Herbert wrote:... words...
You are right, for that I admire Ran as a minister of his association. But it is important also to listen and have eyes opened (aren't the doors you mention 'exit only'?). Maybe it just needs some time.
Herbert wrote:... words...
Roger Norling wrote:Then please show how you counter the Ochs with a krump by:
1. Stepping well to your right side while throwing the strike over his hands with the long edge.
2. Start from left Schrankhut and step well to your left side while throwing the strike over his hands with the short edge.
Goliath/Peter von Danzig wrote:When you come to him in the pre-fencing, if he stands against you holding his sword before his head in the guard of the Ox, on his left side, then put your left foot forward, and hold your sword on your right shoulder, in the guard, and spring with the right foot well to your right side against him, and strike him with the long edge, from crossed arms, over the hands.
Ringeck:
Daß ist Wenn du aine~ maiste~ schwechen wilt So trÿb dz stuck also weñ er dir oben einhawt võ sine~ rechten sÿtten So haw~ kru~ mit gekreucztem gekrentzten hende~ gege~ sime sine~ haw vff sin schwert ~
When you want to weak a master, use this technique: when he cuts in against you from above from his right side, strike crookedly with crossed hands against his cut above the sword.
or:
Das ist wenn er dir von siner rechten achseln oben ein will howen So tu° alß ob du mitt dem krumphaw° an sin schwert wöllest binden Vnnd kurcz vnd far mitt dem ort vnde~ sn sine~ schwert durch vnd wind vff din rechte sÿttenn dein gehülcz über din höppt vnd stich im zu° dem gesicht ~~
When he wants to cut in from his right shoulder, pretend that you want to bind against his sword with a Krumphau. Cut short; and go through with the point under his sword and wind your hilt to your right side over your head, and stab him in the face.
or:
Daß ist Wann du im von diner rechten sÿtten ober ode~ vnden zu° haw~est Hawt er dann och von sÿner rechten sÿtten mit gekreutzen armen krump vff din schwert Vñ verir°et dir do mitt dein hew~ So blÿb mitt dine~ schwert starck an dem sine~ Vnnd schüß im vnde~ dem schwert den ort lang ein zu° der brust ~
When you cut against him from above or from below, from your right side; if he also cuts crookedly from him right side with crossed arms to your sword and thus foils your strike, so bind strongly with your sword. And shoot your point against his breast under the long edge of his sword.
Herbert Schmidt wrote:No stepping right, no point on the hands from above (or on the blade) = no krump, however much you cross your hands.
Ringeck:
Daß ist Wenn du aine~ maiste~ schwechen wilt So trÿb dz stuck also weñ er dir oben einhawt võ sine~ rechten sÿtten So haw~ kru~ mit gekreucztem gekrentzten hende~ gege~ sime sine~ haw vff sin schwert ~
When you want to weak a master, use this technique: when he cuts in against you from above from his right side, strike crookedly with crossed hands against his cut above the sword.
Das ist wenn er dir von siner rechten achseln oben ein will howen So tu° alß ob du mitt dem krumphaw° an sin schwert wöllest binden Vnnd kurcz vnd far mitt dem ort vnde~ sn sine~ schwert durch vnd wind vff din rechte sÿttenn dein gehülcz über din höppt vnd stich im zu° dem gesicht ~~
When he wants to cut in from his right shoulder, pretend that you want to bind against his sword with a Krumphau. Cut short; and go through with the point under his sword and wind your hilt to your right side over your head, and stab him in the face.
Daß ist Wann du im von diner rechten sÿtten ober ode~ vnden zu° haw~est Hawt er dann och von sÿner rechten sÿtten mit gekreutzen armen krump vff din schwert Vñ verir°et dir do mitt dein hew~ So blÿb mitt dine~ schwert starck an dem sine~ Vnnd schüß im vnde~ dem schwert den ort lang ein zu° der brust ~
When you cut against him from above or from below, from your right side; if he also cuts crookedly from him right side with crossed arms to your sword and thus foils your strike, so bind strongly with your sword. And shoot your point against his breast under the long edge of his sword.
None of these things from the Krump can be done with the ARMA Interpretation.
Why not admit that the interpretation might be flawed?
Why insist that you have moved further and beyond? We all tried different roads to find out what works and what not - what follows the text and what could've been meant.
Absolutely! Everything we do is based upon the historical manuscripts. All interpretations must match the text of the historical manuscripts and must be martially sound before they are accepted.Just stay close to the manuscripts.
Hotspur School wrote:Randall - It's wrong, plain wrong - deal with it.
You've used this as your trump card for the 'two generations' claim for quite some time. Now we've seen it and it just doesn't wash. It is not a krumphau. It will never be a krumphau, no matter how much your loyalty dictates that you profess it to be so.
The masters are specific in their instruction, in the very words they wrote. Most of us who study German longsword - in some cases for over two decades - have long since reached a consensus and agreed on what the krumphau is. We can't all be wrong.
