Krump

[Cutlery Penguin]

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

Thanks, I understand that breaking Ochs is only a small part of what the Krump is supposed to do, but if it cannot be done with a specific version it surely cannot be a proper krump.

Now as I am a non-longsworder would you tell me what I'm looking for in that video and at what point. I'm pretty happy with what Ochs looks like as a position and I'm also pretty happy with a basic krump as I understand it, but I can't see a clear example of one clearly breaking the other (or failing to) and I suspect it is my own lack of detailed knowledge.

[Michael Chidester]

Going back and watching more carefully, they spend more time breaking Pflug with it, and the sole strike against the Ochs is around 2:39. It comes in slightly more laterally than normal, but there aren't many standard Krumphaw vs. Ochs videos to choose from on Youtube (actually, this is the only one I noticed).

Giving it a bit more thought, though, I endorse the second video I linked more. He strikes a Krump nimbly and then throws the point toward the hands/forearms, just as Liechtenauer instructs; he steps to the right while cutting above the hands with the long edge and arms crossed, just as the ps-Peter von Danzig gloss elaborates; and the final pieces of the maneuver, throwing the point toward the hands, terminates in the precise position depicted in Goliath.

[martin fabian]

http://youtu.be/mMGFzY0pcwY - our other colleagues from Slovakia

[Roger N]

Beautiful example of Krump to the Left Ochs with the 2nd exchange at 5 seconds in. Saves me from having to shoot the clip, although I might try for some variations later.

That type of Krump is a bit reminiscent of the Scheitelhauw also.

[Cutlery Penguin]

Ok, so we have a video of a krump breaking Ochs.

Randall, the ball is in your court. Assuming that you too agree that the video above shows exactly that then what else disproves it?

[Ran Pleasant]

Ok, so we have a video of a krump breaking Ochs.

Randall, the ball is in your court. Assuming that you too agree that the video above shows exactly that then what else disproves it?

Oz

The video (http://youtu.be/mMGFzY0pcwY) show absolutely nothing that that is new to me. I have seen that interpretation a thousand times both in ARMA and in other groups. That is the old windshield wiper interpretation that Christian Tobler published in 2002 in his first book Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship. That is the interpretation that does not work and why it does not work is clear in the video.

So what do I mean when I say the windshield wiper interpretation does not work? I am not saying that it cannot hit the hands. Clearly it can hit the hands. The reason we say it does not work is that it cannot keep you from being killed by a skilled fighter. So what can a skilled fighter do to kill you during the execution of that interpretation? A skilled fighter can track you with his point as you are stepping out and by the time you are starting to throw your blade over to his hands his point is already in your chest. If the adversary has killed you with a thrust from Ochs then you have failed to break his Ochs.

So what do we see in the video? At 0.05 I see that the man on the left is still in Och, he never actually made a read attempt to thrust. Just a hard straight thrust would probably have hit the man on the right. Moreover, if the man on the left had tracked the man on the right with the thrust while that man was stepping right the thrust would have hit before the Krump was thrown. The problem in the video is that the man in the left is unwilling to thrust hard into the man on the left. All of this is testable but for such testing to be valid the man in Ochs must make every attempt to make the other man fail , he must be willing to leave bruises in the chest of the man trying to perform the Krump. Jake Norwood, who is a fast strong fighter, totally fail to in his attempts to make this work against John Clements. Likewise, I have seen it fail numerous times in sparring between other men. The only times it seems to work is against newbies.

Clements' interpretation not only hits the hands it also prevents the thrust from hitting you.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Rakkasan]

Hi Ran.

Don't invoke my name on things you don't know anything about. You have video of that? How about the testimony of a guy who never bought John's Krump "interpretation," despite spending more time exploring and debating it with John than anybody else over a period of 5 years. It doesn't hold up. The scholarship behind it is shoddy. John has spent too long fighting people that fight the way he tells them to, moving the way he tells them to, and as often as not letting him "win" in demonstrations.

The versions of the Krump that you'll see in the videos linked above are solid, work against Ochs, and have seen good mileage in the most non-cooperative environment modern civility allows. I've used them myself against fighters much more skilled than John. Like any technique, I've had it work, and not, depending on dozens of factors. I have never successfully seen John's performed as he demonstrates it in a full-speed match, however. IIncidentally, I have never been able to perform it as John thinks it ought to be performed, either...nor do I know anyone other than John who an pull it off when someone is actually trying to hit them.

John's Krump is one of the first things that departing ARMA members abandon. I think I know more of them than you do, and am in current contact with more of them than you are. I was also present at every single debate, argument, and sparring match I ever had with John. I don't recall seeing you at any of them.

