

It is frequently difficult to see when one knot becomes anotherand deserves a new name. Making an additional turn around anobject; tying the knot with a loop, 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 ofthese may or may not be reason to give a knot a newname. In this case, it seems that the Eyetie and theMichoacán are the same knot, realized by differentarborists.

There are many variations of the climbing hitchesshown in the overview and genealogy articles. Aclimber can add, subtract, or change the direction ofwraps, braids, or twists to fine-tune any of thesehitches. There are also, at least in name, many otherclimbing hitches. Most, if not all, of them are variationsor interpretations of the knots shown in these articles.Regardless of which knot is used, it is important thateach climber learns to tie, dress, and set the knot prop-erly. It is equally important that each climber tests thecompatibility of all the components of the system beforeattempting to use the system in a tree. Please climb andwork safely.

References and CreditsAdams, Mark. 2004. An overview of climbing hitches.

Arborist News (October 2004) 13(5):29–35.Adams, Mark. 2005. Son of a hitch: A genealogy of climbing

hitches. Arborist News (April 2005) 14(2):51–54. Lehman, Dan. Personal communication. Morales, Martin. Personal communication. Smith, Bruce, and Allen Padgett. 1996. On Rope: North American

Vertical Rope Techniques (new revised edition). National Speleo-logical Society, Huntsville, AL.

Thrun, Robert. Personal communication.TreeBuzz Web site, www.treebuzz.com/index.php:

August 18, 2005: www.treebuzz.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB2&Number=29401&Searchpage=1&Main=29397&Words=marteen&topic=&Search=true#Post29401.

Tree Mettle Nexus Web site, www.treemettlenexus.com:Eyetie: www.treemettlenexus.com/class2.html.

The author would like to thank the reviewers of this article for theirhelpful suggestions.

All photos are courtesy of the author.

Mark Adams is an ISA Certified Arborist with Downey Trees, Inc., inAtlanta, Georgia, and an instructor with North American Training Solutions.

Figure 4. The Michoacán can be thought of as a “closed”version of Blake’s hitch. To form the Michoacán, the split-tailmakes four counterclockwise turns up the climbing line.The top leg is dropped in front of the bottom leg, behindthe climbing line, and up through the bottom turn. Bothlegs are then clipped to the carabiner. Some climbers preferto use five or six turns rather than the four shown here.

a genealogy of arborists’ climbing hitches, mark adams (isa, climbers' corner)

Education

climbing hitch releases

various climbing hitches

climbing line

hitch breaks

climber slides

higher work station

lower work station

new work station