Krump

[Michael Chidester]

The notion that Einstein was a physics superhero who developed the theories of relativity purely out of his own mind is purely a myth--the idea of relativistic physics was first proposed two hundred years earlier by Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz in opposition to Newton's background-dependent theories of motion, and it matured over the subsequent centuries until Einstein, working with a variety of mathematicians and physicists who made key contributions, pieced together a narrow version called Special Relativity and, several years later with even more assistance, the more powerful General Relativity. Afterward, his work was confirmed by many other physicists, yes, but it was also expanded and refined by many researchers until today, when our understanding of relativity is far different than what Einstein himself taught a hundred years ago. Einstein was a genius and became a cultural icon, but he was still just one man.

All of this is not particularly relevant to the Krumphaw, except in the sense that robust HEMA interpretations, like robust physical theories, are not the work of one man.

Like it or not, you and Herbert both follow the Windshield wiper interpretation.

You keep saying that (minus the winky face), but most groups do not, in fact, follow such an interpretation (hell, I'm told that Tobler doesn't either). What I see many groups doing these days is a diagonal cut thrown from the "wrong" side on a large step. While this might appear visually similar to an arcing-type cut if (for example) one's only source of information is a few scattered youtube videos and blog posts because one doesn't attend major events, the mechanics are quite different and so are the outcomes.

[Hotspur School]

I can understand why you get mad under pressure Randall, but that is a quite rude and ignorant statement to all of us.

Roger

Mad? Not at all. I just had a great laugh at Bob.

If I was rude I was at least no more rude than was Bob. It was a nice friendly discussion but of course a friendly discussion is more than what Bob can stand. Thus, Bob did what Bob does best.

Randall, given your past endeavours here and elsewhere - i.e we're all useless swordsmen who are two generations behind - what do you expect? You talk holy grail/rosetta stone and then produce that claiming it to be revelation. I'm allowed an opinion - and it's mine that it is not a revelation, it is wrong. It doesn't conform to the written sources.

What you have written above basically dismisses, out of hand, the basic academic model of peer-review that has existed in this community for over 20 years.

You don't seem to really understand the basic academic peer-review model. Please consider the following.

The Theory of Relativity was developed by Albert Einstein. Einstein's theory was confirmed by a number of other scientists. What is important to note is that not a single one of those other scientists claimed to have their own Theory of Relativity. Peer-review in science involves testing, it does not volve claiming other's work.

Explain to me how what we've been doing over the last 20 years doesn't fit the above model? I'll break it down so you can follow the method.

1. I can read, Randall. Therefore I read the sources, which are quite specific, and trained it MYSELF. As did others here.

2. We all tested it, independently until we met in person or online, and came to the almost exact same conclusions.

3. We then refined our own personal interpretations, based on external input.

So, it follows - research, test, refine. It's that simple.

The Windshield wiper interpretation is basically a theory that was developed at least before the year 2000. Your own original research may support or not support that interpretation. That's Peer-review. However, your research does not give you the right to claim that interpretation. That's not scholarly, that's not good science, that's not honest.

Yes, the 'windshield wiper' theory - as you inaccurately phrase it - did develop before 2000. I believe it was around the 14th century or thereabouts. That's why it was written down by fighting experts of the time. Except I don't think you fully understand that principle. So whose modern work are we claiming as our own?

Like it or not, you and Herbert both follow the Windshield wiper interpretation.

We follow the instructions specifically given by the original masters. No one else.

Like it or not, you have a fragile grasp on the what the rest of the HEMA community is involved in. But hey, there's none so blind as he who will not see

[Ben Michels]

Like it or not, you have a fragile grasp on the what the rest of the HEMA community is involved in.

This, along with the need to mash the krumphau into their segno idea, is the crux of the issue.

[Anders Linnard]

If the windshield wiper looks anything like how JC performs it in the vid I don't think I've ever met a proponent of that cut.

[Hotspur School]

If the windshield wiper looks anything like how JC performs it in the vid I don't think I've ever met a proponent of that cut.

Neither have I Anders - if anything, it shows just how isolated they've made themselves from the rest of us and how horribly out of touch they are.

[Roger N]

Well it is easier to ridicule a conflicting interpretation by making it look silly through a bad execution than doing it properly... As said so many times, a Krump can be done against the opponent's flat or short edge at a straight to the side or diagonally forwards angle. Both are in the treatises and work a bit differently. Claiming that there is one single way of executing the Krump is only possible if you completely ignore all treatises. Even a single treatise will tell you there are different ways of doing it.

