Ringing Forums

It’s worse than that, they are often told to look at the bell they are following (or the one they are about to follow, though how they know which one without learning the numbers isn’t explained). — John Harrison

Yes, that was certainly my experience :lol: I remember being complemeted on how much my ropesight had improved, after I stopped laughing I said it was my notsight that had improved, not my ropesight - I'd become better at filtering out bells I couldn't possibly be after, which reduced the number down to something my limited ropesight could cope with. Part of that was doing as you say, other things that helped were taking advantage of method structure and concentrating only on the bells moving slowest relative to you.

A possible solution to Barbara's problem might be to have a month in which no "teaching" is carried out with the individual but in which she participates in ringing that is chosen to allow her to utilise such skills as she has already acquired in a lower-stress manner — Mike Shelley

I run weekly simulator sessions and as far as possible I make them participant led. It's a low pressure environment and if they want to spend half an hour practicing the same thing over and over, that's fine. And people's first attempts at PH are done that way as well.

I run weekly simulator sessions and as far as possible I make them participant led. It's a low pressure environment and if they want to spend half an hour practicing the same thing over and over, that's fine. — John de Overa

Yes, I agree. Much less pressure, and although I am typically sharing my attention between two or three people each gets more `individual' coaching and attention than they would in a typical practice (as well as getting far more rope time).

people's first attempts at PH are done that way as well — John de Overa

Many of the people in my sessions have been taught by others and already tried hunting the traditional way but the great value of using a simulator (without visuals) is to give them the experience of what ringing at the three different hunting speeds 'feels like'. I get them to experienced ringing rounds at 2h30, 3h and 3h30 peal speed before they try to switch between them while hunting.
That helps get over the problem with the traditional approach (whether learning numbers or counting places) that whatever the brain is doing the body wants to keep ringing at the same speed.

An advantage of John's application of a simulator to the situation Barbara highlighted is the ability to repeat a passage identically several times so that any issues the student has can be un-picked and gentle addressed by the 1:1 coaching.

yes, and you can use the striking monitor to show them exactly where any wobbles are, for example slowing down between 2nds place and the lead when hunting in, rather than "pushing on in" seems to be common.

I discovered when teaching Maths in school, that many who struggle with a new concept have no idea what the problem is, they just feel blocked and often react by trying to avoid the discomfort that invokes. This leads to a lot of stress for the learner and massive frustration for the teacher. Learning to Ring is MUCH harder than learning Maths. But, across both worlds, the key to shifting these blockages is to identify the missing micro-skills and work on those first.
I have watched many (older) people struggle to progress beyong plain hunt and I believe that we expect them to pick up a myriad of micro-skills by magic, much faster than they possibly can.
The danger is we may over-focus on ropesight and memorising the circle of work, when the missing micro-skills are mostly around bell handling. The plain hunt they have "mastered" is actually badly struck. They are not yet ready for bob doubles!
Progress can be made if you do bell handling exercise such as "rounds and back rounds" (which teaches people to hold up), and break plain bob into separate sections by ringing "funny bob doubles" instead. This method lets the learner ring for example 3-4 down repeatedly during a touch, and once they are confident, progressing on to 3-4 up etc. https://ringingteachers.org/application/files/8316/1426/5228/Funny_Bob_Doubles.pdf
These lessons have definitely brought some of my friends on - their striking has improved for call changes and plain hunt, and they relish the progress they are making.

people struggle to progress beyong plain hunt and I believe that we expect them to pick up a myriad of micro-skills by magic — Rosalind Martin

That's very true. The most important thing a teacher can do is to try to determine through observation what the deficient micro skills are, and then work with the pupil to try to find ways to strengthen them.

we may over-focus on ropesight and memorising the circle of work, — Rosalind Martin

We obsess about ropesight as a magical power but it isn't ofte taught or even coached. And it's only one skill - a navigational aid. And memorising the circle of work is a relatively trivial task compared to the underlying skills needed to translate it into making the bell do the right thing.

, the missing micro-skills are mostly around bell handling. The plain hunt they have "mastered" is actually badly struck. They are not yet ready for bob doubles! — Rosalind Martin

Agree entirely. They've not mastered hunting they've merely found a way to survive getting through it after a fashion - often relying on lots of tricks that don't carry across to ringing a method.

