tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Sat Apr 22 23:48:40 UTC 2017
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> I do think the "Little" tag is entirely appropriate for Hunters that we
> are going to classify, and where the hunt bell doesn't visit the front. I
> don't like the idea of introducing further special cases. If a hunt bell
> bounces between 3rd and 6th's place, it's a Little path in my view.
> Similarly, those treble-dodging methods where the hunt bell does more than
> one dodge in each position - I see no merit in excluding them. They are
> treble-dodging paths - the treble (or hunt bell) is dodging.
Fair arguments, but I do see two areas of merit: If classifications are
more straightforward, it makes the system easier to understand for more
ringers. I doubt many ringers, when asked to treble to a surprise method,
would think they might need to do 11 dodges.
Second, tighter classifications make it less likely that methods will get
caught up in the classification system where this wasn't intended (such as
At the same time, any changes to classifications should generally ensure
that nothing is reclassified that has widely been thought of as falling
into its current class, and it would no doubt be sensible to avoid
classification changes that reclassify large numbers of methods.
Here are some more stats on current classifications, as food for thought:
- 99.9% of TD methods have a single dodge. Only 17 out of 13,349 have more
than one dodge.
- 95% of Treble Place methods have 2 blows in each place during the half
lead. Only 33 out of 600 have more than 2 blows.
- 93% of Little methods go through 1st's place. 46 out of 633 Little
methods keep the hunt bell off the front.
- 94% of Alliance methods either have 1 or 2 blows in each place during the
half lead, or have 2 or 3 blows in each place during the half lead. 66 out
of 1024 Alliance methods don't meet these criteria.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ringing-theory