| 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: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
 Posted: Sat 08 Sep, 2012 3:50 pm Post subject: Krump |
 |
|
Scholars
Below is a link to a video of John Clements demonstration his new interpretation of the Krumphau. I hope you find it useful and enjoyable.
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/OntheKrumphau.mp4
Randall Pleasant
ARMA
|
|
  |
 |
|
R.M. Henson
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Sep, 2012 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
That's interesting. Interpreting manuals based on the drawings with no context is somewhat of a mysterious endeavor. I'll definitely take note of this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Sep, 2012 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| R.M. Henson wrote: | | That's interesting. Interpreting manuals based on the drawings with no context is somewhat of a mysterious endeavor. I'll definitely take note of this one. |
R.M.
I thank you for your extremely quick review of Clements new Krumphau interpretation.
I'm not sure I understand your statement about "no context". The interpretation presented in the video is base upon an in depth analysis by Clements over many years of both the text and the images of all the historical manuals that discuss the Krumphau while also taking into consideration human biomechanics at proper fighting speed. I assure you Clements' new interpretation has context as good or better than the old windshield windshield wiper/agile interpretation of the Krumphau.
I do hope you will consider doing a more in depth review of the Clements' interpretation in the near future.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA
|
|
|
|
|
|
R.M. Henson
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Sep, 2012 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I was by no means saying that Clements interpretation didn't have context, but rather he provided context that the ancient manuals didn't have. Trying to figure out how it was properly done just by looking at pictures and investigating through practice is the mysterious part, as we don't quite know for sure how it was done which is why interpretations get outdated so often. Clements readily explained his reasoning which is why I enjoyed his demonstration of his theory. I do think it's an improvement over older interpretations in the situations he provided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Stockwell
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Sep, 2012 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert, but it looks like Mr. Clements suggests turning a parry into an opportunity for your opponent to cut off your ear... Maybe that was the wrong way? Say at 8:04. Yes, Mr. Clements gets a raking cut up his opponent's back and side, but the opponent gets a cut at Mr. Clements's neck. That does not appear to be tactically sound.
 Attachment: 32.92 KB
Screen capture from video. [ Download ]
Walter
www.stockwellknives.com
|
|
 |
|
|
Colt Reeves
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Sep, 2012 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Walter Stockwell wrote: | | I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert, but it looks like Mr. Clements suggests turning a parry into an opportunity for your opponent to cut off your ear... Maybe that was the wrong way? Say at 8:04. Yes, Mr. Clements gets a raking cut up his opponent's back and side, but the opponent gets a cut at Mr. Clements's neck. That does not appear to be tactically sound. |
I wondered about that too, since it screams "drawcut", but it wouldn't be the first technique that HAS to be done quickly and decisively to work. Quite a few winding and bindings could turn bad in a flash if you lost the initiative, so I could see where this one could be tactically sound.
(Speaking as another non-expert.)
"Tears are for the craven, prayers are for the clown.
Halters for the silly neck that cannot keep a crown.
As my loss is grievous, so my hope is small.
For Iron, Cold Iron, must be master of men all..."
-Cold Iron, Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Capanelli
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Sep, 2012 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Colt Reeves wrote: | | Walter Stockwell wrote: | | I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert, but it looks like Mr. Clements suggests turning a parry into an opportunity for your opponent to cut off your ear... Maybe that was the wrong way? Say at 8:04. Yes, Mr. Clements gets a raking cut up his opponent's back and side, but the opponent gets a cut at Mr. Clements's neck. That does not appear to be tactically sound. |
I wondered about that too, since it screams "drawcut", but it wouldn't be the first technique that HAS to be done quickly and decisively to work. Quite a few winding and bindings could turn bad in a flash if you lost the initiative, so I could see where this one could be tactically sound.
(Speaking as another non-expert.) |
From yet another non-expert.........
