Ringing Forums

In the area where I ring it is assumed that all learners are working towards method ringing, even if some might only choose simple method ringing (and some experienced ringers are still practicing how to treble to doubles). Not every tower practice can manage plain hunting and beyond but every tower band is aiming to get there.
I see younger learners developing faster through the skills and therefore moving on more quickly (often) compared to an older learner who joins the same number and variety of practices but I don’t see older learners being ignored or held back or assumed to be not interested in extending their skills.
I do see some older experienced ringers who have actively chosen not to extend their skills beyond a certain point and others who feel ‘stuck’ at a certain stage, especially if they don’t have time to visit other practices alongside their home tower.
I think we have a good culture (where I am) of working towards a first quarter covering, a quarter trebling, a quarter inside, etc and a path from plain hunt to trebling to ringing inside which lets people move into method ringing so that they can take it as far as they like.
Ringing ‘press’ has celebrated both young learners and older learners achieving impressive goals so I don’t think anyone should feel held back by age.
It is definitely true that supporting ringers (of any age) to extend their skills is time intensive for the ringers around them and I know you have talked before about how more could be done with simulator sessions and online trainings to help bridge the gap when the chance to ring with a band is hard to arrange.
I would be interested to better understand at what point people hit the limit of local support in different areas because where I am it becomes difficult when you want a supportive band for surprise major but I understand that in some areas of the country it’s already difficult to get the chance to ring bob minor with a stable band around you.

You've mentioned the situation where you are before, and it sounds pretty good. I've just come back from a tower practice in another association where it was all method ringing, up to Kent, so clearly there are areas where things are working well. However that's not the situation in my home association, so I think it's very patchy nationally. One thing that stands out to me is that in the grouping that's successful, mobility of ringers is the norm from the very start. To me that has all sorts of benefits, is that something that happens in your area?

I don't recollect seeing any publicity about older ringers, the only things I've seen have ben all youth oriented,if they were in RW I'm not a subscriber, like many others in my position.

From my experience, in-tower support generally tops out just before the start of the Red Zone, although of course there are exceptions. Progressing to Surprise Major really isn't a realistic option here.

I think another unfilled gap is teaching the theoretical side of ringing. That's a hard sell, but if I look at the difference between people who continue to make progress and those who are stalled, it often seems to come down to what I can best describe as "a shared mental model" and "situational awareness". They have vocabulary and understanding in common with more advanced ringers which means it's far easier for them to react to feedback, before, during and after ringing. In contrast the reaction of people who get stuck is often a blank stare. I think that may be a result of too much concentration on "You are learning Method X" rather than "You are learning how to learn and ring methods". The game changer for me was the latter and it's something I try to pass on to the people following behind me. I think that without it, you can polish physical skills as much as you like, but people will top out around the PB level.

I’m aware of a ringer who has pretty much stopped ringing because they feel pressured (in the nicest possible way) into taking on objectives that they feel are beyond them.

I’m also aware of a ringer who stopped because they felt they were not getting the same chances as others to progress.

My own particular bugbear is that as soon as a ‘step’ is achieved, it’s on to the next! I’d actually like to try and enjoy my latest accomplishment, but no time for that, the road leads ever on and on.

Second bugbear, unconsciously denigrated ringers by using ‘just’ or ‘only’ before an activity. E.G. they can only ring rounds, we’re just going to ring call changes.

For me the objective of bell ringing is happy ringers at whatever level they fell able or willing to achieve.

The assumption that only a tiny majority of older ringers want to ring methods — John de Overa

I’m not sure that age is the defining factor driving ambition. In my experience adult learners in general think more about all aspects of their ringing, including progress, than youngsters do. I suspect aspirations are influenced as much or more by the environment into which they are recruited.

too much concentration on "You are learning Method X" rather than "You are learning how to learn and ring methods" — John de Overa

Yes, I’m sure that is very true. And not just for moving on to advanced methods. Right at the start lots of explanation is missed out.
People argue heatedly over whether you shout tell learners the bells to follow or the places to ring in, but how many are never told that they have to change the speed at which they ring when hunting?
And when moving on to Plain Bob how many do not have it explained that the work happens when the Treble leads, and that dodges are backward steps in hunting?
The New Ringer’s Book has 25 pages on how to ring changes and actual methods appear quite near the end of them.

