| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Graham Shearlaw, Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
|
William Carew
|
 Posted: Fri 29 May, 2009 4:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
| William Carew wrote: | The old edge parry debate… is this still going? Do people ever read their historical sources?
|
William
I do not understand why you assume that some of the people in this discussion are not reading the historical sources. I feel very assured that everyone that has been taking part in the disucssion up to this point has reading the historical sources.
The goal is not to do it ARMA's way or the way of everybody else. The goal is to figure out how the historical masters did it and then do it their way. |
Randall,
I considered typing a more detailed reply but I'm not sure if it is worth it in the end: it is frustrating spending time gathering numerous detailed quotes from the primary sources clearly advocating edge parries (including actions resulting in edge to edge contact such as the 'good counter against all high cuts' device at 1.64v.1) just to have them ignored as if they didn't exist and were never posted to the thread.
You wanted to know why I asked, rhetorically, whether people ever read their historical sources? This thread and the continued avoidance of the quotes from Meyer that clearly advocate edge parries are why. You said the goal is to figure out how the historical masters did it? The best start is to read the masters' texts carefully, thoroughly and with an open mind, free from old assumptions (such as 'never parry with the edge') that were formed in the early days before complete and reliable English translations of the fechtbücher were available. AD FONTES.
Final summary: Meyer and other Renaissance sources clearly advocate several martially valid ways to parry, including (but not limited to):
1. Soft Hangen style parries in which the attacking blade is deflected along the flat of the blade and allowed to safely 'run off' (usually toward the ground and away from the defender); and
2. Firm Straight Parries and stoppes in which the attacking blade is best 'caught' on the long edge forte or the cross guard, in order to arrest the attack's momentum and thus prevent it striking the defender.
To wilfully exclude the second type of parry because it may result in edge to edge contact is too close to turning one's back to the historical sources and handicapping oneself unnecessarily for my taste. YMMV.
Cheers,
Bill Carew
Jogo do Pau Brisbane
COLLEGIUM IN ARMIS
|
|
   |
 |
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Fri 29 May, 2009 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
William
The root of your frustration is that you are totally mis-understanding the discussion. It seems fairly clear to me that everybody taking part in this thread does parry with both the edge and flat. Nobody is saying to not use the edge to parry. When I counter cut against a Zornhau with a Zornhau as described in Ringeck my edge will impact the flat of the other blade. When I counter cut against an Oberhau with a Zwerchhau as described in Ringeck my edge will impact the flat of the other blade. Even when I counter cut against an verticle Oberhau with a verticle Oberhau my edge will impact the flat of the other blade. Please get pass that point! The issue being discussed in this thread is actions that result in high speed 90 degree edge-on-edge impacts. Slow speed impacts, very steep edge-to-edge impacts where one edge basically slides down the other edge to the guard, and rubbing edges during winding, half-sword, thrusting, etc., are not an issue and are not what this thread is about. Those actions do not cause serious damage.
I fully agree that a scholar mush have an open mind when reading the historical text. Read the thread again carefully and you're see that it was a willness to have a completely open mind that allow John Clements to develop a new interpretation of the Krump. As already stated in this thread, the ARMA method rest upon constantly challenging existing interpretations and assumptions that are not martially sound. Nothing is golden in ARMA but the closes thing are interpretations which are historically valid and martially sound.
By the way, although ARMA has pushed that one should never engage in edge-on-edge bashing since the mid-1990s it is actually not the old assumption. The really old assumption is that edge-on-edge bashing is ok and has its roots in theatrical acting, the SCA and other role playing activities, sport fensing, etc.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dustin R. Reagan
|
| Posted: Fri 29 May, 2009 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | I fully agree that a scholar mush have an open mind when reading the historical text. Read the thread again carefully and you're see that it was a willness to have a completely open mind that allow John Clements to develop a new interpretation of the Krump. As already stated in this thread, the ARMA method rest upon constantly challenging existing interpretations and assumptions that are not martially sound. Nothing is golden in ARMA but the closes thing are interpretations which are historically valid and martially sound.
|
Hi Randall,
Not trying to come off as pushy, but you haven't responded to Bill Grandy's last post. I am curious how you reconcile John Clement's new interpretation of Krump with the excellent points that Bill Grandy raised several posts back (where he quotes from Von Danzig). I have an open mind and am willing be convinced otherwise, but i have to say, as an outside observer, Bill's points (backed by quotes from one of the Masters) are very convincing.