What I've found is that sometimes when a technique looks to be maritally unsound when slowed down to demonstrate it, it works quite well at speed. So while at slower speeds it appears he's getting his ear/neck cut it might not pan out so well for the recipient of that Krump at full speed. I've found this carries over to other martial arts as well. That's why I tell beginners not to play guessing games and the infamous "What if I just did this" and just die like good practice partners. Most of the time the what if scenario they created in their minds breaks down when someone is attacking them with speed and intent. So at slow speeds it may appear that he's getting cut in the exchange but at a more realistic speed he may well deliver a debilitating cut before he can be struck by the opponent. I'm going to try my windshield Krumphau I've been doing for years, and then I'm going to try this and see which works better for me at tempo.
Winter is coming
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Sep, 2012 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another " non-scholar " impression: It looks effective and the explanation for the way it works seems very plausible as a good technique.
As to the usual interpretations of the Krumphau do they seem to work tactically and do people use them successfully in bouting ?
Do the old interpretations and the new interpretations both fit the representations in period drawings and period texts ?
Just asking if when a new and credible interpretation is imagined and tried out does it automatically mean that the old interpretation is wrong or not useful ?
I guess there are two issues:
A) Which interpretation seems to fit the source material best in a way that we give one the benefit of being believed to be closer to what was done in period ..... i.e. the way it was really done in period.
B) Just as fighting techniques, separate from period proven authenticity, do many contradictory interpretations each working equally as a good way to win a fight and not get killed or wounded in a real fight have equal practical value ? ( As far as we can tell without the ability to fight for real ).
A new interpretation can be a very valuable technique that works or would have worked in period if it is actually something they would have done in period or did one just come up with something " new " that works really well ?
After all somebody came up first in period with a new technique and it's not impossible to believe that one could invent a new technique that also works even if not known in period.
But what I do appreciate is having a good demonstration of a new interpretation shown and the rationale for it well explained rather than just stating that some new and mysterious interpretation has been discovered without showing what it consists of.  
Whatever the truth of the thing I have to say that I am impressed with the speed of execution of the technique and how impossible it would be to counter due to lack of available reaction time even if one could invent a good counter to it at low speeds of execution.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas R.
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Sep, 2012 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
Whatever the truth of the thing I have to say that I am impressed with the speed of execution of the technique and how impossible it would be to counter due to lack of available reaction time even if one could invent a good counter to it at low speeds of execution. |
Yes, Clements clearly knows how to wield a sword with speed and accuracy. But what I'd like to see is a free play situation, where this new interpretation is successfully applied, since it seems to me pretty dangerous for the one, who executes it. Most blows and and thrusts are not immediately lethal, so a "last" counter hit to one owns throat seems very likely to me. Furthermore I'd like to know when this technique would have been used back then? In the 14th century? 15th? (Looks to me mostly like Meyer, which would mean 16th century). We should keep in mind that there are multiple manuals and teachings, and not every technique was used in every timeframe or even country.
Thomas
http://maerenundlobebaeren.tumblr.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Sep, 2012 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thomas R. wrote: | | But what I'd like to see is a free play situation, where this new interpretation is successfully applied, since it seems to me pretty dangerous for the one, who executes it. |
I don't have a video at hand showing the breaking of Ochs. However, in another discussion on the Krump the following video was posted by Anders Linnard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mAWZ79WrO4
Anders asked if I thought the cut he made at 0.44 was a Krump. I replied Yes as his cut matches the text from Ringeck listed below. The only difference is that Anders performs the cut on the left rather than on the right. And note how well Anders was protected by his sword at the end of the cut.
| Ringeck wrote: | | This is how you should strike the Krumphau at the hands. When he attacks you from his right side with an Oberhau or Underhau, jump out of the strike with your right foot towards his left side and with crossed hands strike against his hands using the point. |
The following image from Pauls H. Mair shows a Krump being used with side-sword in the same manner that Clements performs a Krump with longsword in his video. As Mike Capanelli noted, when performed at speed the other person just does not have the time to peform a slicing attack.
