[r-t] Method difficulty

Andrew Graham ajgraham42 at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 9 13:31:52 UTC 2005

This topic could run and run I think.  I find methods
'hard' (in the sense that they are hard to stay right
in) when they are featureless and unmemorable.  These
are quite often right place ones with lots of hunting
interspersed with occasional, seemingly semi-random,
dodges.  Think of Rutland Royal (if you can bear to). 
Also Stonebow from David Hull's 23-spliced.  And some
of us have problems with Ditchling don't we,
Spiky and unusual methods may take more learning (and
therefore in that sense be 'harder') but are easier to
stay right in as they somehow stick better in my mind.


--- Philip Earis <Earisp at rsc.org> wrote
> This has all aroused my curiosity.  Two questions: 
> 1) How many of the rung treble-dodging major methods
> have no symmetric
> sections? Can someone do a database trawl?  I
> suspect the answer is a
> very small fraction of the total number of rung
> methods.
> 2) What do people suggest is the 'hardest' t.d.
> major method that has
> all symmetric sections? Hardness is bit of a
> relative concept anyway, as
> I guess I'm making the assumptions that it will have
> conventional
> symmetry and regular leadheads.  So I guess the
> question is, what are
> candidates regular t.d. major methods with all
> symmetric sections that
> have the most varied lines/grids?

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list