[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

[Ted Steele]

Iain Anderson wrote:
>  
>  Would you be willing to defend my opinion that the false royal is a peal provided
> I can find 9 other like-minded individuals?
>   
Certainly, but it would be a false peal and therefore not counted with 
the true ones. There are and always have been false peals rung; the 
falseness has not stopped them being called peals but just prevented 
them being formally counted with true ones. Even today one occasionally 
reads of a peal rung years before being withdrawn because it has been 
found to be false. Has such a peal been a peal during the years in 
between and suddenly ceased to be? Of course not; it has only been 
withdrawn from the record of true peals. Books and journals on ringing 
contain numerous records of false peals being rung so in a way it is not 
even true to say that they are not recorded and recognised as 
worthwhile, and sometimes groundbreaking achievements in their own right 
but of course their is no consistent recording or formal recognition. At 
one time and perhaps still, Willie Thorne had made more maximum breaks 
by far at snooker than any other player. However he was not recognised 
as the leader because most had been made in practise. Many athletes have 
achieved personal bests or even exceeded established records in training 
but the formal records demand that they be set in competition. How we 
set standards for formal recording of our achievements is entirely 
subjective and quite arbitrary but history has led to them being 
accepted as fair.