Some of you will hate this post. Some of you will like it. One of the best ways I can think of to show why I think the current up move in equities is a Minor B wave is to show you an example of a true impulse in another market. This one is current. One reason I show it to you is to show you than I can, indeed, count an impulse. The chart is the U.S. Ten Year Treasury Note Futures Daily.

U.S. Ten Year Treasury Note Futures  Daily  Impulse 
First, let's be clear, it took me less than 15 minutes to analyze this chart and to find where you and I would likely differ.
Starting at the lower left, you see a wave labeled 1, that looks remarkably like a "three". But, it is either 1 and and flat 2, in which case the b wave of 2 is larger than 1, or it is just 1 with a very brief fourth internal wave that gives it the appearance of a "three". Either way, the second wave retraces a very deep 82% of wave 1 as shown. Remember Neely's caution about the extremely low probability of a second wave beyond 62%? Throw it out the window in this chart! The extremely deep base sets the foundation for the large rise that follows.
Also  in terms of time  if wave 2 is a Flat, then it does take more time than wave 1. If it is not a flat, then it doesn't.
What follows should be quite clear. There is a clear break of the dotted "base channel" drawn around waves 1 & 2 just as R.N. Elliott instructs us. Then, the third wave is a clear nonoverlapping five wave subdivision with gaps that ends beyond the 1.618 level. But, the wave did make the 1.618 level.
Where most of us will differ is that most of you will be tempted to put wave 3 on the spike that I have labeled the b wave of 4. But if you do this, you will quickly note that wave 3 then gets one too many subdivisions, and no longer counts like an impulse, itself.
Further, you will fail to recognize that wave a of 4 is too short in time to correct any of the previous up waves  leading to  yes a corrective wave b that is massive in comparison to it's a wave. This over sized b wave is the b wave of a "running triangle" and it clearly looks like a "three", regardless of it's power to move prices higher. The rest of the triangle clearly is designed to "take up time and move prices sideways" until the e wave overlaps wave 3, again, as wave 4.
Wave 4 is then longer in time than wave 2, yes, but it is also longer in time than wave 3, which Neely likes to see. Next, when we draw the channel from wave 2 to wave 4, with a parallel copy on 1, we find that wave 3 is somewhat outside of the upper bounds of the channel. This helps indicate that wave 3 is the wave with the most amount of momentum.
It turns out in this chart, the maximum of the MACD is on the b wave of that triangle, not on wave 3. Fooler? Or does it just represent the power of an outsized b wave. Then as Neely correctly predicts, the outsized b wave leads to a "failure" wave. The c wave of the triangle does not break the b wave low. There are some things Neely has gotten exactly correct, there are other things which have not passed the test of time.
After the triangle, wave 5 breaks out with five quick waves up  which is almost, but not quite  the size of wave 3. The fact that wave 5 did not exceed wave 3's length, shows that wave 3 is the extended wave in the sequence and should be denoted x3. The MACD does diverge on wave 5, as expected.
Now I know that most of you hate this b wave. You will look for another way around it, like putting "three" at that high, and saying there was only a double combination downward after it. Fair enough. But, keep in mind, we have said that by the principles of degree labeling it is very hard to find ways where the third wave can exceed the 2.618 Fibonacci extension level.
Further, the Elliott Wave Principle indicates that the "running triangle" is a very common structure  particularly in strong markets. And, the triangle indicates the "last wave in the sequence" is dead ahead  which it was. The downward wave has overlapped a prior wave and appears to have broken the channel lower. Beyond that  since fourth wave triangles provide alternation for any type of second waves, having a triangle here "cleans up the mess" left by trying to determine if wave 2 was a flat or not.
Again, this analysis of a current chart took only 15 minutes  start to finish  although it took longer to write about it. Yes, I can actually analyze impulse waves. I do it all the time, and this one is quite messy at that. Hopefully, analyzing a current impulse independent of anyone else's view might prove helpful to you and lend some additional confidence to what I do.
It is many of these above characteristics that I can not find in the current stock market rise. Is the current rise just like that little (sic) b wave, above? Only time will tell. The question is not how I will count it. The question is how will you? Or .. will you even bother...
Have a good start to the day.
TraderJoe
P.S. At the risk of generating any 'degree violations', I tried to clean up the 'bottom' of the above chart. Below is a fourhour chart in what clearly looks like an expanding diagonal off of the bottom and a deep >80% retrace as a zigzag and back to a prior fourth wave, at that.

US Ten Year Note Futures  4 Hr Chart  Expanded Diagonal 
This, now proven and not potential, diagonal would be of the 5:3:5:3:5 variety. And, yes, I do have a lot of questions about this count. But I have to say this. Of all of the Elliott wave patterns this one is the
least frequent, and therefore the most difficult to study. But this would not be a small diagonal. It occurs on the
four hour time frame, by gosh. But, it seems that the internal overlaps of the diagonal
require the count, as do the subsequent waves of the further impulse that follows. It is also characteristic of some leading diagonals that they have the "deep retrace" afterwords. So, the wave
personality seems to fit, as well.