Ringing Forums

the majority of ringers for the majority of their ringing career would be assessed as being sub par. — Alan C

Do we even know what level the majority ring at? I don't think association membership is an accurate gauge, many ringers aren't members of any association.

Membership varies. In some places most ringers do belong to their local societies and in others they don't. However I suspect that overall it is high enough for generalisations about society members to apply to ringers in general.

hmm, perhaps - my suspicion would be that underestimates numbers at the lower levels. Nobody was a member at my tower for decades, and some associations also have minimum ability requirements that probably exclude most recent starters.

my suspicion would be that underestimates numbers at the lower levels. — John de Overa

How low do you want to go? Our branch has pretty well 100% membership and the 2017 survey into the state of ringing showed 30% of members were inactive, ie they never or hardly ever rang.

being inactive says nothing about skill level, you could argue that inactive members are most likely to be elderly and when active were ringing at a competent level.

There seems to be a danger in this approach that the majority of ringers for the majority of their ringing career would be assessed as being sub par. Not that inspiring or that enjoyable in what, after all, is an entirely voluntary pastime. — Alan C

My comments were in the context of peal ringing as the commonly-aimed-for top end of ringing.

As it stands, we must and generally do ensure that all ringers feel their contributions are valuable. These aims that I have laid out would be subject to that same expectation.

I think that ringing more complex methods for a prolonged period of time is more likely to be saved by ensuring that the opportunities are there for a variety of methods to be rung at the QP level across the country.

If peals were to largely die out but QPs were to remain, it would be possible for future enthusiastic ringers to build back up to peals. But if we just accept fairly simple methods as the ceiling for most normal ringers, then that is just inviting skills and knowledge to not be passed down and die out altogether. The skill and ability to ring for a prolonged time and in a complex method is perhaps what we need to be most concerned with keeping.

That's why I'm not particularly worried about peal trends (to be fair, as a non-peal ringer!) but if QPs fall in quantity and level of difficulty, that would be my red flag.

My comments were in the context of peal ringing as the commonly-aimed-for top end of ringing. — Tristan Lockheart

If peal ringing is the commonly aimed for top end of ringing, it seems strange that the number of peals and the numbers of peal ringers continues to fall. Perhaps peal ringing is an uncommonly aimed for aspiration?

As it stands, we must and generally do ensure that all ringers feel their contributions are valuable. These aims that I have laid out would be subject to that same expectation. — Tristan Lockheart

It may be that 'generally' ensuring that all ringers feel their contributions are valuable is not really good enough. Perhaps the aim of the exercise is to have happy bellringers who form their own aspirations and take steps to attain them in a way and at a pace that suits them.

Dear All,
It's a triage problem, perhaps?
The largest third - is those ringers who find change ringing quite difficult. Peal ringing is irrelevant to them. A few times through well-struck plain hunt doubles can give satisfaction to them and their teachers, and pleasure to listeners.
The smallest third - is those ringers who are lucky in their abilities and their geographical position. I imagine they will always find peal bands.
The middle third - which I suppose is the one Simon is concerned about - is those ringers who could be quite good if given the chance to ring with really good ringers. So, if there were lots of peal bands, they could get adopted by peal bands and have their chance.
Well, yes. But although this would be a good thing, if it's gone, it's gone. So I suppose one has to look at other ways of giving one's talented students that experience.
Best wishes,
Barbara

The middle third - which I suppose is the one Simon is concerned about - is those ringers who could be quite good if given the chance to ring with really good ringers.

I think this is the main concern for many of the threads on this forum.
There is a reasonable size group of ringers spread across the country (world) who would like more opportunities to ring with ringers more experienced than them so that they can progress in a better development environment but there are not enough experienced ringers to go around and many of them are not that interested in ringing to support the progress of others (sometimes because they have experienced ringing with ringers who are not particularly keen to improve their ringing and then that’s frustrating).
Some people experience this inability to progress efficiently at plain hunt, for others it comes in surprise ringing or ringing on higher numbers and for some it comes when wanting to ring quarters or peals. In all cases it’s about the availability and willingness of experienced ringers to support those developing their skills and a gradual decline in the numbers of experienced ringers means that more and more new ringers will hit this frustration.
We can try to persuade experienced ringers to give their time to ringers who commit to doing their homework and focusing on high quality ringing but we also need to think about how ringers and bands can progress with simulators, regional courses, etc and some of this is already happening but there is no quick and simple answer for the ideal opportunity to ring with a strong band around you for fast progress.

I think you are right that career development for ringers has to be organised more professionally.