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0000/bsb0...;seite=117
Ran Pleasant
ARMA
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas R.
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Sep, 2012 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Randall,
thanks for the link and the citation. I know that Liechtenauer and Ringeck did teach the Krump, but your citation doesn't describe what Clements does. It's the foundation for the normal interpretation of the Krump so far: step out of line, krump at the opponents hand and snicker happy. It doesn't say anything about winding around the opponents blade an thus striking him in the back. Since I am not that familiar with the younger longsword teachings (e.g. Meyer) Clements posture reminded me more of Meyers prints and drawings.That's what I meant in my first reply.
The sidesword picture indeed seems to resemble a technique that might relate to what Clements does, but if you look closer, you'll see, that the red guy binds onto his opponents blade with his strong and the guard. I can't understand the text, which accompanies the picture, but if it's meant to show a Krump, well, red guy has after he has made contact the full iniatitive and control of his opponents blade and is shielded from his blade by the guard of his sidesword. So he's in the "vor" and can do a wide range of attacks after his "indes" Krump.
Nevertheless, I'll give the new interpretation a try, as soon as possible (which will sadly be not as soon, as I'd like...  )
Best regards,
Thomas
http://maerenundlobebaeren.tumblr.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Sep, 2012 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | Thomas R. wrote: | | But what I'd like to see is a free play situation, where this new interpretation is successfully applied, since it seems to me pretty dangerous for the one, who executes it. |
I don't have a video at hand showing the breaking of Ochs. However, in another discussion on the Krump the following video was posted by Anders Linnard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mAWZ79WrO4
Anders asked if I thought the cut he made at 0.44 was a Krump. I replied Yes as his cut matches the text from Ringeck listed below. The only difference is that Anders performs the cut on the left rather than on the right. And note how well Anders was protected by his sword at the end of the cut.
| Ringeck wrote: | | This is how you should strike the Krumphau at the hands. When he attacks you from his right side with an Oberhau or Underhau, jump out of the strike with your right foot towards his left side and with crossed hands strike against his hands using the point. |
The following image from Pauls H. Mair shows a Krump being used with side-sword in the same manner that Clements performs a Krump with longsword in his video. As Mike Capanelli noted, when performed at speed the other person just does not have the time to peform a slicing attack.
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0000/bsb0...;seite=117
Ran Pleasant
ARMA |
ah thank you VERY much for showing this i have been looking for techniques for using the cut and thrust sword by itself, i.e not being used in conjunction with a bucker, shield or dagger.
i havet gotten a chance to look through the whole manual but how do the side sword techniques look compared to techniques for single messer and other cutting swords, does it look like the complex hilts protecion of the hand is factored into the techniques in terms of how you hold the sword to stop your hand getting cut
or does it take the position that 'its better to have a complex hilt , but you wont suffer any ill effects if you do the moves with a normal cruciorm hilt. '
|
|
 |
|
|
Raman A
Location: United States Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 148
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Sep, 2012 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Colt Reeves wrote: | | I wondered about that too, since it screams "drawcut", but it wouldn't be the first technique that HAS to be done quickly and decisively to work. Quite a few winding and bindings could turn bad in a flash if you lost the initiative, so I could see where this one could be tactically sound. |
I don't know of any movements in any form of fencing that can be done without decisiveness and speed.
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Wed 12 Sep, 2012 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | The following image from Pauls H. Mair shows a Krump being used with side-sword in the same manner that Clements performs a Krump with longsword in his video. As Mike Capanelli noted, when performed at speed the other person just does not have the time to peform a slicing attack.
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0000/bsb0...;seite=117 |
Not the same: it's to the other side (not such a big deal) and at a different measure (a big deal for me). The man on the right here is not cutting to the body. He still has control of the opponent's blade. By the way, since the ARMA seems to study Mair, do you have a translation of the text that goes along?
The Ringeck quote does not fit the video either. The footwork is markedly different.
