Bends

Dan_Lehman · 9 December 2013 18:55

;D
Yes, okay, I owe you.
But go back to that “symmetric fig.9” end-2-ender
(by which I mean using Ashley’s #525 stopper form)
which I equated to THIS #1425 interlocking of two
overhand (~= 9-1 ) and you advised me not to try
to win others to this notion of equivalence !
The eyeknot makes half-way redress of my casual
equivalence in that the SPart’s through path to eye
leg IS a symmetric fig.9, leaving only the tail
to have a convenient abbreviation to overhand.

In the attached photo of the (snugly set) stopper form
of #525, consider the left end as the S.Part and
segment-1, flowing anti-clockwise into (next visibly
delineated) segment-2a..-2b (“b” end of segment-2
diving back through a loop), and down to the bottom
segment-3, which penetrates the loop formed by 1-2
to continue as segment-4 and exit into right-side eye.

For the “TIB” eyeknot(s), form 1-2 and then
make a bight of the working end and lay the tail leg
alongside the span from s-2 to 2-3 (so, vertical, given
photo’s orientation). NB : 3 options occur here :
the tail leg can be to the left, or to the right & in
front of 2b-2a, or … behind; in all cases, the tail leg
is adjacent the S.Part part 2b-3, vertically oriented.

Now, simply complete the tying of the shown single-strand
stopper but using this just-formed bight. The tail-side of
the eye flows into an overhand and the S.Part’s full
passage into the eye forms the fig.9 ; I regard #1425
as capturing the spirit of this general knotted geometry,
of the loaded part passing though those “binding wraps”
and up around parts, and not pulling directly against each
other. (One could of course tie #525 with a bight and so
have a fully “sym.fig.9” eye knot; but I see benefit to
keeping the tail side from making the full journey. It
can even be that the tail’s path is further shortened,
to a mere turn, but … . .:. horses for courses.

–dl*

Dan_Lehman · 9 December 2013 19:12

Why did I post my image?
The orange & white #1425 by Xarax serves better!
Again, simply see, e.g., the right side as where the
eye will be, and then have the orange tail trace
farther along the white strand out into this space
(fusing itself to the white to close the eye beyond
the photo’s reach). And the 3 versions can be
seen as keeping that white tail left of the orange
or moving it on either side of the orange strand
to position it just to the right.

The goal of this eyeknot is to be easily tied (esp.
easy when TIB) and secure when slack AND easily
untied. I found that when loaded to break force
in HMPE cord that it was no longer easy to untie
(I have not tried, as I want to preserve the surviving
knot --opposite one in test specimen broke–, but I
can see that it will be --at best-- (very) hard to loosen;
in HMPE, force flowed extensively along the SPart
and drew that binding wrap extremely tight!)

–dl*

xarax · 9 December 2013 20:55

If THIS is how ABoK#525 [i]leads/i to something, anything can lead to anything else !
I do not see any significant saving, in relation to the amount of the material required/consumed, in anything “abbreviated”/ “simpler” ( but, in fact, conceptually, much more complex ! ) than the full retraced ABoK#525. However, this double-line ABoK#525 nub can be dressed in many ways ( as all those knots where the lines of each link follow adjacent and parallel paths, so that they can be twisted = rotated around each other ), and its bulk is 100% offset, regarding the loading axis the eyeknot. I do not like this unbalanced - to say the least - form ( a fact mentioned by Ashley, too : “the stem is a bit off center”).
A “similar”, but more axially balanced eyeknot, generated by retracing a symmetric stopper ( ABoK#582 )( “similar”, in the sense that we retuck the bight through the nub of the basic overhand knot stopper twice, in order to make the knot less prone to jamming - and, possibly, as a by-product=bonus, increase the diameter of the Standing part s first curve, too ) is shown at (1).