Thanks,
Dustin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Sat 30 May, 2009 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dustin R. Reagan wrote: | | Randall Pleasant wrote: | I fully agree that a scholar mush have an open mind when reading the historical text. Read the thread again carefully and you're see that it was a willness to have a completely open mind that allow John Clements to develop a new interpretation of the Krump. As already stated in this thread, the ARMA method rest upon constantly challenging existing interpretations and assumptions that are not martially sound. Nothing is golden in ARMA but the closes thing are interpretations which are historically valid and martially sound.
|
Hi Randall,
Not trying to come off as pushy, but you haven't responded to Bill Grandy's last post. I am curious how you reconcile John Clement's new interpretation of Krump with the excellent points that Bill Grandy raised several posts back (where he quotes from Von Danzig). I have an open mind and am willing be convinced otherwise, but i have to say, as an outside observer, Bill's points (backed by quotes from one of the Masters) are very convincing.
Thanks,
Dustin |
As I said to Steve in an earlier post, I readlly do not want to kepp leading this discussion off topic. But more importantly, I am very limited in how much I can discuss John Clements interpertation of the Krump at this time. Any other questions on this topic should be directed to John Clements himself.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Sat 30 May, 2009 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | It honestly seems strange that the medieval and early Renaissance fighters would have cared so much for their swords and all of a sudden the Bolognese for example decide that it's OK to damage the swords (stressing again that it's the attacker's blade that will likely take the most damage). |
Especially considering that the Bolognese tradition most likely is a continuation from the Medieval period into the early Renaissance.
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dustin R. Reagan
|
| Posted: Sat 30 May, 2009 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
As I said to Steve in an earlier post, I readlly do not want to kepp leading this discussion off topic. But more importantly, I am very limited in how much I can discuss John Clements interpertation of the Krump at this time. Any other questions on this topic should be directed to John Clements himself.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW |
So you are asking us to believe you, without any supporting evidence?
You say
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | ...John's new interpretation of the Krump does indeed match the historical sources and as you can see in the video... |
But when Bill gives a very detailed analysis of how he does not believe the action you have identified in a video can possibly be Krump, at least as described by Von Danzig, you say, "I am very limited in how much I can discuss John Clements interpertation [sic] of the Krump at this time"? You must understand how saying this could be perceived... Sorry, if this is the case you are willing to put forth, then I'm going to have to go with Bill's analysis for now. You say to keep an open mind, but when it comes down to it, you give me very little to go on.
If you ever feel like sharing your view of how the action you showed us in a video fits with the Masters' description of it, I'm all ears, and I promise to give it my full consideration.
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
As I said to Steve in an earlier post, I readlly [sic] do not want to kepp [sic] leading this discussion off topic. |
You must understand that this is a flimsy defense at best? If this really is a concern, I will gladly open a new thread on this topic. Let me know if this will make you feel more open to discussing this.
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | Any other questions on this topic should be directed to John Clements himself. |
It's easy enough for you to say this, because I am about pretty sure that any written requests of this nature will go unanswered. If you don't believe that to be true, would you like to make a wager on it? If so, we can discuss the conditions of the wager offline.
Respectfully,
Dustin
Last edited by Dustin R. Reagan on Sat 30 May, 2009 11:05 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
 |
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Sat 30 May, 2009 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dustin R. Reagan wrote: | So you are asking us to believe you, without any supporting evidence?
You must understand how saying this could be perceived...
You must understand that this is a flimsy defense at best |
I answered some very basic questions that Steve asked. I am not trying to get you, Bill, or anybody else to believe anything. I'm not worried about how that might be perceived and I'm not trying to defend anything. We are all free to follow whatever interpretations we wish.
| Dustin R. Reagan wrote: | | ...I am about pretty sure that any written requests of this nature will go unanswered. |
Regardless of the probability I don't speak for John Clements and it is his work.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dustin R. Reagan
|
| Posted: Sat 30 May, 2009 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | We are all free to follow whatever interpretations we wish. |
Yes, of course. Sorry if I gave you the impression that this is what I was discussing. I did not think any of us were talking about which interpretation we should be using, I thought we were (at least the last several posts) discussing *how* you thought the interpretation that you showed the thread fits with what is described by the Von Danzig.
Since that is not how you understood the discussion, now that I have cleared that up, maybe you can address the passage from Von Danzig and how you believe (not how John Clements believes...) the technique you showed the forum is derived from Von Danzig's passage on Krump.
