Krump

[Roger N]

That's almost haiku, Martin! Anything shorter and your posts might self-implode

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

Nope, Randall. The Zwerch doesn't "require" six lines. It allows you to use six lines. That is quite different. It is you who claim that there is a requirement for one cut for each line. I don't and the masters do not either. Restricting it to one line doesn't make things simpler. It just limits what you are "allowed" to do. It puts restraints on you.

The quotes from Meyer you provided only tell a small part of the picture, which you must know if you are familiar with his texts. He clearly cuts the Zwerch diagonally too. No doubt that he does strike the Zwerch horizontally to the upper openings too, though.

I am not quite sure if he cuts it along the H and B lines too, but I don't exclude it, as 1.56v
(see below) might indicate it, and since a cut to the neck is more effective than a cut to the head and since it would mirror his Zwerch to the lower openings and as he tells us to strike directly opposite.

Cutting at hard objects, like a skull, is quite difficult with many period longswords due to how they are balanced, especially at a direct angle and with the point. Cutting diagonally down into a neck works very well with the point though.

Also, do note that although Meyer tells us specifically that the Mittelhauw is supposed to be hit along the lines of C and G, he says no such thing for the Zwerch. Instead he says that the Zwerch is to be cut "horizontally and diagonally opposite to all four parts".

Meyer on the Zwerch (as translated by Dr. J. Forgeng. Emphasis mine):

1.12v.2
"For the Thwart, conduct yourself thus: in the Onset, position yourself in the Wrath Guard on the right (concerning which see the previous chapter), that is, set your left foot forward, and hold your sword on your right shoulder, as if you intended to deliver a Wrath Cut. If your opponent cuts at you from the Day or High, then cut at the same time as him with the short edge across from below against his cut; hold your quillons up over your head, as a parrying for your head, and at the same time as the cut, step well to his left side. Thus you parry and hit simultaneously, as shown by the two figures on the left in Image H."

The image clearly shows a blade that is striking diagonally upwards, hitting with the short edge.



Remember that a low opening is not necessarily an opening below the elbows. It is also an opening on the head at or below the ears... This explains why a Zwerch can be both diagonal and horizontal when attacking a low opening; it is directed at different heights and targets and needs to be angled differently because of it.

1.4R
"And although these four parts of the combatant would be enough, according to the use of German combatants of former days, who allowed thrusting as well as cutting, nonetheless since with us Germans nowadays, and especially in the handwork with the winding, attacks are made mostly and chiefly toward the head, I will also divide it, like the whole person in general, into the same four parts, namely into the upper, around the scalp, and the lower, around the cheek and neck..."

1.29,4
"Conversely, cut the Thwart from below to his left with a step forward, pull quickly up by your right, and in pulling up, push your pommel through under your right arm, and flick thus with crossed hands back from your right above in at his left."

1.32r.1
"Now if he cuts to your right, when you have thus come in to the High Guard, then quickly step out
from his cut with your left foot toward his right, and at the same time let your long edge fall on top of his forte. And when you fall thus on his sword, then push your pommel through under your right arm, so that you strike at his head with crossed hands with the short edge right over or beside his sword. Now if he goes up with his sword toward his right, then let the short edge run off by that side, and meanwhile step out to the side well toward his left, and cut with the long edge straight from above at his head. And pull quickly back up and strike with a Thwart from below at his left ear with a back-step on your left foot; at once cut away from him, etc."

1.43 R
"Now if he cuts at one of your arms, then cut from the side belonging to the arm at which he is cutting, with a Thwart up from below against his incoming cut. And observe diligently when he pulls his sword back up, and cut at the same time with Thwart cuts upward (ubersich) or across (uberzwerch) at his arm. As soon as he falls back down again, then catch his blade again on your horizontal blade or shield."

1.56v
"To the Plow and the Ox you are quick threaten the cut at once against the target.

This verse is essentially very clear, like the others, 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 (kreutzweiß) and diagonally (ubereck) opposite to all four parts, as with other cuts, as I have already taught more fully in the section on the four openings."

There are plenty of such examples in Meyer. So despite your logic, Meyer tells us differently.

[martin fabian]

That's almost haiku, Martin! Anything shorter and your posts might self-implode

Thank you Roger, as it goes with the poetry, some do get it, some not:)

a krumphau it is not
you should train more and less talk
trust me it is not

Better now?

Sooo, picture time

Us dem anbinden gevallen In die undere ort
(Here he/I) fall into a thrust to the lower opening from the (previous) bind

Note this is a very unique and beautiful illustration of what other sources call mutieren. Mutieren is a standard answer to some situations where the head is blocked and you still happen to have advantage at the blade. It is done in such manner because you are strong and will stay strong. It can be done after a krumphau bind but rather rarely. Still a better pick than not turning hands and cutting over the blade. Doing it in the manner your grandmaster shows it is at least risky and a very unnatural move which would be (compared to the other sources) very alien to the Lichtenauerish style.

There is another move which is supposed for the suggested situations shown in the video which IS INDEED A KRUMPHAU (at least according to Meyer). It is called a Schielhau - according to Meyer Schielhau is partially a krumphau because it goes not in a direct, but rather in a crooked manner*. Furthermore, all the devices used again such (langort etc) situations have got a completely different mechanism. It is based on a PRAGMATIC approach. And yes, I did try what I saw in your video and trust me, I am quite good at adapting to new techniques.


Look! A very horizontal Zwer to the lower opening!

Could this be two horizontal counters? Maybe Krumps?

Two lower openings?

This painter was sooo lame. There is even a face on the ground!

Please, for HEMA's sake, make new videos where you show and explain your claims. Please let your self be hit with real intentions and counter in real time. Please don't use strange names for strange actions (unless you would like to end up like PH Mair.


*please don't use this as a base for space-universal-fencing-krumphau arguments

[Roger N]

Love the poem Martin! I was just considering getting another tattoo with basically the same message from Meyer.

If there is still any doubt regarding the cutting lines from below for the Zwerchhauw, here is another quote and an accompanying illustration from Meyer.

I.47.v3
"And after this Circle, step through with your right foot between you and him to his right side, and as you step through, deliver a Thwart Cut from your right at his left, forward at his face, as you can see in the upper figures in Image K."



BTW, Randall: If I haven't made that clear. I truly appreciate you debating this with us! It is an important step to openly discuss this with the rest of us. I assume you recognize that there is a good degree of knowledge and experience even outside of ARMA and if your theory is good, then it should stand up to fair criticism raised against it by us.

You obviously believe very strongly in this, but do sit down and think this through. I made a list earlier which shows features and requirements for the Krumphauw that you really haven't met with your interpretation and your interpretation clearly does not fit with several sources. I have also proven that your assumptions about cutting lines and the Zwerch are faulty. Do you not at least acknowledge that there are issues with your interpretation that points to you having to revise and broaden your theories?

[Mink]

A good question to ask, at this point, is what evidence would it take for Randall or the ARMA to reconsider that interpretation. Assuming new sources appear, what would they have to contain to really make the interpretation wrong? Of course that question is for Randall to answer, as it seems that most people in the thread see sufficient evidence in the sources already known that ARMA's interpretation of the Krumphau does not fit.

Regards,

[Hotspur School]

Randall, I apologise to you in all good faith if I've been unnecessarily short with you.

It is important that we discuss our respective interpretations. But please, don't dismiss the rest of the HEMA world out of hand.

[Megalophias]

Ran:

I was having trouble visualizing what you were talking about, but then I found this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsGU5KI1qJA

which you mentioned elsewhere contains the krumphau against the Ochs at 0:26 and 0:39.

Is this what you're describing?

It sure isn't striking over the hands. Nor are the hands crossed at any point. (Also it's the wrong side Ochs, but hey.)

