[Bell Historians] Ringing chamber floor size.

Chris Pickford c.j.pickford.t21 at T7a5G9E-YDm8bruoKSOFueSB8fXuIQnsTj4TIswxD4FG9RuiPvCxhRKtusSCjRtHyDtlEziIQpJacIiURPpinDT8-MWi4xw.yahoo.invalid
Wed Jan 27 12:22:02 GMT 2010

DRL says "In the end it seems that people just know which are the minirings and which are not".

I'd second that. Verbal definition is tricky if not impossible, but there would seem to be a broad consensus as to which are mini-rings and which are not. 

Introducing a ruling would only give rise to a new sport - fun maybe (like the Basingstoke nine-bell controversies of the past) - of teasing the rule-makers with challenges as to what lies either side of the dividing line.

On the one hand if you don't try to differentiate then you don't need to worry about what's what - ringing is the same whether it's on a mini-ring or a conventional one. On the other hand, there seems little doubt to me than mini-ringing is different - requiring alternative skills and presenting different challenges. There is quite a strong case, in my view, for placing performances on mini-rings (however informally defined) in a different category for purposes of reporting, statistics and for "record lengths". 

Not lesser or greater, not superior or inferior - just different

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20100127/ac1a5ea0/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list