Krump

[Ben Floyd]

Zorn is defined by its attack path to the upper right opening and not by its follow through path on the lower left side. In JC's interpretation of the Krump the blade travels downward during the actual attack.

Would the majority of the cutting arc in the target be up or down? I'm at work and can't look at the video right now.

[Ben Michels]

Zorn is defined by its attack path to the upper right opening and not by its follow through path on the lower left side. In JC's interpretation of the Krump the blade travels downward during the actual attack.

Would the majority of the cutting arc in the target be up or down? I'm at work and can't look at the video right now.

If you cut through a target, the cut would travel upwards through the target.

[Ran Pleasant]

Zorn is defined by its attack path to the upper right opening and not by its follow through path on the lower left side. In JC's interpretation of the Krump the blade travels downward during the actual attack.

Would the majority of the cutting arc in the target be up or down? I'm at work and can't look at the video right now.

The primary path of the blade is downward at roughly 45 degrees. The best way to visualize this is to stand with your sword held out in Kron (point up & hilt level of face) and then drop the point back and down on either side at 45 degrees. It is basically the same action as a Zwerch or a Schiller.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Ben Michels]

Zorn is defined by its attack path to the upper right opening and not by its follow through path on the lower left side. In JC's interpretation of the Krump the blade travels downward during the actual attack.

Would the majority of the cutting arc in the target be up or down? I'm at work and can't look at the video right now.

The primary path of the blade is downward at roughly 45 degrees. The best way to visualize this is to stand with your sword held out in Kron (point up & hilt level of face) and then drop the point back and down on either side at 45 degrees. It is basically the same action as a Zwerch or a Schiller.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

He's asking how the sword travels through a target, not how the sword travels before it hits the target.

[Mink]

Actually JC points it out in the video: the cut is along a diagonal ascending path on target. It's just that he is very keen on pointing out that it is a descending cut "overall" because a krumphau must be an oberhau and he needs to reconcile this with his technique...

Regards,

[Ben Floyd]

nvm

[Herbert]

Thanks for posting the video.

Personally I disagree with John Clements on this one. This is not really a Krumphau - it is a Zwerch to the Pflug.
While this version of the Zwerchhau is quite useful, it is not the Krump - neither in execution nor in intention.

Merck den krump haw magstu auch treiben aus der schranck hu°t von paiden seittñ vnd in die hu°t schick dich also wenn dw mit dem zu° vechten zw° ÿm kumpst So ste mit dem lincken fuess vor vnd halt dein swert mit dem ort neben deiner rechten seitten auff der erden das die lang schneid oben seÿ vnd gib dich plöß mit der lincken seitten haut er dir denn zw° der plöss So spring aus dem haw gegen ÿm mit dem rechten fuëss wol auff dein rechte seitten vnd slach ÿn mit gekräutzten henden aus der langen schneid mit dem ort auff sein hend

It doesn't fit the description of the sources either.

Then there is another thing. In almost all instances of John doing his version of the Krump he would never have the necessary force to really injure someone wearing period clothing. At least not much. A slight cut would maybe result. There is a reason why this Zwerch to the Pflug is done in different instances in the sources - to generate more power.
He might be in a position to stab downwards but that is quite dependent on a bit of luck.

A sidenote: in 6:11 John Clements clearly and deliberately takes on an incoming strike with the edge! Ooohh. Isn't that not to be done? Isn't that sacrilegious?

Thanks for sharing. The application of the Zwerch to the Pflug in this instance is surely worth a thought. To me it seems as if it would not have enough power to do some real damage.
But no matter how valid it is, I don't see it as a Krump. It doesn't fit the sources. He never throws the point on the hands while stepping extremely to his right.

best wishes

Herbert

[Anders Linnard]

A sidenote: in 6:11 John Clements clearly and deliberately takes on an incoming strike with the edge! Ooohh. Isn't that not to be done? Isn't that sacrilegious?

That put a smile on my face.

Thanks for sharing. The application of the Zwerch to the Pflug in this instance is surely worth a thought. To me it seems as if it would not have enough power to do some real damage.
But no matter how valid it is, I don't see it as a Krump. It doesn't fit the sources. He never throws the point on the hands while stepping extremely to his right.

I imagine it's possible to generate quite a bit of force with this cut, but in most instances I think John is actually stepping in too closely to the opponent to do so (plus, he's obviously holding back, this being a demo). When he's that close to the opponent, he will find it difficult to generate power and avoid the other guy's cross guard as well.