The native German speakers on this forum have again shown the evidence, translating from their own language into English, of what the krumphau is according to the masters.
I believe them. I have no reason not to. I speak German. They are not trying to reinvent the wheel.
This 'revolutionary' interpretation is not going anywhere. Sorry.
Hotspur School wrote:Randall - It's wrong, plain wrong - deal with it.
The masters are specific in their instruction, in the very words they wrote. Most of us who study German longsword - in some cases for over two decades - have long since reached a consensus and agreed on what the krumphau is. We can't all be wrong.
The native German speakers on this forum have again shown the evidence, translating from their own language into English, of what the krumphau is according to the masters.
John Clements wrote:Back in the year 2000, I made a very public prediction that what would come to hinder this subject is not the dearth of available source materials, but the eventual orthodoxy that would settle in as certain views became ossified as the "approved consensus" (—the very problem which itself had already produced decades of nonsense). I forecasted that the phenomena of enthusiasts being unable to acknowledge erroneous core assumptions and correct inferior practice routines would become the bane of historical fencing studies. The growth and direction of this subject has since proven me prescient. (If anything, I did not go far enough in my prediction.) As I foresaw, the empty desert we once wandered through quickly became a jungle overrun with weeds and thorns that students have to hack their way through.
Ran Pleasant wrote:None of the German speakers on this forum have come up with an original longsword interpretation. None! They, like you and I, following a longsword interpretation developed by someone else. I follow the Krump interpretation developed by John Clements. You and the German speakers on this forum follow the Windshield wiper interpretation that was developed over 12 years ago and was published in Christian Tobler's first book back in 2002. It is basically plagiarism for you, Herbert, or any other German speakers on this forum to claim to have a Krump interpretation when all any of you are doing is following and agreeing with an existing interpretation. By your own words all of you are stuck in an Approved Consensus which allows no growth and refinement of the art. That's why all of you are still doing what people were doing in 2002. So don't tell me about all the great longsword research being done by the German speakers, they are doing nothing more than following what was already done a decade earlier. And at least be honest and give credit to the person who came up with the original windshield wiper interpretation, be it Tobler or someone else.
Ran Pleasant wrote:Hotspur School wrote:Randall - It's wrong, plain wrong - deal with it.
Oh my, Bob has declared something, thus it must be true!![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Bob, it would be really helpful if you went ahead and declared world peace.
The masters are specific in their instruction, in the very words they wrote. Most of us who study German longsword - in some cases for over two decades - have long since reached a consensus and agreed on what the krumphau is. We can't all be wrong.
The native German speakers on this forum have again shown the evidence, translating from their own language into English, of what the krumphau is according to the masters.
None of the German speakers on this forum have come up with an original longsword interpretation. None! They, like you and I, following a longsword interpretation developed by someone else. I follow the Krump interpretation developed by John Clements. You and the German speakers on this forum follow the Windshield wiper interpretation that was developed over 12 years ago and was published in Christian Tobler's first book back in 2002. It is basically plagiarism for you, Herbert, or any other German speakers on this forum to claim to have a Krump interpretation when all any of you are doing is following and agreeing with an existing interpretation. By your own words all of you are stuck in an Approved Consensus which allows no growth and refinement of the art. That's why all of you are still doing what people were doing in 2002. So don't tell me about all the great longsword research being done by the German speakers, they are doing nothing more than following what was already done a decade earlier. And at least be honest and give credit to the person who came up with the original windshield wiper interpretation, be it Tobler or someone else.
I guess it does not really make sense to talk about some being generation ahead of others as we are all in the same generation. However, by your own words I can say you are stuck in the past. We have shared a lot of new cutting edge interpretations and information but by your own words you cannot accept it because of your Approved Consensus. What a shame.
So Bob, I leave this thread since it is falling into the same old shame of flame but I leave you with a quote from the article Our New Rosetta Stone: Advancing Reconstruction of Forgotten European Fighting Arts (http://www.thearma.org/essays/revealing-new-perspectives.html).John Clements wrote:Back in the year 2000, I made a very public prediction that what would come to hinder this subject is not the dearth of available source materials, but the eventual orthodoxy that would settle in as certain views became ossified as the "approved consensus" (—the very problem which itself had already produced decades of nonsense). I forecasted that the phenomena of enthusiasts being unable to acknowledge erroneous core assumptions and correct inferior practice routines would become the bane of historical fencing studies. The growth and direction of this subject has since proven me prescient. (If anything, I did not go far enough in my prediction.) As I foresaw, the empty desert we once wandered through quickly became a jungle overrun with weeds and thorns that students have to hack their way through.
Very strong words and to the point!
Ran Pleasant
ARMA
Roger N wrote:I can understand why you get mad under pressure Randall, but that is a quite rude and ignorant statement to all of us.
Bob Brooks wrote: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.
Return to Johannes Liechtenauer Lineage
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest