[r-t] Methods and peals

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Mon Jan 23 20:07:45 UTC 2006

Hayden writes:

> So, the bulk of the CC's decisions are there to regulate peal ringing.
> Most of the ringing which takes place is not peal ringing and is
> therefore outside CC 'control' (for want of a better word).

On the surface of it this is true, but in fact it forgets what most people
forget: the method libraries.

In my view, the most important thing that the CC/MC does, and the thing that
has the biggest impact on ringers everywhere, is to maintain the method
libraries. OK, so you normally have to ring a peal to name a new method,
except for Minor and below, but very few people ring methods that haven't
been so named, and, almost without exception, everyone abides by the names
established in this manner.

With this in mind, the biggest impact of the MC's strictly exclusive rules,
is that methods that don't conform to their rules may get rung, but won't
get named, won't be available in the Microsiril/Abel/etc libraries, and
basically won't appear on the radar of ringers anywhere else. And it's worse
than that - even if a method is "allowed" by the MC, we have to put up with
their bizarre and unnatural classification system (e.g. "differential
hunters" - and don't say they're an oddity because lots of Doubles ringers
ring them now!).

We are also constrained by the MC's extension rules. Again, this effects all 
ringers, not just peal-ringers, because the MC "owns" the method libraries.

Leigh writes:

> I think the current "Decisions" should be split into two documents, one
> containing general bits-and-bobs, as well as the definition of what a
> "peal" is, and the other to contain guidelines and rules to describe the
> classification schemes for "methods."

I think this is an excellent idea, and is probably the way out of the
impasse: we would like to be very liberal about what is counted as a "peal",
and very general in our ability to classify "methods", but we don't
necessarily have to have the current situation with the same set of 
constraints on both.

One thing to take notice of is the reasoning behind some of the MC's
apparently arbitrary restrictions. We may not like them, but sometimes they
are there to ensure that things can only be reported one way, for instance
to make sure no-one can break the record for spliced by ringing "cheat"
compositions with, say, only bobbed leads of Cambridge and Primrose. I'm not
sure whether that's a good example, but there is stuff in the Decisions with
that general thrust. Sure, take away the restriction, but I guess we need to
double-check how many cherished and hard-fought record peals might be
invalidated by doing so, and perhaps redraft to protect them.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list