The more interpretations, the better! Then we can start comparing/discussing how well they fit versus the verbal and pictorial descriptions we have been given.
Thank you,
Dustin
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Carew
|
| Posted: Sat 30 May, 2009 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dustin R. Reagan wrote: |
But when Bill gives a very detailed analysis of how he does not believe the action you have identified in a video can possibly be Krump, at least as described by Von Danzig, |
Hi Dustin,
I actually have an interpretation of the Krump vs Ochs that is similar-ish to how John does it at 30 seconds into that video. However, I tend execute the cut more as a smoother, flatter 'Zwerch' like action swooping in from the left (while stepping right) that can actually strike the opponent's forearms or wrists, thus satisfying the criterion to strike 'upon the hands'. It works very well, and takes their blade safely offline in the process. It works even if the opponent manages to change through underneath: if they do, the Zwerch-Krump strikes the leading forearm even more easily, because it is now striking underneath the blade.
To Bill G's objection that a Zwerch like motion (possibly even an Underhauw) cannot be a Krump, I reference Joachim Meyer, who says of the Krumphauwen:
| Quote: | 1.47R
"When you deliver a Crooked Cut [Krumphauw], go up quickly,
carry out your work to the four openings.
The Crooked Cuts [Krumphauwen] are executed in many ways, for all cuts that are delivered with crossed hands are called Crooked Cuts; thus the one Squinter [Schieler] is also reckoned among the Crooked Cuts. It also doesn't matter whether they are done with the short or the long edge, as long as you hold your hands crosswise."
Pg 92, J. Forgeng |
John's version is a little different to mine, and I'll leave Randall/John/ARMA to discuss that interpretation. My main point is that if we are prepared to listen to Meyer there is no single way to Krumphauw, and certainly no restriction on the angle of the cut. Meyer says any reversed strike with crossed wrists can be considered a Krumphauw (which logically, includes Zwerchhauwen and Schielhauwen). Meyer also says there are only 4 universal cuts that all others derive from, Ober, Zorn, Mittel and Under - Hs.3227a goes further and says it is 2, Ober and Unter! Here is what Meyer says in detail about the 4:
| Quote: | 1.10V - 1.11R
"Now as to the sword at present, there are two distinct kinds of cuts, that is to say straight and reversed cuts. I call those straight that are delivered at the opponent with the long edge and extended arms, of which there are four: High [Ober], Wrath [Zorn], Middle [Mittel] and Low Cut [Underhauw]. They are also called the chief or principle cuts, since all the others arise from them, and none can be imagined or found in the world that is so strange that it cannot be conceived properly under the heading of one of them.
The reversed cuts are those where one reverses the hand and sword in the cuts, so that one does not hit the opponent with the full or long edge but rather with the short edge, flat or some angle, as happens with the Glütz, Kurtz, Kron, Schiel, Krump, Zwerch, Prell, Blendt, Windt, Kniechel, Sturtz, and Wechselhauw. Since these arise from the four straight cuts, they are called their derivative cuts."
Pg. 56, J. Forgeng |
Now I actually like these more fluid definitions that start to erase the artificial definitions of strikes, but it does not please everybody, particularly those Liechtenauer researchers that like everything neatly defined and categorised. So EMMV.
Cheers,
Bill
Bill Carew
Jogo do Pau Brisbane
COLLEGIUM IN ARMIS
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Sat 30 May, 2009 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | It honestly seems strange that the medieval and early Renaissance fighters would have cared so much for their swords and all of a sudden the Bolognese for example decide that it's OK to damage the swords (stressing again that it's the attacker's blade that will likely take the most damage). |
I don't know that I'd call it strange, the actions are described in the works of the Bolognese authors in clear Italian (and actually, it's not just the Bolognese treatises, there are examples of hard stops on the edge in pretty much all of the 1500s Italian treatises).
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 30 May, 2009 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Randall Pleasant wrote: | | It honestly seems strange that the medieval and early Renaissance fighters would have cared so much for their swords and all of a sudden the Bolognese for example decide that it's OK to damage the swords (stressing again that it's the attacker's blade that will likely take the most damage). |
Especially considering that the Bolognese tradition most likely is a continuation from the Medieval period into the early Renaissance. |
This post is actually a mishap from the server migration. It is my post, not Vincent's, and it was quoting Vincent, not Randall.
Vincent made a post responding to Randall saying that it isn't logical to assume medieval masters would go out of their way to protect their edges, but that the later Bolognese masters somehow were different. His post was eaten by the internet.