[Ben Floyd]

Anders, I was thinking the same thing. As Randall described the windshield earlier as being perfectly perpendicular to a line connecting the combatants. I've seen some people do this, but it's not the majority or even close.

Also, what the hell is an agile krump? I assume it to mean one that relies on footwork to take you offline? Windshield I get, but I've never heard of an agile krump.

[Anders Linnard]

Yeah, I would be interested in knowing what the agile krump is as well.

[Michael Chidester]

That would, I believe, be a reference to this document written by Casper Bradak upon leaving ARMA:

http://dragonstailschool.com/PDF/The%20Krumphau.pdf

[Roger N]

Interesting, but perhaps a bit "political" article.

Think I have seen the Krump done with the pommel thrown over the right arm before, but I can't place where. I know I have suggested it before, and it would explain how the Goliath version of the Krump to the hands do not seem to match the Kal and Solothurn version with the pommel underneath the elbow. Still not quite convinced that the Goliath illustration matches that specific stuck for the krump though.

[Mink]

Interesting, but perhaps a bit "political" article.

Maybe, and yet it makes a better case than the ARMA's video, with more references and respect of the sources...

It's quite interesting to see the debate about which figure is doing the right move in the illustrations. I was not aware this was a widespread problem. A benefit of mainly reading later sources I guess

Regards,

[Michael Chidester]

It's quite interesting to see the debate about which figure is doing the right move in the illustrations. I was not aware this was a widespread problem.

Fortunately, it's not a widespread problem. In general, the text makes it obvious which figure is executing the device. The problem is bound to arise when you ignore the text, though.

[Rakkasan]

If the windshield wiper looks anything like how JC performs it in the vid I don't think I've ever met a proponent of that cut.

Neither have I Anders - if anything, it shows just how isolated they've made themselves from the rest of us and how horribly out of touch they are.

This.

[Roger N]

It's quite interesting to see the debate about which figure is doing the right move in the illustrations. I was not aware this was a widespread problem.

Fortunately, it's not a widespread problem. In general, the text makes it obvious which figure is executing the device. The problem is bound to arise when you ignore the text, though.

Agreed. The Goliath image is a pretty particular case and my confusion was caused by black and white images not showing the red blood. And it doesn't matter as much in that specific case as both parties basically stand in the same stance, although with important difference in details.

However, I do have a strong feeling that one of the arguments in the video against the common interpretation of the Krump is based on misconception of an image showing a counter to a Zwerch that John claims to show his Krump interpretation. I can't tell for sure of course, but he describes and shows a position which is identical and quite common in the fechtbuchen showing exactly that: How to counter someone who makes a Zwerch to your right side by laying your blade against his neck under his incoming Zwerch. The illustrations even show it laid on the opponent's arm.

There are books that are trickier though. Some have little or no text and illustrations are not always so technically good. Often it is apparent who is "winning", but not always. The solution is to compare to all other treatises and look for similarities and differences.

[Michael Chidester]

There are books that are trickier though. Some have little or no text and illustrations are not always so technically good. Often it is apparent who is "winning", but not always. The solution is to compare to all other treatises and look for similarities and differences.

The other solution is to leave over attempting to interpret those sources for the time being. There are dozens of treatises now available in lovely color scans with high-quality translations from the same period, all of them ripe for interpretive work. But if you are going to play around with Talhoffer or the non-Wallerstein images from Duerer, don't make any claim about the objective accuracy of your conclusions since you're ultimately just making shit up (ofttimes cool shit, but still made up). And certainly don't attempt to project your own devices back onto core Liechtenauer teachings.

[Roger N]

To a degree I agree, Michael. But as you know many sources copy others and one can often see what source they are likely to have copied from, at least if you spend a bit of time on it. Much is commonly shared between them, even when it is not direct copies. So if we see a technique that is identically visualized in another treatise that has text, then it is a good chance that it shows the same. Speculative of course, but a good bet still.

Other sources are harder though. So I don't disagree with you. And I think you are perhaps talking more about the topics of this thread than what I said.

[Stevie T]

Ran, I posted in responce on another forum as I'd got way too lost with reading this thread across multiple forums on a crappy old nokia.

Basically, i think you were brave for posting stuff on a forum as it's not the best medium for discussing techniques, and why I don't bother. Leave it till you get to talk to people in person, sword in hand.

But thinking on it more, since I've realise two ARMA members have posted essentially the same thing, and that ARMA hope to create one of two repsonces.