In fact is there any single source that you can show, that has both text and image fitting the video? I've not seen such yet. For the lack of this, that technique might be interesting but is not historical.
Readers that wish to contrast this with other interpretations might want to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIKMPIFJkzk
I'm not sure whether this is what Randall calls windshield wiper/agile, but it's different (and fits the sources better in my opinion).
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Wed 12 Sep, 2012 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Randall Pleasant wrote: | The following image from Pauls H. Mair shows a Krump being used with side-sword in the same manner that Clements performs a Krump with longsword in his video. As Mike Capanelli noted, when performed at speed the other person just does not have the time to peform a slicing attack.
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0000/bsb0...;seite=117 |
Not the same: it's to the other side (not such a big deal) and at a different measure (a big deal for me). The man on the right here is not cutting to the body. He still has control of the opponent's blade. By the way, since the ARMA seems to study Mair, do you have a translation of the text that goes along? |
Vincent
Below is a very nice translation of Mair's rapier section by Keith Myers. The technique in question is found on page seven and is title "Falling Over with a Krumb against a Thrust". The text that actually describes the Krump is "Then immediately wind a thrust in over his blade to his face or chest." The Krump action (the wind) is used to bring the point back on line with the adversary. This is exactly the same action you see Clements using in his video. The only difference being that Clements is attempting to hit the hands.
The Rappier of Paulus Hector Mair by Keith P. Myers
http://freifechter.com/PHM_Rappier.pdf
Ran Pleasant
ARMA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Herbert Schmidt
|
| Posted: Wed 12 Sep, 2012 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for posting the video.
Personally I disagree with John Clements on this one. This is not really a Krumphau - it is a Zwerch to the Pflug.
While this version of the Zwerchhau is quite useful, it is not the Krump - neither in execution nor in intention.
| Quote: | | Merck den krump haw magstu auch treiben aus der schranck hu°t von paiden seittñ vnd in die hu°t schick dich also wenn dw mit dem zu° vechten zw° ÿm kumpst So ste mit dem lincken fuess vor vnd halt dein swert mit dem ort neben deiner rechten seitten auff der erden das die lang schneid oben seÿ vnd gib dich plöß mit der lincken seitten haut er dir denn zw° der plöss So spring aus dem haw gegen ÿm mit dem rechten fuëss wol auff dein rechte seitten vnd slach ÿn mit gekräutzten henden aus der langen schneid mit dem ort auff sein hend |
It doesn't fit the description of the sources either.
Then there is another thing. In almost all instances of John doing his version of the Krump he would never have the necessary force to really injure someone wearing period clothing. At least not much. A slight cut would maybe result. There is a reason why this Zwerch to the Pflug is done in different instances in the sources - to generate more power.
He might be in a position to stab downwards but that is quite dependent on a bit of luck.
A sidenote: in 6:11 John Clements clearly and deliberately takes on an incoming strike with the edge! Ooohh. Isn't that not to be done? Isn't that sacrilegious? :wink:
Thanks for sharing. The application of the Zwerch to the Pflug in this instance is surely worth a thought. To me it seems as if it would not have enough power to do some real damage.
But no matter how valid it is, I don't see it as a Krump. It doesn't fit the sources. He never throws the point on the hands while stepping extremely to his right.
best wishes
Herbert
www.arsgladii.at
Historical European Martial Arts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Sep, 2012 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Since this is this is the same post made on another forum I will use the same reply made on the other forum.
| Herbert wrote: | | Personally I disagree with John Clements on this one. |
I think you for taking the time to review the interpretation. Of course, this will be one of many things we disagree on.
| Quote: | | This is not really a Krumphau - it is a Zwerch to the Pflug. While this version of the Zwerchhau is quite useful, it is not the Krump - neither in execution nor in intention. |
Respectfully, I think you are misunderstanding the angles of the cuts. When I cut a Zwerchhau to either the Ochs or the Pflug one flat of my blade is facing up. If you stand with both arms held out and the palms facing down then your hands represent the path of a Zwerchhau to the Ochs (actually a little higher than the shoulders). If you lower both arms down to about 60 or 50 degrees then your hands represent the path of a Zwerchhau to the Pflug. In Clements' interpretation of the Krump the blade follows a path a roughly 45 degrees out to the side. Totally different angles, thus totally different cuts.
