[Roger Norling]

I'll try to not dig into this too deeply. But clearly, the krump can be done in many different ways, striking with the long or short edge or even the flat, against the opponent's flat or on top of his (short) edge, at his weak or strong, directly to the body, to the sword or as a bouncing strike first to the sword and then to the body.

Here is how Kal depicts the simplest version, stepping off to the right while cutting to the hands. Throwing your rear hand under your elbow protects it from the opponent's incoming cut and angles your blade so it cuts more or less at the same angle as the opponent.

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00001840/image_136

Talhoffer too shows it thrown diagonally forwards on top of the opponent's blade, completing it with what appears to be an oberhauw, but possibly also a short-edge unterhauw to the head:

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00020451/image_23

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00020451/image_24


Here are a couple of sources that can be mistaken for showing the ARMA interpretation:

The Berlin Sketchbook shows a few images that looks similar to the ARMA interpretation, but sidestepping diagonally forwards so you get an angle from which you can wind in a thrust on the outside with crossed arms is vital. This is what keeps you safe and enables you to pose a proper threat, as his blade is at your side, bound with your cross while your point is aimed at his balls or gut...

http://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/dms...=PHYS_0021

There are a few more similar images in that specific treatise. (Thanks Martin Fabian for putting my attention to it!)

It is quite similar to the counter for the "2nd" Zwerch shown in the Glasgow Fechtbuch (and described by several other masters, e.g Ringeck) where it is the left fencer who makes the clever counter:

http://wiktenauer.com/images/6/68/E.1939.65.341_1r.jpg

Possibly, this is also what we see on plate 84 in the Solothurner Fechtbuch. However, in that treatise we see the "regular" Krump from above to the hands on plate 88, identically to how Kal shows it.

The Rast fechtbuch again on plate 46r shows a similar stance that basically is a mutieren coming from a zornhau bind, where you through the pommel underneath your elbow which will wind your point over and inside the opponent's blade when done correctly.

As a sidenote, as he has been mentioned in this debate: Meyer says a few interesting things about the krump and has his very own perspective on it, but he is also aware of the older interpretations:

"So du Krumphauwft / fahr auff behend / Geschrenckt den ort wirff auff sein hend"
"Wann du ihm hauwest Krump zur sterck / Durchwendt / Uberlauff damit merck."
"Mit krump trit wol / wilt du versetzen / Das uberschrencken thüt ihn letzen"
Krump zun flechen wilt dich stercken / Wiet ihn schechst / solt fleissig merken"
"Merck so er dich mit Krump wolt irze & Bleib am Schwert & recht den krieg thu füren"

Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to debate more, but clearly there is not one single interpretetation of the Krump. The sources are quite clear on this. To me the krump is a simple cut: A cut with crooked arms that can go to the opponent's body or sword. What you do after that is a follow up, which can be winding and cutting, thrusting or wrenching.

ARMA's interpretation has some merit for the follow-ups, although I don't consider them actual part of the krump. The unterhauw would be fairly weak against a doublet and thus quite ineffective. A thrust would be better, which is what we appear to see in some treatises.

[Randall Pleasant]

[Randall Pleasant]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Randall,

[Randall Pleasant]

[Roger Norling]

[Roger Norling]

[Randall Pleasant]

[Roger Norling]

Who says you can't throw the Krump forward? Of course you can, and several masters do... You can certainly cut it through the Zorn-line. Just read your Meyer... But you shouldn't try to throw the Krump through Meyer's upwards D-line as the Krump is supposed to hit the hands from above.

I think one of the causes for misinterpretation might be the assumption that the Krump requires a bind which it doesn't always do. A krump can be thrown directly at the body and this is what happens with the counter against the Ochs. The description quoted above contains no bind whatsoever.

Not sure I get your description here as the image doesn't show a krumphauw with the long edge to the hands, but I assume you describe a long edge cut from below with uncrossed arms (although you claim that the arms are crossed for some part of the cut, somehow). The simplest way of doing it would be like Kal, and many others describe it. Sort of like this, as an Oberhauw going through the H-line or the A-line (depending on how you look at it...)

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00001840/image_136

... but with the opponent standing in Ochs. On the other hand, in your video John describes how the opponent moves out of his Ochs into a thrust with Langort, if I remember correctly...

The image you provided doesn't seem to work with the text in Goliath, but rather with the common follow up attack from the Krump; a Schielhauw, like this:

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

The text clearly says to strike over the hands, not under.

"Wen du mit dem zufechten zu im kumpst, /
steet er dan gegen dir und helt sein schwert fur seinem haupt in der hut / des Ochsens, auf seiner lincken seiten,
so setz den lincken vus vor, und / halt dein schwert an deiner rechten achselnn, in der hut,
unnd spring / mit dem rechten fus, wol auf dein recht seyten, gegen im,
und schlag / in mit der langen schneid, aus gekreutzten armen, uber die hend"

To be the Devil's advocate though, throwing the cut "auff" the opponent's hand can also be interpreted as "at" his hands, which possibly could be interpreted as allowing for a cut from below too. However, doing that, with crossed arms, involves a rather complicated spiralling move compared to just cutting straight in at the hands which seems much more in line with letting your point follow the shortest path as if pulled by a thread...