I have watched many (older) people struggle to progress beyond plain hunt and I believe that we expect them to pick up a myriad of micro-skills by magic, much faster than they possibly can.
The danger is we may over-focus on ropesight and memorising the circle of work, when the missing micro-skills are mostly around bell handling. The plain hunt they have "mastered" is actually badly struck. They are not yet ready for bob doubles! — Rosalind Martin

The most important thing a teacher can do is to try to determine through observation what the deficient micro skills are, and then work with the pupil to try to find ways to strengthen them. — John Harrison

As an older starter, I can confirm you are both absolutely right, both in terms of the problems and how best to address them. I was led to believe that ropesight was some sort of magical gift I needed to be granted in order to progress any further - I nearly gave up as a result. But as my bell control and striking improved, so did my ropesight - which bell I was after became "obvious" as I was already in the right place anyway - a virtuous circle.

The step up from CCs to PH is big, I think it's an even bigger jump to methods, that was my experience and those I teach say the same thing. I think you are both spot on about micro skills, the best way of helping with that is micro feedback. Adults in particular seem to do best with feedback that's Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic and Achievable (SMART) but in ringing it often consists of "Your dodges/leading/whatever are still wrong, we'll try again next week". It can be difficult to give that level of help that's needed during normal practices and it requires a lot from the teacher. Plus, like sports, being a top-rank player doesn't always translate into being a top-rank coach, it's a scarce skill.

I think the other thing is that acquiring these skills is a process that never stops. When I moved from 6 to 8 bells, I had to improve my ropesight and striking which took time & effort, now I've I started on Bristol after Cambridge, my striking needs more work.

Dear All, I think that maybe I should refine my question again. So here goes:

Is ringing about the dedicated pursuit of technical excellence (at whatever level one's natural talents permit), or should it be a stress-free leisure activity?
Is that a fair distinction, or is it more complicated than that?
How does a band decide where on the continuum it lies? Does a consensus develop? What role should the Tower Captain play in this?

My situation is - I was brought up (ringing-wise) in a "dedicated pursuit of technical excellence" environment and I have always assumed that as Tower Captain my duty is to point the band in that direction.
This clearly does not appeal to the two ringers whom I am asking about.
Curiously, they are the two band members with most aptitude. Both could rapidly become better ringers than me, if they wished to apply themselves. On the other hand, my ringers with less aptitude are really dedicated to the pursuit of technical excellence (at the standard that they can achieve) and I really respect them for it.

I feel that this is some leadership test that I have failed, so what I am really asking is "what is that test and what do I do in order to pass it?"

Thanks, Barbara

How does a band decide where on the continuum it lies? Does a consensus develop? What role should the Tower Captain play in this? ... I feel that this is some leadership test that I have failed, so what I am really asking is "what is that test and what do I do in order to pass it?" — Barbara Le Gallez

If you think being TC requires passing some sort of leadership test then I think you've misinterpreted the role. Being TC does not empower you to decide for others what their targets and level of effort are, if you try they'll probably just leave. You can provide opportunities, encourage and support, and that's it.

You seem to be viewing the situation as if it's static, it isn't. Just because someone is keen now it doesn't follow they will remain so, just because someone shows initial promise it doesn't mean it will come to fruition. And the opposite of both those is true as well.

It sounds to me like you are putting a lot of responsibility and stress on yourself, I don't think that's a good idea, either for you, or the band. I think you need focus on your and the band's enjoyment of ringing, the rest may well follow. It's hobby, not a job.

How does a band decide where on the continuum it lies? Does a consensus develop? What role should the Tower Captain play in this? — Barbara Le Gallez

Decide is too specific. Individuals will have a natural tendency towards somewhere on the spectrum, and they will influence the aggregate position of the band. If they are similar the aggregate position will easily coalesce. What happens if they are different is more interesting. A keen majority might inspire a less keen minority to join them, or might put them off so they dig their heels in. A non-keen majority might encourage a keen minority to stop trying and take it easy or might make them frustrated. (And many other variants).
The Tower Captain's role is to help the band to coalesce and to find its purpose. How to do that will depend on the mix of individuals, and might not be easy. With a large band some two tracking might be possible, with the keener ones pushing themselves forward while others take it more easily, but with a small band one or two who 'don't want to' can prevent the rest doing anything.
Even a performance oriented band is about more than just ringing, and needs social and community elements, and these aspects can be used to help hold it together a band with more divided inclinations, and the sense of cohesion can then help outliers move towards the collective position.
Like all management, it's not easy, can take time, and can feel a bit dispiriting since there's always something not right yet

It sounds to me like you are putting a lot of responsibility and stress on yourself, I don't think that's a good idea, either for you, or the band. I think you need focus on your and the band's enjoyment of ringing, the rest may well follow. It's hobby, not a job. — John de Overa

Yes, it's easy for a leader to take on too much of the burden, especially those who don't find it easy. There's a tendency to blame yourself for all the things that still aren't right, rather than accepting that you've managed to get some things right that otherwise wouldn't be.
It's an occupational hazard. An effective leader has to want to make things better, and that makes them sensitive to all the ways in which they could be better but aren't (yet).
Yes, a band needs to get satisfaction and reward out of what it does now, rather than postponing satisfaction until it achieves some (possibly unachievable) goal. But interpreting satisfaction as enjoyment is a short step from that over stated desire for ringing to be 'fun', an easy slide into superficiality. Ringing (in public) is a performance, not 'messing round with bells'.