I suspect aspirations are influenced as much or more by the environment into which they are recruited. — John Harrison

I think you are right, it certainly matches my personal experience of joining what was at the time a pretty moribund tower, I had to learn elsewhere. That's not true any more, so things can change - although it's not been a quick process.

And not just for moving on to advanced methods. Right at the start lots of explanation is missed out. People argue heatedly over whether you shout tell learners the bells to follow or the places to ring in, but how many are never told that they have to change the speed at which they ring when hunting? — John Harrison

I learned by bell number and had a rude awakening when I realised what a dead end that was. The experience was so painful I always stress to our learners that places are the only way if they want to progress beyond PH. When I started everyone in the tower rang by bell number. The obligate treble ringer only had 2 speeds - slow and slower, so once PH got to back rounds it fired up, as everyone frantically tried to hold up. If you said things like "front", "back", "in,", "out", "quicker", "slower" they were met with blank incomprehension - "I just ring over X, then Y, then Z...". There was zero comprehension of "ring at the right speed".

And when moving on to Plain Bob how many do not have it explained that the work happens when the Treble leads, and that dodges are backward steps in hunting? — John Harrison

Indeed, I was explaining exactly that last week. We ring a lot of Minimus, out of necessity, but I think it's easier for people to spot the relationships between bells when there are only three others to think about. I do wonder about the default use of PB as a first method, it feels like it's picked mostly because it seems "close" to PH rather than because it's good for teaching a specific new skill. From my experience, it certainly didn't teach me how to dodge properly, for example.

Second bugbear, unconsciously denigrated ringers by using ‘just’ or ‘only’ before an activity. E.G. they can only ring rounds, we’re just going to ring call changes.
One experienced ringer near us has banned the use of ‘just’ for exactly that reason, when you ringing called changes it’s not ‘just’ called changes for at least one of the ringers!

“One thing that stands out to me is that in the grouping that's successful, mobility of ringers is the norm from the very start. To me that has all sorts of benefits, is that something that happens in your area?”
In some towers.
I find this interesting because some people like to teach in their tower and keep their band with them to ring their way or progress the way they lead them and for many of the people involved this works very well and these are some of the most successful towers locally.
Others are much happier to encourage learners to go to other towers too, often because they or one of their band regularly go to that same other tower so you get networks with some cross over of ringers which can help people to progress faster. Some of these towers are bands which struggle for numbers or struggle for experience so visit other practices regularly for the opportunity to stretch their own skills but if they then encourage learners to come along too there is a crossover benefit and progress can improve.
Generally people don’t start joining other practices until they can ring in rounds and often it is when they reach plain hunt that they want to get more than one opportunity a week to practice their skills.

handling training is mostly "in tower" round here as well, but in the grouping to the north of here that I'm thinking of, once people can ring rounds they usually start getting out and about.

I'm not a great fan of "ring their way" teaching mostly because of the "my ringers" attitude it implies. Every teacher has a slightly different approach, some things work well for one person but not another so I think the more you are exposed to the more likely you are to find things that click. The other problem is that whilst there are good TCs, others shouldn't be let anywhere near a learner, and those are the ones who often have the "My tower, my ringers" mindset.

Personally I've always rung at multiple towers, initially because when I was learning to handle I was taken aside by a visiting ringer and told "Ask X at tower Y to teach you, before you kill yourself". But I'm the only person in my tower that rings regularly elsewhere, and I think that's reflected in my progress - one practice a week isn't enough if you want to push on.

Another bonus is I often pick up things I can take back to my home tower and pass on to others, we've benefitted a lot from outside influence in what was historically a completely isolated tower without needing others to come in and "prop us up".

