matthew at frye.org.uk
Sat Sep 13 16:56:01 UTC 2014
On 12 Sep 2014, at 20:32, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> Tim Barnes writes,
>> My view is that #3 can also be eliminated - I don't see anything wrong
>> with methods that only have one lead in their plain course (e.g. 2nds place
>> Bristol Major, n'ths place Plain Bob). What do others think?
> Well, there is an argument for saying that a method ought to have some repeating structure, isn't there. One-lead methods could be considered to be "blocks" not methods, to use a word now made somewhat ugly. It also seems more difficult to classify a one-lead method - are there hunt bells and working bells, or not? Starting from a clean state one might argue that all bells in such a method are hunt bells, but looking at 2nd's place Bristol Major, most ringers would only see one such.
> These concerns led me to include restriction #3 in my original Toyota axioms. I think after our recent discussions I am persuaded it is better to ditch it, but still feel it deserves further debate, and a vote.
This is actually quite a difficult point to get around, but I think it is only difficult in the context of how such methods are classified, not whether they are allowed or not. It is important to be clear (in our own minds as much as anything else) about which question is asked and answered.
You can argue what counts as a hunt bell in 2nds place Bristol Major (and if it should carry the title "Surprise") but that sequence of changes should certainly be able to be acknowledged and recorded as a method.
More information about the ringing-theory