( I repost the picture of ABoK#525, and of the symmetric stopper ( ABoK#582) , the retracing of which generates the “Full” loop shown at (1) - and a detail of a picture of transformations of the fig.9 knot, shown at (2), to help - so to speak…- the reading=deciphering of the previous posts… :). See also (3)(4). For further inquiries, visit (5))

Luca · 10 December 2013 02:05

Hi Dan,

I’m beginning to suspect that i’m using a wrong method when I run my slipped Reef knots to tie my shoes …
In order of the successful realization of the bend,is not important to keep this crossing between the standing parts that is created when the bights are placed one above the other;at the end of the tying, the standing parts can safely exchange the right / left directions(with respect of as shown in my diagrams) in which to be pulled in order to properly tighten the knot.
See 2)..
It does not seem very different from how it is done using the “b&q” method for the Zeppelin or the Hunter’s.
I guess would depend on the material and the greater or lesser rigidity and/or the diameter of the rope used: in my experience all capsizes and dresses nicely and the knot assumes a compact form (almost without any slack ..) in a spontaneous way,only by pulling on the tails.
8)

Uh..thanks! NOW I know that I’m really a Sr. Member!

There are methods to tie knots that are more respectful of the real structure of the final product, and that better help to understand this structure,and also help to create a sistematic basis from which to realize all the possible variations of a given model (OK , I explained badly: let’s say your method to achieve the four variations of the DL locked Bowline and the three bights method by xarax are examples of what I’m trying to explain).
These are the methods that xarax, following what he writes here ( http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4698.msg30357#msg30357 ), perhaps would define as “natural”.The method proposed by me for # 1425 is perhaps not very educational/explanatory for the knot tyer in this sense, and therefore can be considered as “magic”;in the sense of: “Et voila!”, and the audience is surprised without understanding what has actually happened..
This is surely a limit of this method (but a certain systematicity is still applicable here as well,;after all, the method is a variation of the “magic” method for #1425a described in the ABoK (which I find to be susceptible to errors(that can lead to different knots/variations)to a greater extent with respect of the method in question..)

These things relate to the private sphere of the knot tyer .. but confidentially I tell you that,with regard to these interlinked Overhands-based bends(when I’m alone,and I have not seen by anyone( :-[ )),personally I act as you describe only if I am forced (mostly in the case of the realization of end- loop versions of these bends(which, this is true, implies at least two methods for each bend to learn ..)).

Thank you, now I’ve got an idea ..or maybe not?(In his drawings Ashley perhaps has not proposed something like that?)

I thought that only I had this problem! (Given the scarcity of ropes that I own!)

                                                                                                                            Bye!

xarax · 10 December 2013 10:46

Unfortunately, knot tyers ( well, most of them…) are not interested in anything “systematic”… I have tried to show how, starting from a reef or a thief knot or a Carrick mat “base”, one can tie many interlocked-overhand-knot bends, some of them being unknown, but in vein…(1)(2)(3)

(retucking the Reef knot ) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19380#msg19380
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2826.msg19395#msg19395
( retucking a particular Carrick mat ) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3086.msg18601#msg18601
( #8-shaped links ) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3148.0
( retucking the Thief knot ) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3611.0

Now, here is an interesting challenge for the young and/or senior member : With the one rope, form the overhand knot shape, in all its four variations ( this shape has 3 crossings, so, starting from the first one and keeping it unchanged, one can tie 2 x 2 different Pretzel-shaped “bases” - one of them is the overhand knot itself, and the other three are Pretzel-shaped bases topologically equivalent to the unknot ). Then, with the end of the other rope, trace all the different paths through the three openings of this shape : enter into any of them from any of the two sides, exit from the other side and then enter into another, and so on. WHICH of those paths generate symmetric bends ? How many are they ?
Of course, this is half the required job… :), because the overhand knot itself, and the overhand knot shape, in general, can have the other, nice, symmetric #8 - shaped form ( shown in the attached picture ). The procedure described previously should be applied to this shape, too. It has 4 crossings, so the possible variations of the first “base” are 2 x 2 x 2 = 8. The end of the other rope has now four openings, so the total number of all possible paths is bigger.
THAT is a systematic basis to realize all the possible variations of the “overhand knot shape” model…

Symmetric form of the overhand knot.JPG

Dan_Lehman · 12 December 2013 16:06

One might posit that as a theorem (if A-thing then A-else),
but, really, this particular “symmetric fig.9” form --and in
an older thread on this site, I give the equivalence between
#521, 525, and another-- surely presents a 2/3 of itself
the common overhand form. And it does so just as
does #1425; the continuation that one would give to this
end-2-end knot to completely realize the #525 components
is simple, by a tracing. (Now, Ashley’s image is less than
compelling; and #525 is loaded asymmetrically, qua stopper.)

