Krump

[Hugh]

...We have never posted a video of it since I have always assumed people do basically the same thing. Maybe we should though.

Yes please!

one of the arguments against the "windscreen wiper of death Vs Ochs" is that a skilled swordsman can track you with their point. Valid enough and it's something I've encountered when sparring.
But isn't one of the ideas of the master strikes that they are used against someone who doesn't know them? Thus isn't as skilled a swordsman as you?

[Roger N]

That is part of it, at least in the earlier sources. When they were designed they were likely designed for people who knew the guards but not the Meisterhäuwe (as they hadn't been "invented" yet). That doesn't mean they weren't highly skilled though. And you could of course not know for sure if he knew the Meisterhäuwe or not...

But remember that you are also targeting different targets. He is targeting your face or chest and you are targeting his hands. So you just step into a distance where you reach him and he not you. Not always so easy of course, but that goes for all of the fencing. And if done correctly, he won't be doing much more after you have cut his hands...

[Anders Linnard]

No, I wouldn't assume that. It would be a very dangerous assumption.

I will see what I can do in terms of video.

Sorry for short reply, writing on the phone.

[Roger N]

Btw, Randall. As you are leaving the debate now:

Again, thanks for bringing this up and debating it! I can imagine that it seems as if I have been overly zealous here writing tons of text, but I do think it is important to debate such things in a very serious manner, always referencing to the sources, especially when a "revolutionary" theory such as yours is put forward.

Personally, I am quite pleased with being challenged by views like yours as it forces me to take a hard look at my own beliefs and interpretations and then go back to the sources to see how solid my interpretations are. This is why I choose to take on a "fight" like this one from time to time.

So even though I don't agree with you, I thank you for forcing me to do this. I learned a lot through it.

[Ran Pleasant]

Scholars

I have not come back to discuss the Krump. Just need to reply to some silliness.

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.

That is so sad. Are you really sure that was Aaron that wrote that? So sad and so untrue. Aaron and I both know that few people are as well read in the historical masters as is John Clements. It is just hard for me to believe that Aaron would go so low as to suggest that. I guess that's the price you pay when you want to play with new friends; you accept the approved consensus and preach to anti-Clements sermon. So sad.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Michael Chidester]

Have you been listening to Michael Chidester's preach about ARMA only looking at images and never reading the text of the masters?

I don't like it when people take my name in vain, Ran.

But that aside, I'm afraid you have it backwards. While I was a member of ARMA for several years, I was never in the highest councils. Most of what I know about your master and his endeavors, aside from my observations from the one occasion when I met him in person, are things that I have myself heard from people like Jake, his predecessor Jeff Basham, and most recently his successor Aaron Pynnenberg.

[Ran Pleasant]

I'm afraid you have it backwards. While I was a member of ARMA for several years, I was never in the highest councils. Most of what I know about your master and his endeavors, aside from my observations from the one occasion when I met him in person, are things that I have myself heard from people like Jake, his predecessor Jeff Basham, and most recently his successor Aaron Pynnenberg.

Mike

You were in ARMA for several years? I don't remember you being in ARMA a year before Clements booted you for endlessly running your mouth. Well, I guess I could be wrong about how long you were in ARMA.

Ok, be truthful here, you didn't get that lie from Jake or Aaron or any other ex-member, you got that lie from SFI. Ten or so years ago every time we disagreed on SFI they would do like you and start saying we don't read the historical manuals. It was silly then and it is silly now. Which brings me to the question, if Jake and Aaron gave you the truth then why are you questioning our abilities to read the historical manuals? Both Jake and Aaron can tell you that the blow up in 2008 started during a discussion of Meyer on the ARMA eList when one of the Florida boys went psycho on us. I even gave Aaron my copy of Christian Tobler's book In Service of the Duke: The 15th Century Fighting Treatise of Paulus Kal. I swear Mike, every f*cking time you open your mouth you remind me of why John Clements booted your ass out of ARMA. But I give you credit Mike, you have made a good librarian.