First: ARMA are wanting to get their interpretation out there and to have some discussion about it.

If this is true ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC. But, it ain't going to happen over the interwebs. Get John to organise an invite only weekend where he talks through some of his more controversial ideas. Andreas, Roger, Scott brown, as well as other have shown they are willing to listen; but forums have unsuprisingly failed us again, make it happen in person. (I'd also invite Bob. I've met him in person and he is a very gracious man, he just doesn't always come across well on forums. I'm sure you know the feeling, and Bob and I haven't always got along great online)

Second: "yet more evidence of how the evil outside world of HEMA want to discredit John Clements and his complete and total understanding of all HEMA!"

If the first isn't true, and John isn't willing to help get some of the biggest free thinking names in HEMA together to show his theories, then could you do us all a favour....

[Ran Pleasant]

ARMA are wanting to get their interpretation out there and to have some discussion about it.

Stevie

I assure you this is the goal. It is just the sharing of good materials that should at least be evaluated. As I have stated earlier, all I asked was that those scholars who are interested to take a year or two to evaluate this interpretation of the Krump. This interpretation got no free ride within ARMA so there is no expectation of a free ride outside of ARMA. John Clements is current at the R.L. Scott Conference in Scotland and I'm really hoping some of the people who are attending the conference will ask him demonstrated it to them.

Overall the discussions have been fun, enjoyable, and in many ways enlightening. As time allows I do hope to continue with further discussions.

I thank you for your openness.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Ran Pleasant]

The Zwerch covers all lines but the vertical A- and E-lines; B,C,D,F,G and H.
....

There simply is no need to try to squeeze the Krump into the D- or F-lines. They are already covered by the Zwerch, which again is what you have embedded into the Krump.

Roger

Does the Zwerchhau to the Ochs and Pflug really require all those lines? Six different lines! Well let us look at what Meyer says about cutting the Zwerchhau to the Ochs and to the Pflug. It might actually be a lot simpler than six different cuts.

1.56v
...namely that you shall quickly deliver the Thwart Cut to the Ox and Plow, that is to the lower and upper opening, to the left and right, horizontally and diagonally opposite to all four parts, as with other cuts, as I have already taught more fully in the section on the four openings.

....

1.56v.1
But if he perceives it and defends or parries it, then step rapidly with your left foot toward his right side and deliver a Thwart from your left at his lower right opening with lowered body
...

So cutting to the Ochs and Pflug is performed by cutting both horizontally and diagonally. This makes sense that a regular horizontally Zwerchhau to the head is the Zwerchhau to the Ochs since you can't get any higher than the head and the Ochs guard is held next to the head. The master's words seem to clearly indicate that the Zwerchhau to the Ochs is on the C and G lines and clearly dismisses cuts on the B and H lines. So the question we are left with is when making Zwerchhau to the Pflug on the right and left does it make sense that these cuts are on the D and F lines when cuts are not also made on the B and H lines? Sure it can be done, but does it make sense?

Let me suggest an alternative interpretation that I think makes more sense in the context of Meyer's text. If Person A slowly cut a Zwerchhau to the right Ochs against Person B then Person A's blade would come to rest against Person B's head. If you told Person A to move his blade to Person B's lower opening which of the following options do you think Person A would do?

1. Lower the blade down to Person B's lower opening, leaving the blade diagonally to the front.

or

2. Pull his blade back so that it is pointing out to his right side and then lower the blade down diagonally to the right before moving the blade back against Person B.

All reason and logic suggest Person A would do the first option. Test this on the next new student you get. Also note that if Meyer means diagonally to the front then both the Zwerchhau to the Ochs and the Zwerchhau to the Pflug are all on the C and G lines, which is a much simpler and cleaner yet still effective interpretation.


In the above quote from Meyer he states, "...deliver a Thwart from your left at his lower right opening with lowered body". This highly suggest that you cut the left Zwerchhau while taking your own body low and if your body is low you only have to cut a normal Zwerchhau in order to hit the lower opening. Of course this idea depends upon the correctness of the translation "...with lowered body". Even if it is wrong it does not affect the above discussion.

Your argument about the D and F lines already being used, thus invalidating Clement's Krump interpretation, does not hold water in the context of Meyer's text. Please consider that what you and others have been performing as a Zwerchhau to the Pflug is really a Krumphau.

Respectfully,

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[martin fabian]

Please consider that what you and others have been performing as a Zwerchhau to the Pflug is really a Krumphau.

Nope, it isn't.