I think there a few factors here…
How long has peal ringing been in decline for, while we’ve seen healthy peal numbers until Covid.
When I was a young ringer, I don’t think I was ever encouraged to move towards peals.
We did encourage quarter peals though and I rang a couple.

Fast forward to my local tower, only one other member of the band has rung a quarter and most can’t ring touches.

So are we training and developing ringers to be become peal ringers, or even quarter pealers.
Is there sufficient encouragement to make the progression?

If it’s of any relevance to the discussion/statistics, I rang ONE quarter (PB6) before my first peal (PB8).
In my learning phase, I never went down the plain hunt/PB Doubles road, being lucky enough to ring with a very competent 8-bell band, and when “progressing” to doubles, I found the “wrong” lying confusing. Food for thought?

I know a couple of towers which avoid spending too much time on doubles and prefer to get ringers used to minor as quickly as possible, plain hunt and beyond. The Learning the Ropes scheme offers options to head in either direction and I think this is sensible because it does depend on the band around you.
@Martyn Bristow points out that for a learner in his band it would be tough to reach readiness for a quarter, let alone a peal, this is a definite issue in some areas and raises the question of how well people can be supported if the only option is to travel further for less frequent opportunities for developmental ringing.

Definetky readiness is a factor but also awareness
None if the tower knew about the ringing world and there was no real awareness of peals and quarters, as well as development of ringers.

While, as you mention, learning the ropes covers this I’ve only been to a couple of towers that adopt the scheme

While, as you mention, learning the ropes covers this I’ve only been to a couple of towers that adopt the scheme — Martyn Bristow

Learnig the Ropes is a very good, structured scheme, but whatever system of teaching is used it is down to the teachers to promote advanced ringing (peals or quarter peals) and help train their ringers accordigly. One challenge that ringing faces is that many teachers have little experience in 'performance ringing' and therefore cannot promote it. Even ringing a quarter peal of Plain Bob Doubles is a relatively high standard of ringing in most towers!

While, as you mention, learning the ropes covers this I’ve only been to a couple of towers that adopt the scheme — Martyn Bristow

My tower and the next nearest one use it, but it seems to be patchy. I think the majority of people who go on the ART Module 1 teaching course don't complete the accreditation. Looking at the website there seem to be not many teacher's courses available, so I think it's an uphill struggle. But having said that, we've been very successful with "The ART Way", at least for the initial handling stages. I'm a bit less convinced about the progress from there to method ringing though,

Fully agree there
Although I do think it is a bit verbose.
The one thing I’ve learned about teaching, is you can’t make it prescriptive. Everyone learns differently at different paces and ways.

But we do need some consistency around telling people what is ringing, in terms of quality and complexity.
The ART 1 & 2 don’t quite focus on this

The one thing I’ve learned about teaching, is you can’t make it prescriptive. Everyone learns differently at different paces and ways. — Martyn Bristow

Agree, adapt to the learner. Another challenge is that people who teach ringing are often not natural teachers. If they teach from a flawed ringing style or little experience the learner is at a disadvantage. I think that observation is one of the most important attributes in a teacher. ART can't cover everything. For example, I teach all my ringers to look through the sally and not focus on it. This saves time and energy and is more efficient, but its not mentioned anywhere. Its also not difficult to do!

Simon said

3. On Tuesday Charlie Linford rang an 8-bell peal with a band which had rung 16,000 peals between them. I can't see anyone getting anywhere near those sorts of totals ever again.

https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/view.php?id=1518388

So out of interest I've looked back and albeit a couple of years back , using the current Peal totals of the individuals involved the total comes to 32, 381 , even if you knock of a thousand or so you are still well over 30,000 and that's a six bell peal

But as Simon all so said what does it matter , its just numbers , I think we (my age) have seen the best of peal ringing, having said that some of the young ringers now are doing some really exciting stuff, I would alos take issue with bands not helping younger ringers into peal ringing , Ive not found that to be the case and where a person is really keen and has opportunity then they can really thrive , as an example, ( Oliver bates) , from humble beginning's in my garage https://bb.ringingworld.co.uk/view.php?id=1236088 to ending up in Birmingham and ringing some mind blowing stuff. Interesting thread mind you.

Do we even know what level the majority ring at? — John de Overa

I did some analysis for a Birmingham School of Bell Ringing conference a few years ago which concluded that the median ringer can ring Bob Minor.

presumably you got some sort of distribution around that, however crude and approximate. That would be interesting to see.

Sadly I don't have it any more