That Goliath picture is odd, since the hands don't appear to be crossed (unless the pommel is supposed to be crossed over the arm, and the perspective is just bad). The long edge is down, so it can't be a rising cut with the long edge, as shown in the video. But I guess it could be the descending long edge unterhau from uncrossed crossed hands that I was trying to visualize earlier.

I don't know man, I think you guys have jumped the shark on this one. It just seems totally indefensible.

[Ben Floyd]

Obviously, this is how to krump properly (haha):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R_L-0yV5Tw

impossiblecut.gif (112.85 KiB) Viewed 12029 times

[Ran Pleasant]

That Goliath picture is odd, since the hands don't appear to be crossed (unless the pommel is supposed to be crossed over the arm, and the perspective is just bad). The long edge is down, so it can't be a rising cut with the long edge, as shown in the video. But I guess it could be the descending long edge unterhau from uncrossed crossed hands that I was trying to visualize earlier.

Jon

I think the Goliath image of a Krump breaking Ochs is almost perfect. The only thing I find fault with the image is that the hands of the man on the left are too low. Raise the hands above the head and above the adversary's blade then the man on the left would look just like Clements in the video. And of course there is the difference that in the image the man uses a Krump to counter the Ochs guard while in the video Clements uses a Krump to counter a thrusts from Ochs.

In regard to the hands not being crossed you are not taking in to consideration the large step to the right. If you stand in Vom Tag and then with a passing step push your hands up and cut a Krump like Clements your hands will cross. But when you take a large step out to the right your body turns to the left which works to uncross your hands. That turn of the body is seen in video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsGU5KI1qJA) and in the Goliath image. The technique is simple and the body mechanics are simple, and it is very effective at breaking Ochs.

A good question to ask, at this point, is what evidence would it take for Randall or the ARMA to reconsider that interpretation.

Vincent

Of course it would take many thing but here is a couple of things to start with. Roger says what ARMA calls a Krump is what he calls a Zwerchhau to the Pflug. Therefore explain to me the following:

1. Explain how a Zwerchhua to the Pflug breaks Ochs better than any existing Krump interpretations.

2. Explain how a Zwerchhua to the Pflug matches the Goliath image of a Krump breaking Ochs almost perfectly and much better than any existing Krump interpretations.

3. Given that Roger's Zwerchhua to the Pflug is extremely affective at breaking Ochs explain why none of the masters said to use it against Ochs.

Classification is at the core of science. Living organisms are classified into kingdoms, family, species, etc. Atoms of different sizes are classified into elements. There are classifications of stars, planets, climates, weather, etc. Even swords have been classified into different groups. In short, without classification there can be no systematic study of anything. Therefore, explain the following:

4. If the cutting lines have no meaning in classifying the master cuts, as Roger believes, then explain how you classify the different cuts. If the cutting line does not matter then what makes a Zorn a Zorn? What makes a Zwerchhau a Zwerchhau?


All the best,

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Magnus L]

I think the Goliath image of a Krump breaking Ochs is almost perfect. The only thing I find fault with the image is that the hands of the man on the left are too low. Raise the hands above the head and above the adversary's blade then the man on the left would look just like Clements in the video.

Almost perfect? Would the manual image have been better if it looked more like Clements? It's interesting that you are rating the manual images depending on their similarities to Clements - not the other way around. I'm not even convinced that image is actually showing a Krump as it does not match the text. The problem still remains, though, that in the image the long edge is downwards, which does not match Clements's Krump.

1. Explain how a Zwerchhua to the Pflug breaks Ochs better than any existing Krump interpretations.

I think a Krump along the H line can break Ochs fairly well. From what I can tell from your videos you can't say much about "any existing Krump interpretations" or are you just performing the other variants really badly in your videos to strenghten your arguments?

4. If the cutting lines have no meaning in classifying the master cuts, as Roger believes, then explain how you classify the different cuts. If the cutting line does not matter then what makes a Zorn a Zorn? What makes a Zwerchhau a Zwerchhau?