So unless you've got something other than hearsay from John himself, who has maligned and lied about every single former ARMA member that had any prominence in that organization--especially the ones that fought well but who, at one time or another, bucked the party line (Basham, Pynnenberg, Bradak, etc), I suggest you leave me and my so-called inability to use techniques that I have repeatedly used successfully against skilled fighters in competitive settings out of it.

Where's you footage of John or one of his students not just demonstrating this revolutionary "new" Krump, but actually sparring with it, at speed, against an opponent from outside of the ARMA.

Don't have one? I guess that's the problem when the entire organization so fastidiously keeps to itself.

Jake

[Ran Pleasant]

I guess that's the problem when the entire organization so fastidiously keeps to itself.

Jake

Well at least give ARMA credit for having 11 people at the recent conference in Scotland. A friendly setting that actually offers something to us makes a big difference.

The scholarship behind it [Clement's interpretation] is shoddy.

Have you been listening to Michael Chidester's preach about ARMA only looking at images and never reading the text of the masters? I assure you we only do that when we look at comic books. We don't follow the same interpretation as you but I think I will stay away from the ad hominem stuff and just say that the interpretation you following doesn't work for us.

Since you think Christian Tobler's old windshield wiper interpretation is solid, you're getting mileage from it, and you're not worried about someone tracking you with a thrust, I guess all I can do is wish you all the best with it. And besides, it is part of the approved consensus! All the best to you Jake.


Guys

This thread is going nowhere and it's becoming boring so I'm going to drop out. It's been fun.

By the way, I still suggest the test. The man on the left in the video could make things very interesting.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Roger N]

Randall.

We wrote at the same time, and I see you decided to drop out of the debate now. I will post the below anyways:

You are still just basing things on how you judge techniques to be effective or not, based on how well you yourself can get things to work. You are not using the sources as your primary guidebook. If you would do so, then you would have to figure out how the Kal and Solothurner images would work with your interpretations. Those treatises show you to cut exactly like these guys do in the clip; straight to the hands from above. Illustrations that go very well with the Zettel and the non-illustrated fechtbuche too.

The reason it works is that you are not standing still. It is a matter of handling distance, and as he tries to thrust at your body, or is too slow to respond to you attacking first, then you evade, side-step and cut very quickly from a side-Tag to his hands. If you step correctly you will be out of his reach and he in yours as you target different targets. When you throw the rear hand underneath your elbow, it is protected from the opponent's blade even if you are countering an oberhauw and you can actually cut straight at his hands even then.

Saying that it doesn't work is plain silly. The same can easily be said about your interpretation as it is near identical to how you counter a Zwerch to your right side, which is in fact what John is doing: He is cutting a Zwerch from his left, after having made a Krump over the opponent's blade. So in this case John would be the loser who cuts the opponent's blade into his own neck or side without injuring the opponent. In fact if you had studied KdF in the Renaissance, you would be familiar with and even trained in how to counter this very thing you propose.

Also, I do believe that the Meisterhäuwe were designed to break old guards. So these clever "breaking" attacks would be unfamiliar to many who still only knew the main guards. This is important to keep in mind, as essentially you are taught techniques to use against someone who likely knew a similar fencing style that didn't include the actual Meisterhäuwe, but used the same guards. With time, as the fencing guilds evolved for the burgher classes this changed of course, and in Meyer's time things were very different than during the time of Liechtenauer or the author of the Codex Wallerstein. And yet, even Meyer includes this simple krumphauw straight to the hands in his third book on the longsword in his 1570 treatise.

So quit talking about how things work or don't work. That is subjective judging without foundation in the treatises. Give us text passages and illustrations that support your claims. This far into the debate, with so many pages, you have still not put up any material that supports your claim, while quite a substantial amount of material have been shown that actually proves that you have made faulty claims and that your theories are wrong.

Trying things with an open mind and constant reevaluation is good so I think that is good of you, but you still need to base it on the sources and not just your own subjective judging of what works for you. None of us are nearly as good as these guys were who actually designed and used these techniques for real. If you believe yourself to be so, then go spar without protection with steel to first blood. And do this as your standard training practice.

On the other hand, I do think you guys are on to something with Die Waage. It is a topic I am working on and have been for a few years now. I think it is something that is generally missing in the HEMA community and unfortunately John's article didn't really get the attention it deserved due to various issues, both in the article and some socio-political ones. I hope to see more of your thoughts and research about that in the future.