I do not see any significant saving, in relation to the amount of the material required/consumed, in [i]anything[/i] [i]"abbreviated"/ "simpler"[/i] ( but, in fact, conceptually, much more complex ! ) than the full retraced ABoK#525.

Then it must be by choice (that you don't see)! The abbreviation in the [u]eyeknot[/u] --which has but *half* of the full [i]#525[/i]-- enables the trio of positions of the tail's part, and in all cases omits need to figure how to trace farther along --which additional extent would contribute little to the knot (but would present the tail for simple binding (tape, hog ring, seizing) to the S.Part).

And you do note the possibilities:

However, this double-line ABoK#525 nub can be dressed in many ways

but go wrong re "offset" --that "binding wrap" part surrounds the axis of tension.

and [u]its bulk is 100% offset[/u], regarding the loading axis the eyeknot.

Further, you seem to be confusing stopper & eyeknot:

I do not like this unbalanced - to say the least - form ( a fact mentioned by Ashley, too : [i]"the stem is a bit off center"[/i]).

The stopper, btw, made in e.g. a hand-over-hand climbing rope (exercise, otherwise), or as a placement marker in a dockline (I've seen such nub uses), has the advantage of being non-jamming, and possibly (?) stronger than the common [i]overhand[/i].

–dl*

xarax · 12 December 2013 19:31

You had presented more than one “symmetric” form of the fig.9 “stopper” ( see the attached picture, for the most interesting of them ), but, personally, I do not find any of them very stable ( i.e, very suitable), as a “basis” of an eyeknot - in comparison to the topologically more complex, that is true, but geometrically more symmetric ( so, in a sense, more “simple” ) ABoK#582 “stopper”. Ashley missed the monumental opportunity to utilize this “naturally” symmetric “stopper” in the case of a bend ( the Zeppelin bend, of course - perhaps the biggest mistake in his knotting life, IMHO ), we should not retrace his omission in the case of an eyeknot - although the derived bulky/portland knot (1) can not be compared to the Zeppelin beauty.

I do not say that it there is no abbreviation, I say that this abbreviation is : a, NOT 50% ( so, not half, with any number of asterisks…), and, b : it is not worth the conceptual complexity the asymmetry on top of an already naturally-asymmetric stopper adds, compared the conceptually simpler fully retraced ABoK#525. On the one hand you do subtract some parts of the knot that are not very important to its working as an eyeknot, indeed, but on the other hand you add complexity, in the form of the attention during tying and dressing, compared to the simple / dumb task of just tying a full double line = TIB ABoK#525 eyeknot in no time. ( Because I suppose we are interested in tying this eyeknot as TIB, most of the time, so we do not need to “figure how to trace futher along”.) Moreover, I claim that the retraced ABoK#582, although topologically more complex, is nevertheless geometrically more symmetric ( so, more “simple”) and thus more suitable to serve as an eyeknot .

I used the word “stopper” to denote the middle line knot which is loaded from both ends / sides that has this topology, not the end-of-line form which is loaded from the one end /side. How else can one name such a knot ? I was just talking about the TIB eyeknot made by a double = two line “stopper”, or by a retraced “stopper”, in that sense. Whatever happens to this midline “stopper”, happens to the eyeknot derived from this “stopper” - if the bulk of the material of the former is offset, regarding the axis of loading, the later is offset, too. In other words, the more symmetric, carefully dressed forms you had presented of the ABoK#525 are not very stable, and the less symmetric, “natural”, self-dressed forms are not symmetric enough to serve as a 'basis" of an eyeknot. Tie the retraced ABoK#582, without even thinking of similar “abbreviations” ! ( which are tempting there, too…) :).

{ I have a folder, in my computer, labelled “Beautiful knots”. There are some very simple and slim knots there ( the Tumbling Thief, the Zeppelin and the Double Harness bends, the Double Locked and the Single Locked Cow hitches, the Gleipnir binder, the simple and the double simple-hitches-a-la-Gleipnir, the TackleClamp hitch, the 8-8 loop, the Helical Constrictor loop ), but there are also some more complex and not-so-slim ones ( The Oyster, the Strangle and the Illusion bends, the Lee s locked, the Alpineer s TIB, the Lee s C, the Tweedledee and the double=two collar Water bowlines, the pseudo-Zeppelin loop .) I had recently added the retraced ABoK#582 eyeknot, as shown in (1) - although it will never loose the weight it should, I am afraid… }

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4715.0

xarax · 14 December 2013 01:55

I think that we should had expected the instability of this particular symmetric form of the Fig.9 “stopper”, given that the corresponding ( I claim I “see” a genuine correspondence here…) symmetric form of the Fig.8 "stopper’ ( the Pretzel-like one, shown at the attached picture, generated by a symmetric cut of the closed 4.1 knot ) is also not very stable. After all, as I had noticed at (1), there is a unexplained pairing between the Fig.8 and the Fig.9., then a gap, which should not be there ! ( and so it should had been expected that it was not expected…) and then a pairing between the Fig.10 and the Fig 11.
A first explanation for this instability was attempted at (2) - where one can also see a picture of the retraced Fig.9 knot.

When this oblique / diagonal element passes straight through, and in between, the two interlinked overhand-knot-shaped parts of the knot, as in ABoK#582, and not around them, on the surface of the nub, as in ABoK#525, this problem disappears.

NotSure · 18 December 2013 19:11

xarax post:6:

I suspect that the so-called “Well Pipe hitch” ( a grandiose name for a mediocre knot ) is the less clever hitch there can be in this Universe : just many wraps, and two half hitches at the end : an ingenious knotting “solution”, indeed ! However, I am not sure about this. What I am sure about, is that with 12 wraps and ANY means of connecting the Tail end to the Standing end, there can be NO hitch that will fail to do what the “Well Pipe hitch” - or, for that matter, ANY other known hitch - can do… How one can be “a king”, when the job he does could have been done by anybody in his kingdom ? On the other hand, that explains why most kings, once they grip the sceptre, they succeed to not let it slip through their hands - their job is as easy, and perhaps easier, than of any other subject of their kingdom ! In other words, with 12 wraps, there is no hitch that will let the Pipe fall into the Well …
Most knotting problems either they have many absolutely correct solutions, or they have none - and bends, i.e., end-to-end knots, are no exception to this rule. Now, I believe the following is a legitimate question to ask : If, in some cataclysm, all of knotting knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one bend passed on to the next generation of creatures, which bend would it be ? I believe it should be the Zeppelin bend.

You don’t need 12 wraps for the Well-pipe Hitch, 2 or 3 will suffice, LOL. Obviously though, the more turns you use the greater the friction gripping power will be.

I like the Well-Pipe Hitch specifically because it is entirely composed of simple wraps. This maximizes the surface area for friction contact as opposed to a cross-lashing or “cross-gartering” scenario (which raises a significant portion of the rope away from the surface to be gripped). See this thread on the KC Hitch here for an extreme example on the cross-lashing effect:

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=542.0

And knot4u’s successful rebuttal to it here (that is, if you were to test each hitch with the identical length of rope used to form them - meaning more friction turns and surface contact will be available for a non-cross-gartering style of hitch):

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=542.msg17072#msg17072
AND http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1889.msg13675#msg13675

And yes, xarax, you could indeed use any knot to finish it off. In fact, most of the time I’m inclined to use my favorite finisher, an inverted Sailor’s Hitch tied to it’s own standing part (instead of the 2 half hitches/clove hitch to finish it). Which brings me to my next thought:

While a hitch would suffice to join 2 greatly dissimilar sized lines together, it is also mostly a uni-directional affair and not terribly secure when loaded in different directions or when loading the tails. For a very secure connection, 2 loop knots interconnected will do, OR 2 anchor hitches.

Check it out! When 2 Sailors Hitches (inverted to Clifford Ashley’s portrayal of #1231) are linked together, it makes a very secure, 4-way loadable, and super, super easy to untie connection regardless of any extreme loading applied and/or wet/frozen rope/fingers. 8)

On a side note, I must say that I try very hard to avoid tying anything of a “Zeppelin/Rosendahl” or even “figure 8” type of knot whenever possible. I find those knots are incredibly hard to untie when sufficiently loaded. There are almost always better options for the task at hand. The ONLY exception to this preference of mine would be for when I have trust issues and want to inspect (from 50 feet away :o) a knot that somebody else tied for me…

roo · 18 December 2013 19:36

The Zeppelin Bend shouldn’t be difficult to untie after a hard load. If you need a bend that can be untied while the line is still under heavy tension, you might try a Trigger Bend.