Then, why are you cutting an Oberhau (Krump) along an Unterhau cutting line? What makes an Oberhau an Oberhau?

[Roger N]

1. Explain how a Zwerchhua to the Pflug breaks Ochs better than any existing Krump interpretations.

No need. It doesn't. It is your opinion only that it does. The masters tell us to do the krump similarly to your interpretation with the first part of it, but instead of winding down and cutting a weak cut on the outside from below, they tell us to wind our edge against the opponent's blade and wind into a thrust to the face/torso or a cut from above. Essentially a schielhauw or possibly a duplieren-Zwerchhau, depending on how you have bound.
Either that, or cutting straight to the hands with crossed arms. It is not difficult. It is just the Kal images being somewhat badly drawn.

I do consider the first part of your cut to be a Krumphauw, more or less. But the cut from below is not actually a part of the Krump itself. It is a follow up action, which could be called a Zwerchhauw, and it is not described as it seems in the treatises.

2. Explain how a Zwerchhua to the Pflug matches the Goliath image of a Krump breaking Ochs almost perfectly and much better than any existing Krump interpretations.

Again, your belief which you need to substantiate properly more than saying that it "is so". Also, if we are to believe the text it is still a cut from above.

Me, I think it is possible that the illustration depicts another variant of the Krump described a page or so later in the Goliath treatise. It wouldn't be the first treatise to have messed up illustrations. Even Meyer has a guy with two right hands and his illustrations are top notch in every other aspect.

Or it could be as we have discussed here, a matter of crossing the rear hand over, not under the leading hand, which I think I have seen in some treatises.

Or, it could be a freak instance that deviates from the other sources somewhat. Do note however, that the Goliath exactly follows the Kal description too:

"Arc [Krump] out nimbly, throw your point to the hands, Arc to whom would attack, striding much allows strikes.

The arc strike is one of the four displacements against the four guards, in that with it one breaks the guard named the Ox, and it also drives onto the Over and Under Strikes.

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."
-Goliath Fechtbuch, as translated by Mike Rasmussen.

3. Given that Roger's Zwerchhua to the Pflug is extremely affective at breaking Ochs explain why none of the masters said to use it against Ochs.

Because unlike you, they actually think "our" (their) interpretation of the Krump is what you should do, as it is the best action.

Reading the sources it seems as if they named the guards of Pflug and Ochs by calling them what they called the openings. Primarily it is an opening, and secondly a stance. They are linked together tightly, but when someone cuts to your left Ochs blossen, that doesn't automatically mean that you should move into that "guard", just that you should guard that opening.

Conversely, when you attack someone standing in guard, which Meyer advises against, then you need to figure out how to control his blade as you attack, or figure out how to avoid it completely, which is what the Krump is all about.

And again, it is you who claim that the Zwerchhauw against the Ochs is extremely effective. Do the same cut with a sharp sword to the back or the side of a Renaissance doublet and see what effect it has and compare that to cutting in the other direction, with a Schielhauw to the head or neck, or with wrenching like the treatises say. You are not arguing against me here, but the actual treatises...

Classification is at the core of science. Living organisms are classified into kingdoms, family, species, etc. Atoms of different sizes are classified into elements. There are classifications of stars, planets, climates, weather, etc. Even swords have been classified into different groups. In short, without classification there can be no systematic study of anything. Therefore, explain the following:

True, but science in the 1300s? With proper classification? Linné classified plants in the mid 1700s. The rudimentary "scientific" taxonomic systems in the Renaissance worked on the basis of visual similarities. Later we would se a lot of interesting developments in mathematics, alchemy, astrology and engineering.

There is a certain systematics in the treatises and the cuts though, but it is about strategy, handling of space, mechanical principles of hard and soft, weak and strong. Calling it "scientific" is a stretch though. It is something WE want to easier understand what we study. Not something they appear to have used.