Oh, and I am sure ARMA are more than welcome to the HEMA events around the world, not just the conference in Scotland. In fact we actually invited a high-ranking ARMA instructor to teach at Swordfish this year, but that didn't work out, unfortunately. Parts of our reasons were both that we think he seems to be a great fencer and instructor, but also because we were curious about your interpretations and had a hope that we could open up some doors between ARMA and the rest of the community. So cool that you went to the RL Conference! That is a good step! Now come join us at some more events and beat us with your new krump!

[Anders Linnard]

So again, I don't think that what JC does is impossible, or even particularly hard to do. But it is a zwerch at the pflug. The trick to not getting cut is to wait until the opponent doesn't have pressure on the blade. It is not a move that I am particularly fond of, but it can be done.

The way that I do krump (which is a "windshield wiper" that I arch forward, lets me do everything mentioned in Ringeck and in the other manuscripts as well. With tiny variations I can also end up in almost every situation we see in images. The current interpretation in GHFS has been the same for years. We have never posted a video of it since I have always assumed people do basically the same thing. Maybe we should though.

/A

[Roger N]

And a simple question that I think is important:

While the hands, the head and especially the neck often were quite exposed, the back and the side, which John cuts at in the clip, were protected by a doublet, quite often made out of silk, which is a material that is very hard to cut through. You can certainly pierce it with a thrust, but cutting it, and especially at that angle would be extremely difficult.

Given that, why would you go for that opening with a cut that is unlikely to cause proper damage, when the very weak spots of the head and neck are exposed? Sure for fun and sport, but for killing?

And a sidenote. Anders, your signature seems to be a bit messed up with the links in it.

[Anders Linnard]

And a sidenote. Anders, your signature seems to be a bit messed up with the links in it.

Thanks.

[Roger N]

Just for reference:

Here is the description to the counter against a Twerhauw at your right. Something which John says can't be done in the clip, claiming that you don't need to worry about having the opponent's blade at your neck since you are cutting at him.

On the other hand most treatises say this:

"Here note a counter against the upper Twer Haw
Note when you bind on his sword from the right side with an Ober Haw / If he strikes around with a Twer Hau towards your other side, then come forward with your Twer under his sword on his neck / As shown here next / then he will strike himself with your sword"

And images comparing the ARMA Krump to the counter as depicted in the Glasgow Fechtbuch, but described in numerous sources (check translation #38 here http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Sigmund_Schining_ein_Ringeck).

Note that the Glasgow shows it from the other side, so the left fencer is doing the counter underneath the opponent's incoming Zwerch.

ARMA-Krump-vs-Twer-counter.jpg (115.36 KiB) Viewed 16613 times

[Andreas Engström]

Here is the description to the counter against a Twerhauw at your right. Something which John says can't be done in the clip, claiming that you don't need to worry about having the opponent's blade at your neck since you are cutting at him.

Just for giggles and to further confuse everyone, that counter is what Hans Medel calls a Duplieren.

Medel also is much more liberal with the Vier Versetzen, saying that "Sure, Krump breaks Ochs but actually I think Twer does it better". He also says that Twer breaks Vom tag, Ochs and Pflug, Krump breaks Ochs, Pflug and Alber, Schiller breaks Vom Tag and Alber (no, he doesn't think you should use it against Pflug!), and Schaytler breaks Alber, Ochs and Pflug. "So do what you think is best", he then concludes.

-Andreas

[Roger N]

Well it is quite similar to Falkner's duplieren, with an extra Zwerch added to it.

And I am beginning to realise that there is a lot of cool stuff in that Medel
treatise. Wish I had more time to study it...

[Axel]

In fact we actually invited a high-ranking ARMA instructor to teach at Swordfish this year, but that didn't work out, unfortunately.

Yeah It was Aaron Pynenberg but he quit ARMA before we got the invitation out (he could not attend due to work but hopefully you can meet him at next years Swordfish). Then we pm'd Randall and extended the invitation to be a standing invitation to any ARMA member of their choosing, but got no reply.

Sorry for derailing thread, been an interesting read.

[Axel]

All the Swedes have a slow day at work apparently .

[Anders Linnard]

All the Swedes have a slow day at work apparently .

It happens once in a blue moon...

[Thearos]

Hi Ran.

Don't invoke my name on things you don't know anything about...

Jake

Ah yes, got it now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE

[Ben Michels]

Have you been listening to Michael Chidester's preach about ARMA only looking at images and never reading the text of the masters? I assure you we only do that when we look at comic books.

Oh?

Having been involved in his development of [ARMA's krump] pretty much from the begining, remember that much of what JC does is based on two all important things: can anyone beat him and what do the pictures/plates show.

This pretty much makes up the whole scholarship component of ARMA nowadays.

Huh.