[r-t] Judging a Striking Competition

Glenn Taylor gaataylor at blueyonder.co.uk
Mon Apr 5 20:36:46 UTC 2010

--- Daniel wrote ---
I was wondering if anybody could let me know exactly how to go about judging
a striking competition, to result in a 12 bell style percentage set of
...this system appeals to me more than the usual hand-wavey 2 faults for
this 1 for that type system, as it should give a standardised result

Standardised result?

So what, exactly, is meant by a result of, for example, 83%? 83% of rows
were accurate? 83% of every change was "OK"? The team made 83% of the errors
on the day? The team was only 83% as bad as expected?

I disagree that a percentage is a useful measure for the outcome of a
striking competition *unless* the method for calculating it in a competition
is made public. The recent 12 bell eliminators are cases in point. The only
published outcome is three lists of percentages which in my view are fairly
meaningless as these give no clue as to the accuracy of the striking since
(and I may be wrong here) subjective matters such as "sensible speed" or
"general flow" are factored into the result.

If the 12 bell is an event demonstrating a "standardised result" then why
aren't the six teams going forward to the final those teams who scored the
best six percentages, rather than the highest two from each venue?

Frankly I'd stick with counting faults, hand-wavey [whatever this means] or
otherwise, as this is at least meaningful. The 12 bell results, for example,
tell us nothing in the absence of an explanation of how the results were

Glenn  <-takes up position behind parapet

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list