[r-t] History

King, Peter R peter.king at imperial.ac.uk
Fri Jun 6 13:03:14 UTC 2014

I don't think it detracts one  bit from the intellectual achievement of a bobs only extent of Stedman Triples. Similarly if anyone manged to cram all 42 "regular" surprise minor into 5040 I would be similarly impressed. I don't see how a small number of 5012s (or whatever) of triples that would actually be ring detracts from these achievements or the history at all.
From: ringing-theory [ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] on behalf of Mark Davies [mark at snowtiger.net]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 1:21 PM
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] History

Peter King writes,

> There are many peals that I wished had less than 5000 changes
 > but you have to establish some kind of benchmark and 5000
 > changes is reasonaqbloe enough and fully respects the history.

For Triples, I would say you are fully disrespecting history!

Recent history as well as ancient. Why should we care much about the
heroic efforts of Wilde, Johnson et al if we can ring a peal of Stedman
Triples with 5000 changes and bobs only?

Triples is the stage where a peal needs to be an extent.


ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list