[r-t] New Grandsire [was Old methods]

[Matthew Frye]

EM:
"If you define a plain lead of Grandsire 
1: has having PN + 3. 1.5.1.5.1.5.1.5.1
2: If you define a bob as simply altering a place within the plain lead block so as not to affect the parity of the rows nor alter the length of the lead block
3: if the reasonable object is to emulate the traditional calling & get all 60 in-course rows using no other device, then I believe there is no alternative, if you can find one I'd be the first to congratulate you"
 
Who said anything about getting all 60 in-course rows? I must admit i didn't think this statement through before sending the e-mail, but when i find a bit of time i may see if there are any other possible calls. I think you're probably right regarding the in-course half extent, but there may be other calls possible if you go for a full extent.
EM:"I have worked it out many years ago, and in Grandsire Doubles, the bob moves us from one lead block to another lead block, NOT from one course to another course. Following your implied instructions, a bob at the end of the plain course (course 1) puts us nicely into course 2, but before we can complete course 2, several rows repeat rows which inconveniently occurred in course 1. In fact, calling P P B P P B P P B (which according to you gives us 3 courses) of the 90 rows produced, 60 are true but 30 are repetitions."
 
Once again, that wasn't thought through properly, but a call still moves you from 1 course to another, regardless of the fact that they are false with eachother.
EM:"there are 4 potential 'Secondary Hunts' and the extent OUGHT to consist of these four courses joined together by calls, it doesn't!"
Me:"There is no "ought" about an extent, it's anything that gets you through all the changes. etc.
EM:"You appear to be agreeing with me,"
 
My point was that there's no way you can say what an extent "ought" to be, it can be put together any way you like.
 
Me:"Yes, and so would not have been recognised before the decision was changed,"EM:"But old sport, the decision wasn't changed, it was introduced. Grandsire is the oldest method that we ring today, second only to what we now call Bob Doubles. It's even older than what we call Bob Minor"
 
I should have said "the decisions were changed". I don't know the details, but i believe that differential hunters were not allowed before the change to the decisions you're talking about.
 
EM:"I admit that New Grandsire is Grandsire inverted, but as such it has as much right to being named as does Reverse Grandsire or Double Grandsire or Reverse New Grandsire.  They are all reasonable variations of the method called Grandsire, and as I have demonstrated, Both Grandsire & New Grandsire can occur in a true composition. From a practical point of view they need  names to distinguish one from the other"
 
There's no question that they are all legal things to ring, or that they can all be rung together, the question is more about what you call it.
_________________________________________________________________
Invite your Facebook friends to chat on Messenger
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719649/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080722/7be435bd/attachment-0004.html>