He actually does cut to the hands in 06:30, but he turns the cut so much it is more looking like an unterhaw in that instance. He wouldn't have to though, if he stepped further offline. Now he's forced to lean backwards, which isn't a great solution (but one that I find myself doing too often as well).

Obviously this was filmed during a live presentation, and as usual he gets quite excited, so it's only natural that it isn't perfect.

I also remain unconvinced this is a krump. I like the technique though.

[Ran Pleasant]

Personally I disagree with John Clements on this one.

I think you for taking the time to review the interpretation. Of course, this will be one of many things we disagree on.

This is not really a Krumphau - it is a Zwerch to the Pflug. While this version of the Zwerchhau is quite useful, it is not the Krump - neither in execution nor in intention.

Respectfully, I think you are misunderstanding the angles of the cuts. When I cut a Zwerchhau to either the Ochs or the Pflug one flat of my blade is facing up. If you stand with both arms held out and the palms facing down then your hands represent the path of a Zwerchhau to the Ochs (actually a little higher than the shoulders). If you lower both arms down to about 60 or 50 degrees then your hands represent the path of a Zwerchhau to the Pflug. In Clements' interpretation of the Krump the blade follows a path a roughly 45 degrees out to the side. Totally different angles, thus totally different cuts.

This was actually a key issue we pressed Clements on when he first came out with his Krump interpretation. But once we looked closely at the angle we came to understand they were completely different cuts.

A sidenote: in 6:11 John Clements clearly and deliberately takes on an incoming strike with the edge! Ooohh. Isn't that not to be done? Isn't that sacrilegious?

You are misunderstanding the actions in the video. Clement is stifling the cut near the hilt where the blade is traveling slower rather than blocking it out at the weak where the blade is traveling faster. We have no problems with the edges connecting at slower speed, it is only the high speed edge-on-edge hits that cause major damage.

Again, thanks for the discussion.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Herbert]

This is not really a Krumphau - it is a Zwerch to the Pflug. While this version of the Zwerchhau is quite useful, it is not the Krump - neither in execution nor in intention.

Respectfully, I think you are misunderstanding the angles of the cuts. When I cut a Zwerchhau to either the Ochs or the Pflug one flat of my blade is facing up. If you stand with both arms held out and the palms facing down then your hands represent the path of a Zwerchhau to the Ochs (actually a little higher than the shoulders). If you lower both arms down to about 60 or 50 degrees then your hands represent the path of a Zwerchhau to the Pflug. In Clements' interpretation of the Krump the blade follows a path a roughly 45 degrees out to the side. Totally different angles, thus totally different cuts.

I beg to differ. The Zwerch to the Pflug - especiall as it is done in the first Fe(h)ler with the Zwerch:

Merck wenn du mit dem ze vechten zu° ÿm kumpst So thüe als dw im mit einem freÿen oberhaw zu° dem kopff wellest slachen vnd verzuck den haw vnd slach Im mit der twer zu° der vnderñ plöss seiner lincken oder seiner rechten seitten zu° welicher dw wild vnd wart das dw mit dem gehiltz vber deine~ haubt wol gedackt seist das magstu mit dem twerhaw auch also treiben (Danzig)

and also…

Fler wer wol furet
von vnde~ nach wunsch er ruret
Glosa Das ist mit dem feler werde~ alle fechter die da gern fersetze~ ver fyrt vnd geschlache~ das stuck trib also Wã du mit dem zu° fechte~ zu° Im kompst So thu° alß ob dü In mit aine~ fryen ober haw zu° siner lincke~ sÿtte~ [schlachen wilt] So ist er vnnde~ nach [30r] wu°nsch geru~ret vnd geschlage~ (Ringeck)

The way most practitioner interpret this technique is a Zwerchhau which is not done horizontal with the flat facing upwards (and downwards) but rather at an angle.

I think that what constitutes a certain strike is not necessarily the path it takes (with obvious exceptions) but the way it is executed, the way you move your hands, hilt and sword. Just there are quite a lot of deviations of a Schielhau - not just one way to do it.

Where does your notion come from that a Zwerchhau has to be exactly horizontal all the times?

And please... the mention of the edge thing was meant in a humoristic way, not to be taken seriously.

I of course see that the video was taken in a class where one tends to focus on one thing and be a bit more sloppy with other things that are irrelevant to what is shown.

Herbert

[Ran Pleasant]

The way most practitioner interpret this technique is a Zwerchhau which is not done horizontal with the flat facing upwards (and downwards) but rather at an angle.

We do disagree on these interpretations.

