[r-t] History

[Richard Smith]

Mark Davies wrote:

> 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!

Quite the contrary.  It must be that the ringers ringing 
such a peal know a little bit more history than you.  The 
College Youths count a peal of 5014 of Grandsire Triples 
rung in 1862.  St Martin's Guild rang a 5026 (or 5025?) of 
Grandsire at a similar time.  Not allowing such peals to be 
rung is 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?

Why should we care much about the heroic efforts of Wyld, 
Johnson et al. if we can ring a peal of Stedman Triples with 
5040 changes using bobs and singles?  It's exactly the same 
argument, but I'm sure you're not proposing that all peals 
of Stedman Triples should be bobs-only.

>From an intellectual point of view, one form of ideal peal 
of Stedman Triples is a bobs only extent.  But until 
recently no composition was known: for Erin that's still the 
case, and for Grandsire it's known not to be possible.  If 
you can't ring the ideal peal you must compromise on the 
ideal.  The compromise could be allowing a second sort of 
call, it could be allowing a shorter peal, or it could be 
not requiring it to come round.  Each of these possibilities 
have been tried over the years, but only one is currently 
considered legal.  Why?

To my mind, the creation of a bobs-only 5012 of Grandsire is 
no less an intellectual achievement than a standard 5040 of 
Grandsire.  So was the bobs-only 5040 of Grandsire rung at 
Garlickhythe eleven months ago.

RAS