[Bell Historians] Ringing chamber floor size.

[Alan Buswell]

CJP makes some useful comments and food for thought. As to what is or is not a mini/lightweight ring could well be defined. Dove-online listing includes weights of 1/2cwt and upwards while the Mini Ring Directory includes weights up to about 2cwt. There seems to be an overlap. The former list is important to me as it forms part of my quarter peal analysis. The remainder are lightweight.

AAJB

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chris Pickford 
  To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Ringing chamber floor size.


    

  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

  CP


             
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20100128/7da2b12d/attachment.html>