Every teacher has a slightly different approach, some things work well for one person but not another — John de Overa

Yes and no. People do teach in a lot of different ways. Some of those ways are good and a lot are bad. And it's true that one approach might click with someone for whom anoither didn't, so being exposed to different approaches can be helpful. That's fine as long as the approach that clicks is a good one. The problem is that exposure to bad approaches can also click,

The problem is that exposure to bad approaches can also click, — John Harrison

Yes, which is why I think ringing at more than one tower is a good idea. I think one of the first skills anyone who rings at multiple towers will develop is the ability to distinguish between good and bad advice. I can think of one teacher of very fixed ideas that appear theoretically sound but seems to produce ringers that struggle to ring with anyone else and are almost impossible to put right, which causes no end of frustration for conductors.

Looking at the comments I cant help thinking that the notion of aspiration is often linked to the expectation of others , i.e if you put forward that ringing method is the ultimate goal then that becomes ingrained as an aspiration. Coming from Devon Ive rung with a significant number of older ringers whose aim is around perfection in striking and no more. As a tower captain, ive also let in visiting bands where the quality of method ringing is to be honest nothing more than an horrendous crash around. I think the aim should always be to ring to the best standard within the capabilities of the band, I totally agree that there is no room for the word only.

The advantage of learning to ring in the West Country is the fact that there is a natural focus on good bell handling and good striking through the awareness of a standard competition piece. I suspect that in most of the country the only time that a standard method is perceived is when it's time for ""this year's striking competition". I don't think it's surprising that so many judge the proficiency of other ringers by their repertoire of methods rather than their bell handling!

Method ringing should follow on from the ability to handle and strike a bell well. People are often pushed into things beforecthey are cabable and consrquently never get the basics Better good call changes than firing through method.

I agree, up to a point. You only move the bell at handstroke in CCs, and only one place before going back into rounds speed. Methods require changes on both strokes, and sustaining the change in speed. Ringing methods requires a step change in bell handling, and people often aren't given enough time to gain adequate skills. But you aren't ever going to get those new skills if you only ring CCs.

John , Im Devon born and bred and ring both Method and callchanges , I was at one point the Devon Association Rep on the CC and was accused in a sub groyp meeting by a very mediocre method ringer that as a Devon Call Change Ringer I did not understand what I was talking about when it came to method ringing , I had to polietly point out that I had rung a couple of thousand method peals having called about a quarter of them on all number of bells , ive also rung at a high standard in call change competitions. There is and admittedly to a lesser degree innrecent yrars has been an inherintent bias against call change ringing with some method ringers. If a person cant ring and strike their bell changing at one stroke how the hell are they going to be able to control and manage a bell changing at both strokes.

I ring with a number of top level Devon Call change ringers many of whom can ring method and strike it to a high standard.

So I have to disagree and its a comment ive heard before normaly to excuse poor standards of striking.

the striking of good Devon CC bands is without par, the point I was making is that CCs on their own aren't sufficient preparation for good method striking, and that's the usual progression for method ringers - you learn CCs to a reasonable standard and then you are pitched into methods, the assumption often being that no further work on your bell control and striking is needed so people end up struggling with the simultaneous challenges of upping their handling and learning to ring methods.

60 on 3rds is regular Sunday Service fare at my tower, even though we are 300 miles away from Devon. We don't come close to the standard of striking that's found in Devon - but we are working on it!

If a person cant ring and strike their bell changing at one stroke how the hell are they going to be able to control and manage a bell changing at both strokes. — Robert Brown

They aren’t. But they aren’t going to be able to to ring good call changes either. The problem is not about what is rung but that there is a widespread culture that fails to value, and hence develop, good striking.

My home tower consists of older ringers with poor handling, poor bell control and poor striking, on heavy bells with plain bearings. The band is loyal and enthusiastic, but they don’t ring elsewhere so have never been exposed to any good ringing and their aspirations don’t go beyond ringing for services and weddings.

The tower captain — a newcomer to ringing who was also badly taught — has been kind enough to let me try to improve the band’s handling skills. We badly need to improve our striking in rounds and call changes, and I do not believe that the striking will ever improve if we only ever do endless rounds and CCs. I’ve been told (at an ART course) to be very careful when attempting to correct ringers’ faulty technique because it might upset them. However, I think it is worth the risk and the effort. To this end, in recent months we have started to devote the first half hour of the practice to technical work. Each of us in turn rings solo while all the others watch and comment and we try various approaches to eradicate handling faults and achieve better control. It is motivating and is proving to be great fun too. As a byproduct of focusing on individuals in this way, I have discovered some interesting facts: many ringers can’t hear their bell at all and have no idea at what point during the pulling process their bell actually sounds. Shockingly, one ringer can’t even tell which is the treble and which is the tenor and can’t discern any difference between the high and low pitches. So I’m doing ear training exercises with the band now too.

