[r-t] What is a 'regular' method

[Robert Lee]

On Mon Feb 6 10:46:17, Graham John wrote:
 
>A filter for 'regular' methods can be quite useful for people who are looking for 
>traditional/conventional/regular methods to ring. It has no more significance than that.
 
Philip has hit the nail on the head. I can't see why this is necessary, or a good thing. By 
defining methods as 'regular' or 'irregular' (even if you can obtain mutual agreement on the 
term - which I doubt), you imply a value judgement of the former being superior. The reality is 
not black and white.
 
Consider, if you will, the (unrung) Delight Major method x58x14x58x18x14x58x14x58, le 14. 
It fails to meet two of your parameters - it has the very attractive leadend 14736852, and it has 
4ths made at the lead end. 
 
But write out the course starting from 13428765, and all becomes clear. Look at the way the natural 
coursing order is preserved when the treble passes through 4-5, and how nothing other than coursing 
sets of 4 bells meet at the front and the back of the change. Yes, the potential is not within the 'natural' 
plain course, but you could say the same about Superlative.
 
To me, this is about as 'regular' as it gets - far more than, say, Rutland, which has no natural order 
below the treble at all. But that has plain bob leadends and you can squeeze out a few CRU's, so 
that's ok then.
 
Alan Reading, Tony Cox, David Hull and myself have all experimented with such methods in recent 
years. Offset cyclic would be another excellent example. Yet we've barely scratched the surface of 
what is possible. Can't we encourage innovation, rather than the status quo?
 
Rob