Now I'm even getting bored of this too. So take care Mike, all the best to you.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Michael Chidester]

You were in ARMA for several years? I don't remember you being in ARMA a year before Clements booted you for endlessly running your mouth. Well, I guess I could be wrong about how long you were in ARMA.

Started in 2001, went on hiatus from mid-2002 to mid-2004, was officially excommunicated in 2006, became ARMA Provo SGL in 2007 (an ARMA member from the group was selected to carry the title officially, of course), and finally ended my association with ARMA in 2009 when Stew, Eli, and Brian tendered their resignations, after which ARMA Provo became True Edge Academy.

Ok, be truthful here, you didn't get that lie from Jake or Aaron or any other ex-member, you got that lie from SFI. Ten or so years ago every time we disagreed on SFI they would do like you and start saying we don't read the historical manuals. It was silly then and it is silly now.

You can deny that many of ARMA's interpretations--including some correct ones--were derived from examining images all you want. I can't speak much to how things have evolved in the last three years, but when I tested for General Free Scholar the ARMA Study Approach included explicitly the study of "iconography" to complement manual study. (Of course, given that the ARMA Training Methodology included the use of padded swords, I hope you guys have indeed updated and modified such things.) In fact, John Clements' Waag interpretation, which I learned in early 2006 after he taught it in private to certain ARMA members at the Las Vegas Sword Show, was based heavily on an examination of images both in and out of fencing manuals--nowhere is it detailed in the text of the treatises, but I agree with Roger that it's a very useful stance, and I myself continue to use it in many situations.

Now, I and others often joke about Clements' HEMA illiteracy and marvel over the fact that in 25 years of historical swordsmanship he's never bothered to learn to read the treatises in their own languages, or even to pronounce key terminology. Joking that he never reads anything is part of that, and I know full well that it's not true. He just doesn't read anything that isn't translated into English, and his access to manuals is limited by the quality of available translations. That's true of many people in the community (me, I can read Middle Italian just fine, but have only just begun to learn Early New High German). Being unable to read the bulk of the manuscripts (since less than a third have been translated) might be a bit embarrassing to someone who bills himself as the foremost researcher-practitioner in the world, though.

Which brings me to the question, if Jake and Aaron gave you the truth then why are you questioning our abilities to read the historical manuals? Both Jake and Aaron can tell you that the blow up in 2008 started during a discussion of Meyer on the ARMA eList when one of the Florida boys went psycho on us.

Oh, I know, I heard all about it as it happened. The key to getting along with Kevin Maurer is realizing that he's a passionate guy with a deep respect for Joachim Meyer's teachings, and can't abide anything that he perceives as disrespect for the manuals (and Meyer's manual in particular). If memory serves, the incident in question was actually caused by his accusations that ARMA was willfully disregarding and misinterpreting teachings in Meyer, which undermines your point somewhat, but whatever. I'm sure that Kevin, like me, considers a ban from ARMA to be the best thing that could have happened in his HEMA career. Since then he's produced mountains of research and has become the first person I'd consult if I had a question about anything touching Meyer, the Freifechter, or the Fencing Guilds.

I even gave Aaron my copy of Christian Tobler's book In Service of the Duke: The 15th Century Fighting Treatise of Paulus Kal.

That's a huge book; I sold my copy to Jake last year, and I still miss it sometimes. But like Talhoffer and the uncaptioned treatises, Paulus Kal can lead you astray very easily due to the sparse text. It really needs to be paired with other Liechtenauer sources to become truly useful.

I swear Mike, every f*cking time you open your mouth you remind me of why John Clements booted your ass out of ARMA.

Charming.

But I give you credit Mike, you have made a good librarian.

And you make a good whipping boy. Cheers.

[Ran Pleasant]

And you make a good whipping boy.