He's actually the one who said:
| Quote: | | It honestly seems strange that the medieval and early Renaissance fighters would have cared so much for their swords and all of a sudden the Bolognese for example decide that it's OK to damage the swords (stressing again that it's the attacker's blade that will likely take the most damage). |
... not Randall.
I'd responded, and quoted that particular part of Vincent's post to highlight that I agree with him, especially considering that it is very likely that the Bolognese tradition didn't just suddenly spring out of nowhere in the Renaissance; that it most likely was the offspring of a medieval tradition. Somehow my post got changed into being a post from Vincent. Weird.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 30 May, 2009 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William Carew wrote: |
To Bill G's objection that a Zwerch like motion (possibly even an Underhauw) cannot be a Krump, |
Hi Bill,
That's actually not my objection at all. In fact, I happen to strongly believe that the krump can be vertical or horizontal, or somewhere in between, depending on the circumstance.
What I don't agree with is the idea that the masters are saying you should be transporting the opponent's ochs into another line to hit him, as seen in the video. Moreso, I also don't agree with this assertation that somehow everyone else in the world is doing some outdated version of the krump that fails to break ochs, because if that were true, then I must just be really, really lucky with my success rate. 
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Sun 31 May, 2009 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Steve
The mix up with the other quotes made me realize that my reply to you had also been deleted. Sorry about not getting another reply to you sooner.
| Steven Reich wrote: | | Randall Pleasant wrote: | | Might you describe in more detail the technique you were referring to? Regardless of the subject at hand it would be a pleasure to read your interpretation of it. |
The most common one is out of The Anonymous (although it also appears in Marozzo a few times), and involves parrying a Mandritto in Guardia d'Intrare. Here would be a typical example:
1. You are in Coda Lunga Stretta, Right Foot Forward.
2. Your opponent attacks with a Mandritto to your head.
3. Step with your right foot to your left and parry in Guardia d'Intrare, catching your opponent's sword on your true edge [i.e. a 'block' or 'stop' as opposed to a deflection].
4. Pass with your left foot to the opponent's right and deliver a Riverso to his head.
Note that the part, "...catching your opponent's sword on your true edge..." is pretty much direct from the original text. The key to understanding this is an understanding of the correct form of Guardia d'Intrare. While Dall'Agocchie has a form which is similar to the rapier Seconda, The Anonymous and Marozzo actually have a different form--think of it as a rapier quarta, but with the sword-hand turned beyond Quarta so that the true-edge is fairly upward. Thus, in this technique, we are catching the opponent's true edge on our true edge. However, the blades aren't at a 90 degree angle from each other. |
We do this same technique with the longsword. Against an Oberhau I will step in with my point up and make a "V" with my long edge and the guard. Depending upon which side my point is on my hand will be in either in second or fourth. Once the oncoming blade is stopped by my guard I will perform any number of counter attacks. We do not consider this type of edge contact to be a problem since the edges are impacting at a very steep angle, the oncoming edge basically just slides down my edge util it is stopped by the guard. Plus, by stepping in I'm catching the other blade before it is moving with any real speed. At 4:25 in the following video John Clements shows this technique and explains why it is not an issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtNZQBc4RpE
By the way, I really like the sword & buckler pictures on your site.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Carew
|
| Posted: Sun 31 May, 2009 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | William Carew wrote: |
To Bill G's objection that a Zwerch like motion (possibly even an Underhauw) cannot be a Krump, |
Hi Bill,
That's actually not my objection at all. In fact, I happen to strongly believe that the krump can be vertical or horizontal, or somewhere in between, depending on the circumstance. |
Hi Bill,
My apologies, clearly I misunderstood. I'm reassured to know we agree on the variable angle of the Krump. I've met some resistance to that idea alone, even from folks who study Meyer (which I find odd given Meyer's laissez-faire definition of the Krump and also the Zwerch, which both strike at numerous angles).
| Quote: | | What I don't agree with is the idea that the masters are saying you should be transporting the opponent's ochs into another line to hit him, as seen in the video. |
As I said earlier, I can't and don't want to speak for the ARMA Krump.
With mine, I find that with my horizontal Zwerch-like Krump from the left does tend to take the opponent's point offline, but it need not transport the blade very far at all - the blade only has to be moved a few inches after which the long edge of the Krump strikes the forearm of the fencer in Ochs. Now, it can be performed in such a way that the Krump takes the weak of the fencer in Ochs, and this tends to result in a lower level cut that winds in to the opponent's abdomen (similar to what John does in the earlier video).
