[r-t] Change Proposal to CC Decisions - on peal lengths

Graham John graham at changeringing.co.uk
Fri Jun 23 23:32:40 UTC 2006

Here are a few observations on the responses to my suggested rule change:-

1. There appear to be a few on this list who have an emotional attachment to
5040s. It is difficult for me to tell how representative these views are, as
too many are silent*. Although people see the reduction to 5000 for Triples
and below as a challenge to historical and mathematical precedent, I feel
that people would quickly get used to it. I also feel that it in no way
diminishes the achievements of the Grandsire and Stedman composers in
producing extents of Triples.

2. PJE wants to get rid of most of the decisions, yet even a slight
relaxation such as this worries people!  

3. David's point about 5040 being a more logical minimum length, because
ringing is based on a factorial not a decimal base, is a good one. However
previous generations didn't think like this and decided that 5000 was enough
on 8 bells and above. I'm not sure where quarterpeals fit into the factorial
family either.

4. Is Andrew's and MBD's worry about legalised "cheating" in peals of
Triples really a concern? It is unlikely to occur any more frequently than
it does in peals of Major and up today. 

5. My principle reason for proposing a reduction in length to 5000 was to
make the decisions on peals equally applicable to quarterpeals, and
consistent on all stages. If we agree to permit 5080 Doubles to count as a
peal but not 5000, it doesn't seem logical to me (i.e. 42 extents + 1 course
is OK, but not 41 extents + 2 courses).

I would add that I have no personal motive in suggesting this change, as I
ring hardly any quarters, have no intention of ringing more than 40320 of
Major, and I very rarely ring peals on stages below Major. I do, however,
believe that it would address the quarterpealer's complaint about
recognition, improve consistency in the decisions, and provide a new
direction for composers on lower numbers to concentrate their attention. I
recognise that one downside, of course, is the increased level of work for
the Methods Committee as the ability to name methods in quarters is likely
to significantly increase the volume of new (and palpably worthless)


*If you support the amendments, please let the list (or me if you are shy)

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list