This approach wouldn’t work in many towers, where the formula at practice night is to alternate between rounds and CCs for the less experienced and methods for those who can. Books on ringing suggest various exercises that bands can do, but I never see this kind of activity in the towers that I visit. During rounds for the learners, there are often vague but futile instructions being shouted out like “listen to your striking” — not much use if you have no idea of when your own bell is striking. My impression is that training in many towers (in my part of Kent at any rate) does not focus enough on basic handling and listening skills at the very start of a new ringer’s apprenticeship. New ringers’ aspirations can only be set once they become aware of exactly what they should be aspiring to.

your situation sounds very similar to that of my home tower when I started ringing, and I've seen the same challenges that you describe. I think your approach is well thought out and is the most likely way to deliver good results. I also think you are right about the problems of the "standard approach", despite it clearly not working well I've never heard anyone come up with a thought-through justification for teaching method ringing the way it's generally done, it's "Well, that's the way I was taught and it was good enough for me", which is really not a good reason.

It sounds like you are being respectful of the band, with their current experience, when suggesting how to work to improve and I think that is also ‘normal’. Ignoring bad striking or giving up trying to teach people how to improve how they ring (as well as what they ring) might feel like a standard experience in your tower but there are lots of towers (including many in Kent I expect) who are always encouraging listening and learning and discussion about the tweaks which can lead to improvements.
I think the difficulty is that many ringers don’t go outside their own tower so if a tower doesn’t have someone willing and able to lead this focus then the band don’t know what they are missing.
In a volunteer led set up it is hard to know how this can be changed as there is lots of information available but no route to ‘manage’ the capabilities of tower captains or ringing masters except district / branch involvement and that depends on volunteers time and capacity as well.
I’m glad you are making a difference to the band you ring with. If you shared your thoughts with the district or branch ringing master or training Officer do you think they would be interested in suggesting following a similar model to other towers who might benefit?

there are lots of towers (including many in Kent I expect) who are always encouraging listening and learning and discussion about the tweaks which can lead to improvements — Lucy Chandhial

I would be surprised if there were 'lots' who do that for ringers other than 'learners' or in special situations where a band has agreed to work together to improve. I am sure there are many supportive towers but I would be surprised if many offer those past being 'learners' much more than 'encouragement' and basic advice on how to ring CCs or methods rather than performance technique.
It seems to be built into ringing culture (outside centres of excelence in both method and call change ringing) that striking and bell control are taboo subjects, like driving and lovemaking, where advice is likely to be resented and people therefore shy away from giving it. Culture is notoriously hard to change, and I'm not sure how we can do it.

If you haven't already discovered it, you might like to encourage your ringers to look at Ringing Skills

It seems to be built into ringing culture (outside centres of excellence in both method and call change ringing) that striking and bell control are taboo subjects, like driving and lovemaking, where advice is likely to be resented and people therefore shy away from giving it. — John Harrison

Yes, once some people feel they are no longer "raw learners" it becomes almost impossible to get them to work on it. I can think of multiple examples where people's handling and striking is abysmal and affects the entire band, but there's an eruption if you dare mention it. I think pushing people into PB too fast is a big contributor to the problem as well, I thought my handling was fine when I could hack my way through PB but I had a rude awakening as soon as I tried to move beyond it - my handling & ropesight was completely inadequate and I more or less had to start over.

It's not as if the tools to help aren't available - for example simulators allow you to analyse each blow as well as the overall quality of your striking. Improving it should always be a work in progress, whilst I can ring on 6 with ~10% errors overall my striking on 8 is not as good and I'm working hard on it.

Yes, once some people feel they are no longer "raw learners" it becomes almost impossible to get them to work on it — John de Overa

The first order effect is that you can't help them, and so they continue to degrade the ringing in which they take part. But the second order effect is worse. The fear of offending deters anyone with ueful insights from sharing them with anyone, including those who might be receptive.

