[r-t] Old methods

David Lynch david_lynch at blueyonder.co.uk
Thu Jul 17 11:11:07 UTC 2008

Andrew Craddock wrote:
> I hope this is not off topic :-)
> Referring back to Don's earlier posting:
> <snip> The majority of ringers are not interested in ringing peals (only about 10% 
> actually ring peals).  Less than a 1000 ringers rang ten or more peals in 
> 2007. <snip>
> The great majority of ringers, who may be keen tower grabbers, quarter peal 
> ringers, Sunday Service ringers and so on couldn't care less about method 
> extensions, differentials, peal compositions, what's included in the analysis and so on.
    I think this is over-stated:

    * As Don implies, what is rung in peals strongly influences what is
      rung generally.
    * What is new isn't always so difficult to be accessible only to the
      top layer of ringers: I've rung less than 40 peals and two are
      unacceptable with a third so if it hadn't fired out.
    * Some are interested in and supportive of the new and the
      theoretical even if it is beyond their capabilities to ring.

> <snip> About 15 years ago, when I was setting up my peals database (to provide The 
> Ringing World with a leading peal ringers list) Stephen Coaker told me that 
> there should only be two rules in deciding whether to accept peals:
> 1. 5000 or more rows.
> 2. Begins and ends in rounds.
> At the time, I thought it was far too simplistic.  I'm now inclined to 
> think it would avoid a lot of arguments and save a lot of time.
    I agree.
> Andrew Craddock
David Lynch

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list