I guess it is easy for a young man to look at an older man and think, "He's nothing but a whipping boy". But a young man might to well to contemplate the experiences and memories the older man. Many years ago I tried to wash away my greatest sins on the southern coast of the Caspian Sea and later on the eastern coast of the Western Sea but the memories and nightmares suggest that I was very unsuccessful. So yes, I've been to the whipping post, but I also lived to walked away from it. Something to contemplate before threatening me.

I am done with this thread now.

Ran

[Anders Linnard]

Errr, I don't know what you're on about. This thread is about the krump, isn't it? Michael, Kevin etc are friends, so you have nothing to gain from badmouthing them. It only makes you come off as a dick.

Regarding your interpretation it is being reviewed and you have some seriously great martial artists and researchers looking at it. Most are unconvinced at this point. If you want to clarify or expand on your theory, I am sure there are quite a few people ready to listen.

Best regards,
Anders

[Roger N]

I all comes down to this:

A. Pictorial material and explicit text sources supporting the ARMA interpretation of the Krump that has been presented: None.

-Others, outside of ARMA, have suggested possibly the odd treatise the Berliner fechtbuch although the content is yet unclear and in any case not representative of the whole Liechtenuer tradition.

B. Pictorial material and explicit text sources supporting the commonly accepted interpretation of the Krump that has been presented: Kal, Solothurn and basically all sources derived from Liechtenauer, when combined.

C. No video of the ARMA Krump cutting with crossed arms over the hands and stepping well off to one's right side has been presented.

It is NOT a matter of interpretation really. It is just a matter of reading and looking at the correct images and making sure that the translations you read are correct.

On the other hand there is a specific technique for countering the Zwerch which is suspiciously close to the execution of the ARMA Krump, only that it is the "other" guy who is doing the correct technique. Looking at the images you can easily misinterpret this. John even goes so far as to state that such a counter would not work and yet it is a core component of KdF and even taught by Meyer who introduced the letters that ARMA uses for the cutting lines... Who should we trust?

If you have approached this new interpretation in a proper scholarly way, then why don't you present all the material you have found that supports it instead of withdrawing from the debate? You leaving the debate leads me to two conclusions:

1. You haven't managed to find any material that properly supports your theories.
or
2. You haven't really searched properly, instead relying on what you think "works" and looking only superficially at images and translated text.

or both.

Either way, this whole thing does not come off as an interpretation based on proper research, but rather as peculiar personal preferences and made-up techniques built on a a new concept not found in the treatises: The concept that only one Meisterhauw is allowed per line and that each line represents a Meisterhauw. Combined with having completely missed that the Zwerchhauw is said to cut both horisontally AND diagonally you have built a construct based on completely faulty conclusions that could very easily have been avoided by READING.

Sorry to be blunt, but I am tired of having the counter-arguments to your interpretation completely ignored. Show some pride and either prove that your interpretation holds up to scrutiny by providing sources that support it, or admit that your interpretation needs to be revised and broadened. It is devastatingly obvious that you have misunderstood several things, as described above.

Again it is just a matter of actually READING the material, not a case of interpreting it. It just takes time and some thought. Both you and John have been doing this for long enough to know this, and I am actually surprised to see ARMA not hold up to the standards it used to stand for. I feel like the boy in the Emperor's new clothes... You are butt naked here, guys... You just don't realise or want to admit it yet.

Oh, and if it turns out to be the opposite, then I am perfectly fine with that, if you just provide material that proves it and not just say that your's "work better" and therefore is the best interpretation. Eye openers are cool and I would love to see that I have been wrong as it would help me get closer to actually understanding all of this mess we are trying to untangle.

[Anders Linnard]

I agree with everything Roger said. Except possibly the statement that it's the same situation as the counter to the zwerch. There are several techniques done on the outside of a bind and the trick is to make sure your opponent keeps the pressure outwards. The problem with this particular technique is that a cut on the outside can easily be blocked by that very same outward motion, so you would be better off thrusting, cutting around or cutting a horisontal zwerch to the head (or a shiel). Still, it can be done, but I would step to the left to mess up the other guy's protection.

