[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Fri Aug 8 12:37:28 UTC 2008

Mark Davies wrote:

> 1. Enough changes. We could debate what that is, but to me allowing less
> than 5040 for Triples devalues quite a lot of change-ringing history.
> Suddenly you can ring a peal of bobs-only Grandsire. No!

Like Iain, I don't have a problem with shorter peals of 
triples, such as the 5039 he outlines.  I thought that my 
versions of Don's definitions captured this well by having 
two concepts: true and complete.  A true 5040 of triples is 
true and complete; Iain's 5039 of triples is true but not 

I'm quite happy with them both being called peals, but we 
now have labels with which to distinguish the types of 
peals.  The PAC could be required to keep track of the two 
separately, for example.

And anyway, you can ring bobs-only Grandsire in the current 
framework -- you just have to use a mixture of 3rds and 5ths 
place bobs, or use some other trick.

> 3. Comprised of changeringing methods. A peal of call changes is not a
> changeringing peal.

I'll agree that a peal of call changes is not a change 
ringing peal.  But I don't see why it can't be a call change 
peal, and therefore still a peal.

> A peal where someone follows the same bell for the 
> duration is not a changeringing peal for that ringer.

I'm not sure I agree.  I think covering over the same bell 
throughout a peal, while maintaining a good rhythm and a 
high standard of striking, would be harder, not easier, than 
covering over a whole sequence of different bells as in an 
normal peal.  (And I think it would be even harder still if 
you were the bell sandwiched in between the tenor and the 

> Now we want to relax a lot of pointless rules, to allow more innovation in
> method ringing, and better classification of methods than the ballsed-up
> system we have at the moment. However to me it is chiefly the rules around
> *methods* that must be liberalised, and a descriptive approach taken with
> them. High standards should remain for peals - those which are going to be
> accepted as peals by the changeringing community.

But you've already accepted that you cannot legislate for 
that.  If a band of numpties turn up and crash through 
three-and-a-half hours of Lyddington Max at Cornhill -- so 
basically, shit bells, a shit method, and a shit band -- 
no-one has a problem calling this a peal.

But if a relatively isolated band manages to ring its first 
local-band peal -- and the first peal for a number of its 
participants -- but they ring doubles with 768 behind 
throughout, that would be a real achievement.  But under the 
current decisions, and yours, it wouldn't be peal (or 
wouldn't be for the ringers of 6 and 8: I'm a little unclear 
about that).

On a number of occassions, the idea has been mooted of 
making quarter peals recognised by the CC.  One of the 
strongest objections to this, and one with which I currently 
sympathise, is that this would make quarters subject to the 
CC decisions.  But fundamentally, I whole-heartedly support 
recognition of quarter peals -- it seems wrong that the CC 
devotes so much energy to something that only 10% of ringers 
do, while ignoring what the majority (probably) do.

We need the definition of 'true' to sufficiently flexible 
that it does not rule out things that are currently rung in 
quarter peals, because it would be very confusing for 'true' 
to mean different things in the contexts of quarters and of 


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list