Besides, you are using Meyer's cutting lines and you don't accept his own words when he says that a Zwerch can be diagonal? If not even his own words (and detailed illustrations) can convince you to open up to the possibility that your theory has weaknesses, then I will never be able to...

4. If the cutting lines have no meaning in classifying the master cuts, as Roger believes, then explain how you classify the different cuts. If the cutting line does not matter then what makes a Zorn a Zorn? What makes a Zwerchhau a Zwerchhau?

All the best,
Ran Pleasant
ARMA

Again, you wish to classify the cuts, as a modern man in a neat "scientific" society. Liechtenauer lived in the 1300s and he didn't invent the techniques himself, according to Hs.3227a. He just collected them into one Art with a good set of working techniques. A syllabus, basically.

"...it was devised and thought out hundreds of years ago. This art is the foundation and core and it was completely understood and known by Master Liechtenauer. Not that he himself devised or thought out what is described, but he travelled and searched through many lands since he wanted to learn and experience this art."
Hs.3227a, ca 1389.

Me, I classify the cuts after their mechanical and tactical properties and I believe that they have to follow the Leger in the way you throw them with the short and long edges. Some cuts are cut high, some low and some both. Some go straight for the body, some don't. Some can do both. Many cuts can be thrown through the same lines, as shown in the treatises above. (that is not really a debate any more).

This isn't science. It was only considered as such in the 17th century where we see geometrics and mathematics applied to sword fencing. Up until the 16th century it was still called an Art, something which was dynamic. Meyer himself, and I am using his words as his material is so rich, says that we are all different and therefore need to fight differently.

"Now since everyone thinks differently from everyone else, so he behaves differently in combat."

Or in the words of Master Tim Gunn; "Make it work!"

Fencing is more like tennis than golf, where the former has good adaptable mechanics and the letter very good static form. In fighting the perfect strike is the one that hits the opponent while keeping you safe. It has to adapt to the opponent's actions. And as he is not standing still or keeping his sword still, then you have to be able to adapt your strikes to the situation and transform them accordingly. Agression and control combined is what makes it into the Art that it is.

[Roger N]

Obviously, this is how to krump properly (haha):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R_L-0yV5Tw

impossiblecut.gif

Fun, but to avoid confusion for anyone hesitant:

In the video the blade is twisted in the wrong direction. Imagine standing in Vom Tag and twisting into the right Ochs and cut down to the opponent's hand like that instead. Of course you don't go through the sequence quite like that when you do it fast. The actual twisting and cutting is done simultaneously while throwing the point forwards towards the opponent's hands or blade. It works well since he will be either trying to parry or target your body, while you target his outstretched hands and since you are stepping diagonally forwards.

"Strike the Krumphau nimbly,
throw the point at the hands."



Btw, Wiktenauer really has made an amazing work in collecting the descriptions according to their similarities. Take a look at the Krump here:

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Krumphaw

Amazing work, guys!

[Andreas Engström]

Obviously, this is how to krump properly (haha):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R_L-0yV5Tw

impossiblecut.gif

Fun, but to avoid confusion for anyone hesitant:

Roger, I think you may be missing the point? The illustration in Kal is just.. wrong. It's an artist's mistake. Just grab a sword and try to place your hands and arms exactly like that guy, including how his right elbow is bent downwards and is in front of the left arm, with the right arm on the inside of the left.

It is impossible to get to that position in any reasonable way (hell, it's hard to even stand still like that).

-Andreas

[Roger N]

Nope. I am not. I think it is due to a bad illustrator. It is not the only image in that treatise that is awkward. But, thad doesn't mean that the basic concept is wrong. Just badly portrayed.

The Solothurner Fechtbuch shows it too, with the Krump text that is so common. Again not so well drawn, mechanically, I think, but with proper stepping off-line.

Any artist will tell you, the hands is always the hardest part, which is why some artist even arrange so they aren't shown.

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/File:S_554_88.jpg

[Andreas Engström]

Nope. I am not. I think it is due to a bad illustrator. It is not the only image in that treatise that is awkward. But, thad doesn't mean that the basic concept is wrong. Just badly portrayed.