I think that what constitutes a certain strike is not necessarily the path it takes (with obvious exceptions) but the way it is executed, the way you move your hands, hilt and sword. Just there are quite a lot of deviations of a Schielhau - not just one way to do it.

Respectfully, there is a major logic error in your statements. First you say that cut is not defined by its path by also by how the hands move. Then you state there are many ways to do a Schielhau. Those two statements don't match up. I strongly believe the relative path does define a cut.

In any case I do agree there are many ways of doing a Schielhau, it is nothing more than a decending vertical false edge cut regardless of what actions one performed in order to make the cut. I consider any descending vertical false edge cut to be a Schielhau. Of course we must consider that the cut is rarely exactly vertical but its relative path is close to vertical.

Respectfully,

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Herbert]

Respectfully, there is a major logic error in your statements. First you say that cut is not defined by its path by also by how the hands move. Then you state there are many ways to do a Schielhau. Those two statements don't match up. I strongly believe the relative path does define a cut.

Obviously the path of the cut depends on how you move your hands. I may have been not exact enough in my writing.

In any case I do agree there are many ways of doing a Schielhau, it is nothing more than a decending vertical false edge cut regardless of what actions one performed in order to make the cut. I consider any descending vertical false edge cut to be a Schielhau. Of course we must consider that the cut is rarely exactly vertical but its relative path is close to vertical.

And if you apply this logic to the Zwerchhau, then it results that a Zwerch can also be like John executed his cut in the video. Is it not?

all the best

Herbert

[Ran Pleasant]

And if you apply this logic to the Zwerchhau, then it results that a Zwerch can also be like John executed his cut in the video. Is it not?

No, it is not. If I make a tip cut on a target with a Zwerchhau to the Och the cut would be a high horizontal line. If I make a tip cut on a target with a Zwerchhau to the Pflug the cut would be a lower horizontal line. From straight behind a cut with a Krump would appear as a diagonal line across the target. In order to make a lower horizontal line with a Krumphau I would have to turn my body sideways to the target, which is something we do often.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Herbert]

And if you apply this logic to the Zwerchhau, then it results that a Zwerch can also be like John executed his cut in the video. Is it not?

No, it is not. If I make a tip cut on a target with a Zwerchhau to the Och the cut would be a high horizontal line. If I make a tip cut on a target with a Zwerchhau to the Pflug the cut would be a lower horizontal line. From straight behind a cut with a Krump would appear as a diagonal line across the target. In order to make a lower horizontal line with a Krumphau I would have to turn my body sideways to the target, which is something we do often.

Ah - there lies the misunderstanding! The way most of the practitioners I know interpret a Zwerch to the Pflug is to do basically the same movement with the hand. The only difference is that one cuts low with the point while keeping the hands high. In essence it is what John does in the video. The body movement is a bit different but that is what is known as a Zwerch to the Pflug.
A Krump however is different.

The Zwerch to the Pflug (as I do it) fits the description in the manuscripts. What John depicts as a Krump does not fit the manuscripts (stepping, even jumping to the right, hitting the hands from above with the point).

So now there are two trails to follow.

Herbert

[Ran Pleasant]

Ah - there lies the misunderstanding! The way most of the practitioners I know interpret a Zwerch to the Pflug is to do basically the same movement with the hand. The only difference is that one cuts low with the point while keeping the hands high. In essence it is what John does in the video. The body movement is a bit different but that is what is known as a Zwerch to the Pflug.
A Krump however is different.

The Zwerch to the Pflug (as I do it) fits the description in the manuscripts. What John depicts as a Krump does not fit the manuscripts (stepping, even jumping to the right, hitting the hands from above with the point).

So now there are two trails to follow.

Indeed there are many trails to follow in recreating these lost arts. Thus, we will continue to disagree. We in ARMA feel that the way we perform a Zwerchhau to the Pflug and the way we perform a Krump both fit the descriptions in the manuscripts. Plus both are very maritally sound, where as we have found the older Krump interpretations to not be very maritally sound, ie. they don't break Ochs.

All the best to you in your endeavors with the arts.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Herbert]

We in ARMA feel that the way we perform a Zwerchhau to the Pflug and the way we perform a Krump both fit the descriptions in the manuscripts. Plus both are very maritally sound, where as we have found the older Krump interpretations to not be very maritally sound, ie. they don't break Ochs.

How does your Krump fit the manuscripts? Throwing the point ON the hands, stepping/jumping to the right?
The Krump does break the Ochs if you do it right. A lot of people here could show you. Maybe someone can grab a camera and put a video online.

Martially sound - yes, I agree. Both can be used successfully. But it wasn't about wether it works but wether it is what is named "Krumphau" in the manuscript. The one is simply a prerequisite of the other.

Herbert

[martin fabian]

I still don't exactly understand why this thing received such attention on multiple KdF forums. From the very beggining it is apparent the interpretation is at least amusing and nonsensical. But why comment it so much when most of the folks know that?

You see, JC is in a way similar to George Lucas. He gave us excellent "New Hope" when there was not much around, his Empire "striked back" when the whole world started reconstructing KDF, but his "Return of the Jedi" is just throwing Ewoks at us. And this Krump sequence is close to Jar-jar Binks. And the Pants.

Ran, I don't know you personally but you seem to be a nice guy who is very passionate about the Art and your organization (which is great). But in this case there is really not much to advocate. Maybe just more listen to the "other world".

[Anders Linnard]

Nerd

[Herbert]

I still don't exactly understand why this thing received such attention on multiple KdF forums. From the very beggining it is apparent the interpretation is at least amusing and nonsensical. But why comment it so much when most of the folks know that?

Because the people around John Clements kept to themselves for very long. If one of them now takes a step outside their circle and puts a technique up to discussion then I take this seriously. Not only because of the question that lurks behind the post but also to show that everyone is welcome if he discusses on a sound basis.

It is at least as much about opening doors than it is about technique.

At least in my case.

Herbert

[Roger N]

I'll try to not dig into this too deeply. But clearly, the krump can be done in many different ways, striking with the long or short edge or even the flat, against the opponent's flat or on top of his (short) edge, at his weak or strong, directly to the body, to the sword or as a bouncing strike first to the sword and then to the body.

Here is how Kal depicts the simplest version, stepping off to the right while cutting to the hands. Throwing your rear hand under your elbow protects it from the opponent's incoming cut and angles your blade so it cuts more or less at the same angle as the opponent.

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00001840/image_136


Talhoffer too shows it thrown diagonally forwards on top of the opponent's blade, completing it with what appears to be an oberhauw, but possibly also a short-edge unterhauw to the head:

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00020451/image_23

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00020451/image_24


Here are a couple of sources that can be mistaken for showing the ARMA interpretation:

The Berlin Sketchbook shows a few images that looks similar to the ARMA interpretation, but sidestepping diagonally forwards so you get an angle from which you can wind in a thrust on the outside with crossed arms is vital. This is what keeps you safe and enables you to pose a proper threat, as his blade is at your side, bound with your cross while your point is aimed at his balls or gut...

http://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/dms/werkansicht/?PPN=PPN614064619&PHYSID=PHYS_0021

There are a few more similar images in that specific treatise. (Thanks Martin Fabian for putting my attention to it!)

It is quite similar to the counter for the "2nd" Zwerch shown in the Glasgow Fechtbuch (and described by several other masters, e.g Ringeck) where it is the left fencer who makes the clever counter:

http://wiktenauer.com/images/6/68/E.1939.65.341_1r.jpg

Possibly, this is also what we see on plate 84 in the Solothurner Fechtbuch. However, in that treatise we see the "regular" Krump from above to the hands on plate 88, identically to how Kal shows it.

The Rast fechtbuch again on plate 46r shows a similar stance that basically is a mutieren coming from a zornhau bind, where you through the pommel underneath your elbow which will wind your point over and inside the opponent's blade when done correctly.

As a sidenote, as he has been mentioned in this debate: Meyer says a few interesting things about the krump and has his very own perspective on it, but he is also aware of the older interpretations:

"So du Krumphauwft / fahr auff behend / Geschrenckt den ort wirff auff sein hend"
"Wann du ihm hauwest Krump zur sterck / Durchwendt / Uberlauff damit merck."
"Mit krump trit wol / wilt du versetzen / Das uberschrencken thüt ihn letzen"
Krump zun flechen wilt dich stercken / Wiet ihn schechst / solt fleissig merken"
"Merck so er dich mit Krump wolt irze & Bleib am Schwert & recht den krieg thu füren"

Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to debate more, but clearly there is not one single interpretetation of the Krump. The sources are quite clear on this. To me the krump is a simple cut: A cut with crooked arms that can go to the opponent's body or sword. What you do after that is a follow up, which can be winding and cutting, thrusting or wrenching.

ARMA's interpretation has some merit for the follow-ups, although I don't consider them actual part of the krump. The unterhauw would be fairly weak against a doublet and thus quite ineffective. A thrust would be better, which is what we appear to see in some treatises.