Thank you all for your comments. It can take ages for older learners to master correct technique. I learned at age 60 and it took me nearly three years to eradicate that common “waving right hand” fault that many new ringers have. I was ringing five days a week in various towers, doing call changes and learning to treble to methods, yet I simply couldn’t physically make my right hand grab the tail end at the correct point. My teacher was in despair. He couldn’t cure me, so I pestered several other TCs and also some Facebook groups for help, to no avail. I studied YouTube videos in slow motion to try to analyse what I should be doing. I got very depressed about it all. In the end it was sheer cussed determination that made me cure it by practising on my own while everyone else was chatting during breaks, but it was an incredibly hard and counterintuitive thing to do, probably not helped by my terrible fear of rope burn or injury. Once I “got it”, I couldn’t understand why it had been so difficult. I see this particular fault in so many older ringers, with detrimental effects on their striking and control. This is all just to illustrate the point that the aspirations of older learners are necessarily coloured by their tuition, which is often incomplete and needs more careful and longer nurturing than is perhaps the norm. It can be very challenging indeed for a teacher to instill perfect technique in someone whose reflexes and flexibility are not as good as they once were, especially if the teacher learned in their youth and has forgotten what it feels like to learn to ring.

And of course — going back to the topic of the original post — the members of a Facebook ringing group have self-selected themselves as being more than averagely interested in ringing per se (as opposed to merely wanting to keep the bells alive or to join in church/village activities), so this might introduce bias into the poll.

it took me nearly three years to eradicate that common “waving right hand” fault that many new ringers have. — Corinne Orde

Far better of course to avoid it in the first place by proper teaching, rather than trying to undo a habit that has been repeatedly practised and become automatic.
Have you looked at The New Ringer’s Book? There’s a lot of detail on the basic mechanics and how to get them right.

it's not always that simple, people can start out without bad habits and develop them when under pressure to continually ring at the edge of their ability.

Far better of course to avoid it in the first place by proper teaching, rather than trying to undo a habit that has been repeatedly practised and become automatic.
Have you looked at The New Ringer’s Book? There’s a lot of detail on the basic mechanics and how to get them right.

— John Harrison

Absolutely. My teacher gave me that book to read at my first lesson. It didn’t help. My bad habit was there from the outset and we tried everything we could to stop it, with all manner of exercises using dummy tail ends etc and daily individual lessons for weeks on end. His teaching was fine — it was more a case of me being so terrified of the quickly moving rope that I couldn’t carry out his (or the book’s) instructions. When I did the ART one-day course, we were taught how to teach a complete beginner from a bell-down position rather than a bell-up position. I now believe this is how people in my situation should have been taught in the first place — it would have helped with my fear and avoidance-of-injury instinct, which I believe was at the root of my particular problem.

It’s partly my own experience of learning as an older ringer that makes me so passionate about making sure that others I see with the same faults are made aware of them and encouraged to correct them. I’ve totally succeeded with a 50-year-old newish ringer, but some older ringers who’ve been ringing for decades are much more challenging to fix — I haven’t given up hope yet, though, because I know from my own experience that it’s possible!

to teach a complete beginner from a bell-down position rather than a bell-up position. I now believe this is how people in my situation should have been taught in the first place — Corinne Orde

I always start the first lesson with the bell down and it does indeed enable some problems to be tackled in a safe, non threatening environment. In my teens i taught lots of people starting with the bell down before I knew there was another way to do it. I first saw someone being taught starting with a bell up when at university, and I thought it looked rather dangerous.

My bad habit was there from the outset and we tried everything we could to stop it, with all manner of exercises using dummy tail ends etc and daily individual lessons for weeks on end — Corinne Orde

The best way to work on problems with hand transfer is with a static rope, starting slowly and gradually speedily up, before doing it with a moving rope.

His teaching was fine — it was more a case of me being so terrified of the quickly moving rope — Corinne Orde

You can’t expect to learn if you are terrified. Helping you to feel comfortable with what you are doing is a key part of the teaching process.