However, since it is the hands (including forearms as in the Handetrucken IMO) called out as the target in the Krump vs Ochs device, that is what I'm trying to reliably strike with this Krump variant. If the fencer in Ochs manages to change under the Krump with their point and attempts to thrust on the outside of the Krump, their forearm can still be nicely struck without even the need for blade contact against the Ochs. Finally, I need to disclose that this Krump variant works a treat as a Verschieben/sliding action from Zornhut, and this is where my idea for this came from: this may be colouring my interpretation, as Zornhut is a key guard for Meyer, but not for the earlier Liechtenauer commentators.
Does that make any sense? Please bear in mind this is just work in progress, and subject to change as you know, so take it with the appropriate dose of salt. 
| Quote: | | Moreso, I also don't agree with this assertation that somehow everyone else in the world is doing some outdated version of the krump that fails to break ochs, because if that were true, then I must just be really, really lucky with my success rate. |
Indeed, although I'm quite impressed so far with the Krump variant we're working on, I wouldn't dream of saying everyone else is wrong, or that there aren't other martially and textually valid ways to do it, including down at the hands from above. How silly would that be? Meyer clearly does use a more conventional vertical Krump in some devices, as clearly seen in the description of the Krumphauw at 1.12v.1 (Forgeng pg 57) depicted by the small, left hand figure in the background of plate D.
BTW, do you still do some work with Meyer? Let me know, I'd love to compare notes.
Cheers,
Bill
Bill Carew
Jogo do Pau Brisbane
COLLEGIUM IN ARMIS
Last edited by William Carew on Sun 31 May, 2009 1:25 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Sun 31 May, 2009 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bill
What many of us in ARMA call the windshield wipper Krump is the same one that you describe in your German Longsword article.
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | I also don't agree with this assertation that somehow everyone else in the world is doing some outdated version of the krump that fails to break ochs, because if that were true, then I must just be really, really lucky with my success rate. |
I cannot say what your success rate has been due to. However, ex-ARMA member Jake Norwood, who held the rank of Senior Free Scholar, is a fast, powerful, and highly skilled swordsman. Jake made the same arguement to John Clements, who noted that it is very easy thing to test. Later with many painful bruises on his rib cage Jake agreed that that the windshield wipper verison of the Krump simply cannot break Ochs. Jake's failure rate with something like 99 percent. On the other hand, John's version of the Krump has about a 99.9 percent success rate. When all is said and done it's all easy to test once you have a highly skilled partner who is more than willing to give you a hard fast thrust in the ribs or face with either a waster or a blunt sword. Pain teaches.
John's interpretation of the Krump is not an odd cut (to borrow your words), rather it does cut straight to the front and is very well intergrated with the other master cuts both in application and in theory. When I was first introducted to John's new Krump interpretation several years ago I basically had the same reaction you are now having.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Sun 31 May, 2009 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | The mix up with the other quotes made me realize that my reply to you had also been deleted. Sorry about not getting another reply to you sooner. |
No problem, these things happen (and running my own forum, I know how easily).
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | We do this same technique with the longsword. Against an Oberhau I will step in with my point up and make a "V" with my long edge and the guard. Depending upon which side my point is on my hand will be in either in second or fourth. Once the oncoming blade is stopped by my guard I will perform any number of counter attacks. We do not consider this type of edge contact to be a problem since the edges are impacting at a very steep angle, the oncoming edge basically just slides down my edge util it is stopped by the guard. Plus, by stepping in I'm catching the other blade before it is moving with any real speed. At 4:25 in the following video John Clements shows this technique and explains why it is not an issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtNZQBc4RpE
By the way, I really like the sword & buckler pictures on your site. |
Well, I won't go into much except to say that they are somewhat outdated (although nothing is really *wrong* with any of them, but to me, they look exactly like what they were: positions assumed by relative novices in the system who were still figuring out many of the fundamentals.
1. You are in Coda Lunga Stretta, Right Foot Forward.
2. Your opponent attacks with a Mandritto to your head.
3. Step with your right foot to your left and parry in Guardia d'Intrare, catching your opponent's sword on your true edge [i.e. a 'block' or 'stop' as opposed to a deflection].