This was actually a key issue we pressed Clements on when he first came out with his Krump interpretation. But once we looked closely at the angle we came to understand they were completely different cuts.
| Quote: | | A sidenote: in 6:11 John Clements clearly and deliberately takes on an incoming strike with the edge! Ooohh. Isn't that not to be done? Isn't that sacrilegious? |
You are misunderstanding the actions in the video. Clement is stifling the cut near the hilt where the blade is traveling slower rather than blocking it out at the weak where the blade is traveling faster. We have no problems with the edges connecting at slower speed, it is only the high speed edge-on-edge hits that cause major damage.
Again, thanks for the discussion.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Sep, 2012 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Randall,
Thanks for that link!
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | Below is a very nice translation of Mair's rapier section by Keith Myers. The technique in question is found on page seven and is title "Falling Over with a Krumb against a Thrust". The text that actually describes the Krump is "Then immediately wind a thrust in over his blade to his face or chest." The Krump action (the wind) is used to bring the point back on line with the adversary. This is exactly the same action you see Clements using in his video. The only difference being that Clements is attempting to hit the hands. |
Let's see if I understand you correctly: you think the illustration corresponds to the second part of the action, and you interpret that second part as a strike starting from having the rapier pointing up, throwing the tip along a right to left diagonal towards the face or chest? I'm trying to match John Clement's move to the situation here... I'd think striking the face like that is going to make you lose the bind. Far better to thrust low with that technique, and even this does not seem easy, because you attempt to strike the left side of the opponent that is away from you while remaining above is blade...
I don't think it corresponds really well to the text either. The text states:
| Quote: | | fall over his Rappier off-line with your short edge and with that take his thrust away outward on your right side (as in illustration). Then immediately wind a thrust in over his blade to his face or chest. |
(emphasis mine)
So I'd say that the illustration must correspond to the first part, and that the deviation must happen placing the edge over the opponent's blade, not just setting it aside as John does. I'd interpret that as some sort of spiralling cut that captures the blade and ends exactly in the position illustrated. From here you can easily turn your arm and sword counter-clockwise (the wind), keep the bind to his blade (perhaps even trap it with the true edge quillon) and thrust over it to the face.
Rather than looking at the texts and acting as they describe, it seems to me that you try to twist the texts to make them fit the action you want to do. At least this instance is unconvincing to me.
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas R.
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Sep, 2012 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: |
I don't think it corresponds really well to the text either. The text states:
| Quote: | | fall over his Rappier off-line with your short edge and with that take his thrust away outward on your right side (as in illustration). Then immediately wind a thrust in over his blade to his face or chest. |
(emphasis mine)
So I'd say that the illustration must correspond to the first part, and that the deviation must happen placing the edge over the opponent's blade, not just setting it aside as John does. I'd interpret that as some sort of spiralling cut that captures the blade and ends exactly in the position illustrated. From here you can easily turn your arm and sword counter-clockwise (the wind), keep the bind to his blade (perhaps even trap it with the true edge quillon) and thrust over it to the face.
|
That is exactly what I thought, too.
http://maerenundlobebaeren.tumblr.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Herbert Schmidt
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Sep, 2012 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
This thread has been discussed at another place - the Schola Forum.
Just to point one thing out:
In the manuscripts the Krump is repeatedly stated as
• stepping or jumping to ones right
• hitting the hands from above with the point
Personally I see none of the above in what John does.
It is however an almost perfect Zwerch to the Pflug - a martially sound technique.
Herbert
www.arsgladii.at
Historical European Martial Arts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 standard topic