[r-t] Old methods

[Robin Woolley]

Richard Smith is quite correct when he remarks on Duckworth being believed
to be the author of Tintinnalogia. I noticed that Marcus du Sautoy in his
latest book makes this mistake. It is, unfortunate, that any error such as
this can become the 'received version'. (The online version gets it wrong
too!) He also states (effectively) that singles are required to obtain an
extent of Grandsire Triples (i.e., changing the odd/even sequence of the
changes). This of course is also not true. WH Thompson was asked as to
whether an extent could be obtained by common bobs alone - thus preserving
the odd/even sequence of the changes. Thompson said no, but Holt had already
used 'in-course' singles to produce extents. (See p56 of Change Ringing
History vol 3.)

It seems there is some misunderstanding of the current CC Decisions. Since
2002, the Council has NOT *recognised* any peal whatsoever. Since then,
there are two types of peal-length performance. Those which comply with the
Decisions and those which do not. Those that do are 'included in the
analysis' - which to most intents and purposes means inclusion in the table,
published this year at CC supplement page 478. Those which don't are listed
separately with details of their non-compliance. This fulfils Oscar Wilde's
dictum concerning the only thing worse than being talked about! (Compliant
peals are effectively not talked about.)

It must be remembered that the original Decisions were based on what was
seen to be acceptable to most ringers at the time. If 8 blows at lead were
generally acceptable say 100 years ago, the Decisions would allow them now.
Quite clearly, there is no general clamour to ring these methods which Eddie
Martin lists. Richard mentions London Pleasure. The changes are all single
with the third making 12 blows at the back at one point.

In conclusion, if the exercise at large 'likes' a method, it is rung; if it
is not-liked, it becomes obsolete (very quickly, in some cases).

Best wishes
Robin