Yes, I know. I didn't say that the concept is wrong, and neither did Ben. It just seemed a bit weird to launch into a diatribe and explain that he turns the blade in the wrong direction in the video... of course he is, he is getting into a quite impossible position.

-Andreas

[Roger N]

Hehe. Well I didn't misunderstand Ben. His humour was quite obvious, which is why I said:

Fun, but to avoid confusion for anyone hesitant:

Given the preceding debate I wanted to avoid further confusion and misinterpretations of the Krump to the hands.

[Megalophias]

Ran:

Just to be clear, in the video "On the Krump", JC throws a long-edge cut from the left after his parry, that could be considered a Zwerch to the Pflug. If he had thrown that cut to the hands of someone in Ochs, then naturally it would be to the Ochs.

It does not match the description of the left Krump in von Danzig, because it is done with the long edge and crossed hands, rather than short edge and (presumably) uncrossed hands.

The cut JC does from the right is not a Zwerch, because it is done with the long edge. It would be very awkward to cut a Zwerch at that steep of an angle. It's just a plain long-edge unterhau.

If you cut with the long edge from the right side in the ordinary way your hands do not cross, whether it is an oberhau or unterhau. If you want the hands to cross you have to angle the cut in somewhat so that it has an element of a cut from the left side. I don't see how it makes a difference whether or not I step to the side. I really don't understand where the hands are crossing in your interpretation. I don't see it anywhere in either video. JC does several rising cuts from the right without springing to the side in the "On the Krump" video. Could you point out the time where the crossed hands can be seen?

If the man in the Goliath image had his hands higher, and the long edge turned up, then he could be showing the cut from the video. But his hands aren't that high, and his long edge is down.

Cheers

OTOH I don't actually know anything about German longsword, or any kind of longsword, or anything much really. So this could be completely wrong.

[Cutlery Penguin]

This is a fascinating discussion, and I for one don't want to dismiss an interpretation simply because lots of people don't like it.

From my point of view it is a waste of time trying to find ideas that support our specific point of view as it has become abundantly clear that both sides of the debate are able to do that. The only way to throw any light on the situation is to attempt to disprove the theories in much the same way that the scientific method takes a hypothesis that fits the evidence and then attempts to disprove it. If it cannot be disproven it is accepted as "fact" until more evidence appears.

So as I see it there is one significant question that each side is asking.

Ran says that the common interpretation does not break Ochs and is therefore fatally flawed. Can someone offer conclusive proof that it can? Perhaps a video of it doing exactly that? If a video can be shown doing what Ran says can't be done then we have an answer to that potential sticking point.

The other side of the argument says that the krump is described as having a large step to the right that is missing in JC's version. I have yet to see an answer to this. Ran, can you help?

Also a big forum fight about the krump? Have I woken up in the 90s?

[Hotspur School]

Have I woken up in the 90s?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fndeDfaWCg

[Cutlery Penguin]

Have I woken up in the 90s?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fndeDfaWCg

I thought you were going to Rickroll me, turns out you simply took me up the Backstreet...

[Michael Chidester]

Ran says that the common interpretation does not break Ochs and is therefore fatally flawed. Can someone offer conclusive proof that it can? Perhaps a video of it doing exactly that? If a video can be shown doing what Ran says can't be done then we have an answer to that potential sticking point.

Using the Krumphaw to break Ochs is only a minor application of the strike, listed in the glossa as is if as an afterthought and not present in the teachings of Liechtenauer at all (note how Paulus Kal, working directly from the verse, illustrates it against Pflug instead). All of devices of the Krump are performed against a strike, so that justly receives a lot more attention. However, if we must dwell on in there are a few instances of breaking Ochs in this video I believe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIKMPIFJkzk

And as for the image from the Ms. Germ. Quart. 2020 that Ran keeps harping on, I like this interpretation since it fits both the text and the image:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFKRSIQo_pM