Dan_Lehman · 19 December 2013 18:48

???
If you mean untying literally “when sufficiently loaded,”
then I’d agree; but I want to know what sort of tasks
require such untying? What tasks do you do that cannot
so well accept these conventional knots/solutions?

Otherwise, if you mean only that if the knots had been
subjected to heavy loading and then --when slack–
are meant to be untied, then this isn’t true : one should
find most of the interlocked-overhands end-2-end knots
adequately easy to untie --esp. the zeppelin!

–dl*

NotSure · 20 December 2013 19:21

Gosh, I was afraid that last comment of mine might ruffle a few feathers. Yes, I absolutely mean when you load the living daylights out of it, then remove the load and attempt to untie (especially if you include 4-way loading for that bugger). If you guys were truly honest with your comparisons, then you’d agree that there are other knots that are significantly easier to untie afterward under the same harsh conditions.

All I intended to say was that while knots like the Zeppelin or Fig 8s may be popular, in my opinion, they should not be the ideal knots to pass on to future generations when those type of knots’ primary intent is for a temporary fastening. Temporary, to my mind, is all about being untied afterward and the ease thereof.

I think the whole problem here is that “easy” or “difficult” may be very subjective terms. Some people have a much higher pain tolerance and/or patience and/or finger dexterity than me (especially perhaps when that person has been accustomed to regularly untying even harder knots like Ashley’s #1408, 1425, & 1452, for instance :o).

I also have come to realize that untying ease is not everybody’s priority. Yes, situations can require some other aspect prioritized over this, such as ease of inspection (trust issues) or economy of rope usage (short ropes), but for the most part - who really wants to work harder at doing something than they absolutely have to? So when I stated that there are almost always better options than those type of knots, perhaps I crossed the line… My apologies to those I may have slighted.

Festy · 20 December 2013 20:22

Hi Notsure,

What simple-to-tie bend is easier to untie than the Zeppelin?

The ‘Secure Carrick’ is not that simple to tie or even to remember to tie, personally speaking of course.

F

roo · 20 December 2013 20:56

This is getting stranger all the time. The free ends of bends are almost never loaded at all, let alone heavily loaded.

Luca · 20 December 2013 23:31

Hi NotSure,

Maybe some highly symmetric,and unstable bend such as the false Zeppelin( http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1992.msg13968#msg13968 ),potentially Jamming under normal load,can find a balance when used for this unusual task,at least if loaded more or less the same way from the four ends (and it should be stronger than any bend based on two simply interlinked loops).

                                                                                           _ _ _ _ _ _

Hi Festy,

The Zeppelin bend (normally loaded) seems a great compromise between safety (I’m parroting ..), stability, and ease of untying;a bend that is perhaps even farther away from the risk of jamming can be the top side twist falsely tied Hunter’s bend( http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19163#msg19163 )(and maybe also the top side twist true Hunter’s bend!).

                                                                                                            Bye!

Luca · 21 December 2013 01:16

The first diagram below represents a sort of “basic” highly symmetric Overhands-based bend that, making the appropriate changes, can lead to what I think to be the Tweedlum bend(the third diagram)( http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3672.msg21235#msg21235 ),I wonder if,between the three, the more unstable, under normal two ends loading ,“basic” version,is the best suited for the unusual four ends equally distribuited loading task?(well, there is also the question of the angles of this four ends loading ..)

                                                                                                             Bye!

higly symmetric overhand bends.gif

Dan_Lehman · 21 December 2013 18:24

The topic of this thread is “bends”, by which it is meant
“end-2-end knots” (hence, not the fisherman’s bend).
And while there can be subjective differences between
what is considered “easy”, etc., it is less defensibly so
in the relative terms “easier”. And the knots that you
claim to be difficult to untie above are ones that can be
shown to be fairly easily untied after loading to break
point (i.e., 2 knots in test specimen of the same kind,
and one breaks while the other survives the test)!!
And, of these, the zeppelin & #1408 are especially
easy to untie.

(especially if you include 4-way loading for that bugger).

So, now we see your only excuse for such surprising
assertions : you want not end-2-end knots, but net knots!?
Well, okay, yes, changing the game so that all ends
area loaded will change the outcome, here. Note that
“loading all ends” can mean different things : it might
matter the order of loading, and so on; if all are evenly
loaded, carefully, one can do well with the sheet bend
which is the most common net knot; loaded with some
variation, that knot can assume a different geometry
(it tends to be one in which the “collar” is more tightly
drawn than in the end-2-end and eye knot (bowline).