I agree with everything @John Harrison has said in his last 2 posts, I think his warning about not letting "fun" slide into "anything goes" also needs to be heeded. I was at a practice recently where there was the most appalling crashing about, even in rounds, and serious handling faults were going undressed. At the end of each cacophony the leader's response was "Well done!", which it absolutely wasn't. When there was a suggestion that we ring PH8 one of the senior ringers there quite rightly put her foot firmly down, "If you can't ring it on 6, you shouldn't be attempting it on 8". As they wryly remarked to me afterwards, "Clearly public relations isn't a concern for them". They seemed to either forgotten, or just not cared, that even our practices are public performances.

even our practices are public performances — John de Overa

They are public, but they are not performances!

well, some of the practices I've been to have been a right performance :razz:

The public won't necessarily know which are practices and which are performances, but despite what many ringers tell themselves, the public absolutely can tell the difference between good and bad ringing.

public absolutely can tell the difference between good and bad ringing. — John de Overa

While on an outing once we went into the village shop to buy an ice cream, and when we mentioned ringing they said how nice it was to hear thei bells rung properly.

I think John and John have given good advice here.
Ultimately many ringers fall somewhere in between, motivated to ring well and sometimes try new things but often looking at ringing as a stress reducing (and sometimes primarily social) hobby.
You feel like you may have failed a leadership test either because the band are not all progressing towards greater technical excellence or because some of the band are unhappy with the expectations of them. Recognising that there is a gap between your aims and theirs is a first sign of good leadership and you are proving that you are a good leader by exploring why some of the band are not comfortable with pressure to try new things (at the moment).
You can work on goals with those who want them and allow others to continue with what is already manageable for them if that’s what different band members need. Your ability to balance different levels of interest in, and approaches to, ringing is all part of the leadership skills of a tower captain and it is not always easy but caring about wanting to keep progressing for those who want to be challenged and wanting to keep those who want a low pressure hobby is a very strong starting point.
Be proud of what you are achieving and what you are learning as the band are, I am sure, grateful that you are willing to be the Tower Captain and take on the difficult responsibility of balancing the needs of everyone each practice.

Ultimately many ringers fall somewhere in between, motivated to ring well and sometimes try new things but often looking at ringing as a stress reducing (and sometimes primarily social) hobby. — Lucy Chandhial

I originally read that as "stress inducing" :lol:

All good advice. I think the other thing to remember is that if you are motivated enough to take on the responsibility of TC, teaching, helping people progress etc, you are probably at the upper end in terms of motivation and ability. The majority will therefore be less motivated / able than you are, which doesn't mean they aren't interested in progression, just that it's less of a priority for them. And from observing the people I ring with, motivation is not a fixed thing - people can progress fairly quickly and then appear to plateau. That can be for a number of reasons - wanting to just enjoy where they are at, wanting to consolidate skills, or other things happening in their lives. But a few months later they may be champing at the bit again, and wanting to drive forwards. You just have to accept and adapt to that.

….Our hope is that once they have solid Minimus places/ropesight, stepping up to 5 then 6 will be an extension of what they can already do, rather than a big leap requiring the simultaneous acquisition of multiple new skills.

Hi John, how is this working out in practice?

Hi John, how is this working out in practice? — Neil McGann

After practicing on the simulator over the last two of weeks, during last night's practice the furthest on of them successfully rang her first touches of Grandsire Doubles, inside & affected, without a stander. I started ringing there 10 years ago, last night was the first time the tower band had rung touches of anything in at least the last 50 years.

Both her and the person coming up behind her have worked extremely hard on ropesight, striking and place counting and have developed what can be summed up as "situational awareness". That's been transformative both for them as individuals and for the band as they have the skills needed to "ring around" wobbly ringers, so we can keep things going whereas before they'd have fired up.

One benefit of ringing Minimus that's become very clear is it's much easier to develop a mental picture of what's going on because there are fewer bells to think about, and once you have the rudiments of that it's much easier to extend it to higher numbers, rather than trying to start with higher numbers.