All of this is of course beside the point, since it doesn't make it a krump just because you can make it work in certain situations.

/Anders

[Roger N]

And I agree with you too. Indeed, there are plenty of ways of attacking on the outside bind as you describe, some quite close to what John shows, for instance, by winding the krump over the blade and winding his blade towards your right so you can thrust down. Heck, it was you who taught me that three years or so ago. And it can be done damn quick, more like a single strike than an actual winding.

But the whole movement is not the Krump and we mustn't confuse the follow ups with the actual Krump, Just as the duplieren&mutieren, the thrusts and the slices aren't actual parts of the Meisterhäuwe, even when done in a single fluid motion.

[CaptainAbrecan]

I feel so weird trying to learn about fencing here when you all know each other so well, there is so much politics involved I really have no idea who any of you are, except that in my mind Mike is the face of wiktenauer, matt is the boss, and no one likes ARMA...

And I can't even seem to do the krump the way ran posted it anyways. I got a problem, and I think it's me. Maybe the sword, but more likely me.

Regardless, do you guys think you can help me out with arm flexibility? I am having some trouble actually making that kinematic mate on my forearms when they are crossed. I want to get a sword with a longer pommel (I do the shadow drilling with an aluminum waster, maybe a meyer is more the right proportions?), but deep down I think that I should be able to maintain a secure grip regardless, and moving to a longer handle would just be cheating my way out of it.

Are there exercises or drills you can poke me with, off the top of your heads, to help with getting the arms crossed all the way, I mean really reinforcing that kinematic mate? When I adjust the grip to be wider, my forearms touch and my stability skyrockets. The position is like a rock. But when my hands are closer together I just can't touch my forearms together.

The thought just struck me also that they maybe are not supposed to touch too. Maybe that is only in Ochs, not in striking with crossed arms. But hey, being poor means learning the hard way.

[Herbert]

To be honest - what I learned most in this thread is why ARMA has such a bad reputation.
It is always good to go back to the sources and go through them to back up a position.
But here I learned something on the side. I understand a few things better now - regarding ARMA of course.

Herbert

[T. Arndt]

Here is another Krumphau interpretation presented by Aaron Pynenberg (WHFA Principal Instructor) that I thought might be of interest:

• http://vimeo.com/49951783
• Initial discussion: http://hemaalliance.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2406&p=33990#p33990
• Further discussion: http://hemaalliance.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2582
• A blog post discussing it: http://grauenwolf.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/arguments-for-the-winding-krumphauw-over-the-windshield-wiper-krumphauw-in-meyer/

It seems like Krumphau interpretation variations are almost infinite....
So learn them all and use what works? *shrug*

[admin]

You know, all of us who don't do German longsword love laughing at you all and your krumps.

Welcome to the forum T. Arndt.

[Michael Chidester]

You know, all of us who don't do German longsword love laughing at you all and your krumps.

Wait, I thought that "HEMA" was synonymous with "German longsword".

[T. Arndt]

You know, all of us who don't do German longsword love laughing at you all and your krumps.

I think it is really bothersome to German longsword practitioners that when it comes to such a core technique as a Meisterhau there is so little consensus around Krumphau.

I'm about to blaspheme so cover your ears; I sometimes wonder if there even is a "one true Krumphau" that the period master would agree on. However, there sure is certainly no shortage of Krumping cuts-

Is there nothing in Italian longsword tradition that resembles any of the Krumphau interpretations put forward?

Welcome to the forum T. Arndt.

Thank you!

[admin]

Is there nothing in Italian longsword tradition that resembles any of the Krumphau interpretations put forward?

I'm afraid that I don't follow all the krumphau interpretations so I don't know, but I have not seen anything in Fiore which is like the most common forms of krumphau that people have shown me. From a Fiore perspective most people's krumphau's look rather uncovered and dangerous.