4. Pass with your left foot to the opponent's right and deliver a Riverso to his head.
Note that the version of Guardia d'Intrare in the pictures is the form used by Dall'Agocchie, and pretty much the opposite of the version used in the technique above (and thus is used in completely different actions). The version used in my example really looks more like Guardia di Faccia, except with the true-edge turned upward (i.e. the hand is turned even further, sort of like Ochs, but with the arm extended and the head back and the true-edge not really vertically upward). In this case, it becomes (against a Mandritto) a rather jarring stop--the most common riposte after this is to step to the opponent's right and bring your blade around to deliver a Riverso to his head and sword-arm (thus, including a motion to disengage the two blades. When done at speed and with the correct timing, it works quite well.
Hmmm...looking at the video, there is something that gives a ballpark position. Look at the position the two fencers end up in at around 5:15. Now, imagine three things: 1. Both fencers have single-hand swords (although it would work with the swords they have); 2. JC is making that same cut first instead of as a counterattack; 3. JC's partner's sword-arm(s) is extended, his head is back, and his true-edge is up.
Now as I said, this isn't the most common parry in the Bolognese school, but it is in there.
BTW, I know that there is some confusion in the WMA community regarding this guard (Guardia d'Intrare), and I'll be happy to address it, but not in this thread, lest we deviate it from the topic at hand.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 31 May, 2009 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William Carew wrote: | | BTW, do you still do some work with Meyer? Let me know, I'd love to compare notes. |
Sadly, not very much these days. David Rowe, Pamela Muir and I were really getting into it for a little while, but it sort of took a back seat to working on the Bolognese material with Steve Reich (since he's already done all the research, and we can just shut up and do what he tells us. Life's so much easier that way!)
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 31 May, 2009 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | I cannot say what your success rate has been due to. However, ex-ARMA member Jake Norwood, who held the rank of Senior Free Scholar, is a fast, powerful, and highly skilled swordsman. Jake made the same arguement to John Clements, who noted that it is very easy thing to test. Later with many painful bruises on his rib cage Jake agreed that that the windshield wipper verison of the Krump simply cannot break Ochs. Jake's failure rate with something like 99 percent. |
I suspect there's something different going on for him to be hit so much. Sure it can be countered (as with anything), but with such a high failure rate, I really don't think we're doing it the same way.
Honestly, if someone can hit me from ochs when I do the krumphau the way I do it, and can do so *without* being simultaneously hit, then I'd be quite shocked. Its not a matter of my skill, its a matter of the fact that I'd be out of distance, and the opponent's hands would be threatened. If the opponent protects the hands, then I still strike the blade out of line and continue with an immediate short edge cut to the head (as the texts describe). Now, its different if you say that person defends and attacks afterwards, because there's no such thing as a technique that can't be countered... but that can be said of everything, not just in this case.
| Quote: | | On the other hand, John's version of the Krump has about a 99.9 percent success rate. When all is said and done it's all easy to test once you have a highly skilled partner who is more than willing to give you a hard fast thrust in the ribs or face with either a waster or a blunt sword. Pain teaches. |
If it has that kind of success rate, you may want to consider classical fencing training. There are very specific counters to this that can apply easily to the longsword. A simple wind to pflug is a start. That's not to imply its not useful to do. Once again, I'm not arguing its ability to function, I'm arguing that I don't see any evidence that the historical masters ever described this as the way to break ochs.
| Quote: | | John's interpretation of the Krump is not an odd cut (to borrow your words), |
I never said it was odd. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Its a common maneuver in classical foil.
| Quote: | | rather it does cut straight to the front and is very well intergrated with the other master cuts both in application and in theory. |
And it doesn't follow what the historical masters describe as breaking ochs. I think maybe we're debating two different points (such is the nature of online debates, I suppose). You insist that the technique works, and I say that I'm not arguing that at all, and then you tell me again that the technique works once again. I just want to know how it can be justified that this is what is in the texts when the texts don't describe anything like it.
| Quote: | | When I was first introducted to John's new Krump interpretation several years ago I basically had the same reaction you are now having. |
Then let me ask you this: What convinced you that this is what the texts say?
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Sun 31 May, 2009 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | The mix up with the other quotes made me realize that my reply to you had also been deleted. Sorry about not getting another reply to you sooner. |
Just to make it clear to everybody reading this: no posts were deleted. We lost some data when the old myArmoury.com server had a hard drive crash and we were migrated to a new box. We're now further migrated to yet another box, a dedicated system, and should be solid. We lost about 4-6 hours worth of data because of the crash.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a