All I intended to say was that while knots like the Zeppelin or Fig 8s may be popular, in my opinion, they should not be the ideal knots to pass on to future generations when those type of knots' primary intent is for a temporary fastening. Temporary, [i]to my mind[/i], is all about being untied afterward and the ease thereof. // ... who really wants to work harder at doing something than they absolutely have to?

Okay for "temporary", but you have hardly a common need in looking to all-ends loading. I asked previously, What are the tasks for which an all-ends-loaded ("net") knot is needed, that you find common end-2-end knots lacking? To this one should also add "... and which need untying!" --for although I can think of making netting a need for a net knot, I don't see untying it at all in the picture. (Recently, I did some fiddling with a basketball net; that only amounted to tying off its connection-to-rim bights with [i]overhand eyeknots[/i] so to keep them attached and to limit movement ~=> reduce wear, extend life.)

After all, if one is going to pass on to some future
generation of people a single knot, it should be one
that is reasonably expected to meet their knotting
needs. Having some knot that can arguably do any
thing, and thus one thing better than any other,
but which does the most commonly needed things
poorly, is not a good proposition.

–dl*

xarax · 6 January 2014 21:17

I counted the wraps of the “Well-Pipe hitch” presented by Ashley and you - and I found that my fingers were not sufficiently many ! LOL
THAT is the problem with this knot : it works by ADDITION ! The more wraps you add, the better it works - and, frankly, I can not consider such a knot as a sufficiently clever one. It may well work - but ANY tangle of rope, if it is convoluted enough, works… We are searching for something more sophisticated, as a knotting mechanism, than the mere juxtaposition of wraps, don’t we ?

I like the fact that you are searching for the truth, so you will find it very soon, I am sure.
First, the comments about the KC Hitch, as well as the comments by Ashley himself, are completely wrong in the case the underlying / penetrating material is soft - if it is a rope and not a pole. Read the thread about the rat-tail stopper, where I had explained the great difference in detail. So, I am NOT speaking about the ABoK#1755 - 1756 or the KC hitch, because the crossing of the wraps does not work on a rigid material. However, around a compressible material, as a rope is, it works miraculously - and it is not by accident that the strongest hitch around a rope, used by sailors during mooring, is the rat-tail stopper.
So, we can agree that the most efficient solution for a gripping hitch is the mechanism provided by one or more wraps around the pole, indeed. Now, here comes the point it seems to me that you have not yet understood. PROVIDED that we have a number of wraps, WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO so that those wraps can be helped to work better ? Read the last sentence again, please. THOSE wraps, not those wraps AND some others, added on top of them ! Because, if we follow this not-so-clever "solution’, we will soon find that a sufficiently great number of wraps can hold any rope, however heavily loaded, on the surface of any pole, however slippery ! Of course, there will be always people that believe the solution of every problem is quantitative - just sacrifice more material, be it made of rope or bodies of soldiers, and you are going to prevail ! If we accept this “solution”, we will soon be satisfied with TWO knots, and two knots only ! MANY half hitches, the one after the other, will solve any problem which involves bends and loops. And MANY wraps, the one on top of the other, will solve any problem which involves hitches, able to withstand a right angle pull. or a lengthwise pull. Thousands of years of knotting would seem to be nothing but thousands of wasted years…
Well, personally I have not been able to reach this point - at least, not yet ! I believe that there are many more clever knotting mechanisms that are able to MULTIPLY the knotting ability of ropes, not just ADD it.
To return to the original question : To help the friction forces between THOSE wraps and the pole, we can increase the pressure by which the wraps grip the pole. That is what the clever hitches do, with the one way or the other, and the not-so-clever hitches, like the infamous so-called “Well-Pipe hitch” do not.
So, given two gripping hitches ( around poles ), with the same number of wraps, the best hitch would be the one where those wraps would be wrapped around the pole in the more efficient way - and this depends upon how TIGHTYLY those wraps wold be wrapped.

There is no " Sailor s hitch " - first, because no sailor ever used it ( and no sailor will ever use it, of course…), and, second, because it has another name ! Read the ABoK ! Anyway, it is but a mediocre hitch proposed by Ashley, which has been advertised under this hilarious brand name by other people…