Other things have helped too - our new vicar is a Surprise Major ringer and we've had a couple of visits from a "returning ringer" who lives in the town and used to ring at Surprise level some time ago, we are hoping to persuade him to keep coming. It does feel like we might have reached an inflection point - there's serious talk of QPs, which, as far as we can tell, would be the first rung by the tower band in 140 years.

Fantastic! What a brilliant achievement.

Sorry to come to this late Barbara but i agree with most of the comments about, but taking your restated question:

Is ringing about the dedicated pursuit of technical excellence (at whatever level one's natural talents permit), or should it be a stress-free leisure activity?
Is that a fair distinction, or is it more complicated than that?
How does a band decide where on the continuum it lies? Does a consensus develop? What role should the Tower Captain play in this?

I don't think its an either/or some of us make bell ringing a major part of our life and some just want to dip in and out and we should accomodate that without being too judgemental about people who don't share our passion. From the Association viewpoint the objective is to provide bells for divine service but that must be to an acceptable standard even if that means sticking to rounds; I like bands making a feature of the "Service Touch" which is the best ringing the band can achieve.

There are many ways of being a TC and their success depends on the personality of the TC and band members and on the history and tradition of the tower. Working with semi-adult learners for many years I favour the Socratic approach i.e. questions that lead learners to the right answer without directly telling them: How well did we/you do that? What could we/you have done to improve it? It works well with young people because their power of criticism usually outstrips their capability by a fair margin. The only downside risk is if the band pick on an individual, but it positions the TC as an expert coach rather than a directive leader with some reluctant followers.

Finally don't beat yourself up about it, its impossible to change people if you are only exposed to them two hours a week. The question I ask myself after some shambolic practice is "Did I do the best I could with what was available?" Secondly "Did they go away happy?"

I don't think its an either/or some of us make bell ringing a major part of our life and some just want to dip in and out and we should accomodate that without being too judgemental about people who don't share our passion. — Tom Ridgman

Well, up to a point, yes. Some time ago we took a decision as a band that we wanted to move things forwards, which meant everyone had to be prepared to learn new things, do "homework" and generally up their game. Ringing is a team activity and therefore a two-way commitment, someone who turns up and expects the rest of the tower to cater to them whilst not reciprocating is being selfish and thoughtless, and I think that's the scenario @Barbara Le Gallez was faced with - "Determined Underachievers". Such people can end up being a significant drag on a tower's resources and end up holding others back. It's always a difficult call as it can be hard to distinguish between "Slow learner" / "Reached their limit" and "Can't be bothered" but if it's the latter I think that should be reflected in the amount of time spent on them. If that means they decide to leave, so be it. At least you get the time they sucked away back to dedicate to others.

A lot of good and positive advice above. One foot note perhaps - there are some people who are determined to fail. I have encountered them in towers. It's a strange mindset, they make all the right noises but seem determined to remain a pupil and do not want to progress to being "competent" because that means having total personal responsibility for their own ringing. I think its some form of self defence l, perhaps because they have failed and been castigated in the past and so don't really want to progress.

Is ringing about the dedicated pursuit of technical excellence (at whatever level one's natural talents permit), or should it be a stress-free leisure activity?
Is that a fair distinction, or is it more complicated than that? — Tom Ridgman

. I would go further than Tom. Even if the distinction is valid, setting them up as binary alternatives isn’t. Doing anything long term, especially if it’s hard, requires motivation, which must come in part from the enjoyment/satisfaction of doing it. So it can’t be ‘achieve or enjoy’. And stress is a continuum not binary. To remain healthy our minds and bodies need some stress to stimulate us but not too much to overload us.
As individuals we can choose to opera age anywhere within our safe stress range, depending on personal priorities and competing factors, but a team couldn’t function if all its members just make purely personal choices. Things wouldn’t go well if one member of a rousing eight decided to have a rest after a couple of minutes for example. In a mixed ability band there haas to be some give and take at both ends. The more capable/keen membership accept they’d can’t achieve as much as they might in a more capable band and the less keen/capable accept that they will need to try a bit harder to support the team.
Off coursed that assumes they knowingly signed up for the same thing. If half thee team joined expecting just to turn up for the occasional Saturday kick around and the other half expected to competed in the local league, none of therm will be happy.
So what sort of team do ringers think they are signing up to? What pitch were they given when they were recruited? Were the band’s objectives made clear? Was the goal of method ringing stated? Were performance skills emphasised? Was there talk of shared commitment as well as social bonding?
In short were they invited to join a group of skilled performers, who support each other’s progress, and whose performances include a regular Sunday morning commitment?
Or were they given the impression that all they needed to do was turn up on Sunday, they’d soon get the hang of it (not being too specific about what was entailed in ‘it’) and everyone was jolly nice?