The IGKT was chartered upon the coincidence of many knot-interested correspondents
commenting upon (what I prefer to call…) “SmitHunter’s Bend” making front page news
of the London Times (in the good ol’ days pre-RupertMurdoch, alas now sucking up
another venerable paper of the Fourth Estate (WSJ). Such was the expressed interest
and enthusiasm for various aspects of knotting that Geoffrey Budworth & Des Pawson
thought to try for longevity of interest and founded the IGKT, convening a charter meeting
of over two dozen. So, the IGKT has this informal, grass-roots origin; it can be, within
reason, what it wants to be, dependent upon membership, effort, et cetera. Perhaps there
are some knot-worthy things it, itself, cannot do by reason of its legal status; but it might
play some role in moving others in whatever direction.
I would like to think that the IGKT had a bit more weight as an authority or group with a comprehensive knowledge of knots in general.
Is the IGKT affiliated with other groups?
Is the group actively promoting itself?
To my experience, learning about knotting has proven more challenging than I expected, with there
being less information concerning them to be reviewed/absorbed, and greater problems in making
headway. One the [i]practical knotting[/i] side of things, I submit that the increased diversity of knottable
material increases the complexity of knots, and has yet to be generally well appreciated. (Even within
a relatively homogeneous medium of monofilament fishing lines w/rated strengths of "20#" (and also
some braided lines), the current/just-passed? (August, IIRC) issue of Sport Fishing carries (editer?)
Doug Olander's testing of MANY lines in 3 knots--Bimini Twist, Palomar, & an Albright-like bight hitch--,
and with surprising results: strengths ranging from about 45%(!) to 110%(!!), and this of the TESTED
strength, which he nicely compares with the vendor [i]rated[/i] strength. And, yes, he acknowledges
the anomaly of apparent line [i]strengthening[/i] of the >100% breaks and even did repeated testing,
because he couldn't believe them. Alas, I don't think he reveals his test configuration. --haven't but
scanned the article.
The point re the above test report is to show a marked difference between that apparent reality
and what one will likely read in most published works on fishing knots. There's SOMEthing to be
learned here (either re knots & materials, or test methods (and sometimes reporting))!
As for IGKT influence, there might be something that can be done vis-a-vis international standards (ISO,
e.g.) and knot nomenclature and definition (something akin to the registry mentioned), so that members
of various communities can give information less ambiguously/confusingly. In many of its application areas,
knotting seems to be treated without much weight or broad awareness or focus. The IGKT might help to
increase focus/awareness. (Hence my elsewhere urging for the PAB group to seek more to learn from
those fishermen w/whom they’ll share the festival stage with than in simply presenting the decorative
works they are familiar with. The PAB newsletter has carried a few van de Griend articles about fishing
knots–i.p., one on “side knots”–; some further research of this knotting will help show similarities/differences
between regions, and varieties of knots & materials employed. (I’ve not encountered the Ossel hitch as a
side knot, e.g., but have the (reverse–in tying) Ground-line hitch, and an Overhand w/Half-hitches put on
behind. What is seen on the West Coast boats?)
–dl*