Writing the latest chapter in my book on call change ringing led me to an intersting discovery and change in my own thinking. I have always considered ringing down to be easier than ringing up. Specifically if you take an average band I would give myself a far better change of achieving a good fall than a good raise. More recently at my own tower Moseley when we have been ringing up in Devon / West country style, starting with pitching in all at once, we have achieved a much better result.
So I had writtin the first draft of my chapter on ringing down, Chapter 6 The Lower, that ringing down is easier because gravity is on your side and bells will sort of ring themselves down anyway after a fashion. You have to steer them.
When I sent the draft to some of my Devon expert contacts (Graaham Sharland, Ian Avery and Ryan Trout) they all said that the raise and lower were about the same, but the lower was actually more likely to get you faults in competition ringing, because of the difficulty of achiving perfection when you get to the very bottom and bells stop striking both sides. I can see this, which is why I then changed what I wrote.
Any further observations? My conclusion is that if you are just trying to do a decent job then ringing down in peal is easier than ringing up, but if you are doing it under competition conditions then ringing down is harder because there is an element that is beyond your control.
It's not a simple question of which is easier. They each have different things to go wrong. When lowering you are going 'downhill' but you are going from a slow stable rhythm with the balance point on hand if needed into a faster, less stable and mpre crowded rhythm. When raising you are going uphill but the further you go the more open (and familiar) the rhythm.
The seeds of a bad rise are sown with a bad start, failure to establish a stable two stroke rhythm early on. Typically the bells start too spaced out (and take too long to start) so there's an extended period with hand and backstrokes overlapping. Add in any unsteadiness and no one can hear whether they are right or wrong so different bells try to 'correct' in different directions. The whole thing is a mess until the bells are much higher and manage to sort themselves out.
This can be avoided if the Treble rises briskly to start with, which (a) gets quickly to a speed where the Tenor can strike and (b) pushes the other bells together leaving space for the second stroke to come in so everyone can hear what's happening. Once the Tenor is striking on both strokes, the Treble sticks to its tail and goes up at the Tenor's speed but before that it helps if the Treble mantally puts in the Tenor's backstroke so mthat when it emerges everything fits.
I just looked back to see what I said in 'Raising & Lowering in Peal' (is it really 35 years since I wrote it?) You might like to haqve a look. Feel free to copy anything you find useful.
I think it very much depends on the skill level of the band, particularly when it comes to bell control when well below the balance. My experience is that if the band is weak and the raise is bad, the lower will be even worse. The usual cause is the inability of the front ringers to keep actively ringing the bell once they are one-handed on the sally and just letting it flop down, compounded by the first coil chaos when they take in great gobs of rope and the bell then drops like a stone. It's usually the case that the weakest ringers are round the front which compounds the issues. The back bells have zero chance of keeping up so they either end up dangling from the ceiling as they desperately try to drag their bell down, or they just give a resigned sigh and ring down at a sane pace. The result is chaos either way.
I'm teaching someone to ring up and down at the moment - I'm using the ART "Small, Simple Steps" ethos and I'm working on getting them to be able to continuously drop and make coils whilst keeping the bell at exactly the same level whilst they do it. We'll see if it helps :smile: