King, Peter R
peter.king at imperial.ac.uk
Mon Mar 20 14:17:39 UTC 2017
But surely all method extensions involved adding bits of work that weren't in the parent. Where are the 56 places in Cambridge minor? Yes in major they are the same as the 34 places pushed out to 56 so they look the same but, of necessity they don't exist in the minor version. So I think to some extent the concept of method extension is misplaced. Yes there are methods that sort of sit nicely together as being mostly composed of similar bits of work shoved out to higher places. Actually Ipswich falls into this category. It is Ipswich minor moved out to 3-8 with dodging on the front to pad it out. Once you know that it is easier to learn and ring. But it isn't constructed in the same way as Ipswich minor (by hunting at the half lead).
For very simple methods ringing by rules gives a sense of extension . If I tell a learner to ring plain bob by plain hunting until the treble leads then make seconds above it and dodge in the other places, if it's on an odd number then ring 4 blows behind they could ring it and it would feel like the same method at all stages. I don't have an objection to introducing 4 blows, it seems like an artificial limitation to require that all methods must have at most 2 blows in one place.
Overall though I think excessive codifying of method extension is not the right way to go. There is always some arbitrariness added which one set of rules would allow and another not.
More information about the ringing-theory