Also the ARMA unterhau version of the Krump would be quite difficult when stepping well off to one's right side which John doesn't do. In fact he is not stepping at all. If anything, he is stepping to his left. Also John appears to have some issues with getting caught on the opponent's cross while having the opponent's blade on his own neck. Shit happens in demos of course so maybe that's just what it is. But maybe it also shows a vulnerability in this interpretation.

[Jimi Edmonds]

Well I couldn't really make heads or tails of this ARMA interpretation, as for the above Goliath picture, this fellows makes for a good interpretation of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFKRSIQo_pM&feature=plcp , for the ARMA krump to me if I went with Ringeck, Mr. Clements didn't step outward to his right and didn't strike with crossed hands, as per the most usaul written text of the krumphau, while when he parries going left, catching/binding the blade and then krumping, he and the other fellow almost appear the same as Plate 19 from Talhoffer, at the upper hangers from both combatants. I understand the krump to be struck, throwing the point, and from Goliath and I'm sure Ringeck, withen the "windshield wiper" debate, it says go from Schrankhut striking a krump into Schankhut, which in a way is simular to the wiper, though I angle my blade out more throwing the point.

Though on this when I come at someone and use the krump I'll have my blade cross my centreline first and then snap into a krump, or like Mr. Clements, after I bind and am in a lower hanger if they are unaware I'll krump over the blade and cut up to the head.

Still I think its worth trying out the different interpretations as who is really right? Though I don't think (like others) that a krump from Cod.HS3227a will be in the exzact same vein as a krump from say Meyer, then also P.H.Mair seems to use the krump quite alot, maybe the this interpretation stems from there?

I am still learning so take me as you will.
cheers..

[Roger Norling]

Oh, and Randall. Understand this: I am not completely discrediting your interpretation as there are some ambiguities that might give room for interpretation along your lines, depending on how you translate and interpret words like "auff", "aus" and "uber". Not that I agree that it would be the only execution of the krump, but possibly one version of it.

[Herbert Schmidt]

No stepping right, no point on the hands from above (or on the blade) = no krump, however much you cross your hands.

What about the following techniques of the Krump:

[Felix R.]

All those discussions on interpretations are very interesting to read. Do you know the early Jackie Chan movies where students were switching their martial arts schools, because the masters were always in a quarrel about best technique and style? It was a real fun to watch. It might getting a bit more open minded to others interpretations, to others critics, to others comments.

[Randall Pleasant]

Respectfully,

[Jimi Edmonds]

Hello Randall, would you be able to please link some pictures that were used in this interpretation, as I think it would help in the better understanding of it all. I have watched through the clip several times, and I don't doubt that any of the techniques shown wouldn't work, though still this bugs me..from Ringeck:

"Do the Krumphau (crooked strike) with these techniques.

Strike the Krumphau deftly, cast the point towards the hands.
This is how you shall strike the Krumphau against the hands.

When he cuts from his right side against an opening with an Oberhau or Unterhau, take a spring away from the strike with your right foot, far out to his left side; and cut with crossed arms with the point to the hands.

And even try this technique against him when he stands against you in the Ox guard."

Now not once did I see this, around 6:10-6:40 Mr. Clements has stepped forwards with the right possibly cutting the hands, but it doesn't match this above text, neither with crossed hands (though he did so in the 2nd krump from the first) and he didn't step out to his right clearing the blade.

In the Goliath pic that was posted yet again simular at 6:32, but not really matching the image, feet were wrong and opponant was not in Ochs, plus the position in Goliath looks more like the cut came from over than under.

"He who uses the Krumphau well with a step, he is able to defend against cuts.
This is how you shall set aside all Oberhau attacks with the Krumphau.
When he cuts in from above against your openings from his right side, step with your right foot out to his left side and throw your blade across his sword with the point to the ground in the Barrier guard.
Test this on both sides. And from this setting aside you can cut him in the head."

This is also simular to Goliath, which shows going from Schankhut into Schankhut..still I don't see any springing or stepping outward, only mostly in towards the strike to set it aside, followed by a krump from the bind..

So please some pics!

cheers Jim.

[Roger Norling]

The simplest thing would be to shoot a clip of how you do this according to the text, Randall, because the image you gave does not match the text.

Do note that it is the right side fencer who is doing something good in that Goliath image, not the left fencer. The left side fencer's point is well is outside of the opponent's hands with the point extended quite a bit behind the opponent. It is the right fencer who has stepped in and cuts quite correctly with his point at the opponent's arm or head, basically with a schielhauw.

This image accompanies this description, as translated by Mike Rasmussen:

"Arc strike (Krump) to the flat and you will weaken the master. When it glides above then stand off so I will praise.
You shall deploy this play against most binds with the sword, and drive it so: When you come to him in the prefencing, then lay your sword to your right side in the barrier guard and stand with the left foot forward, or hold it on the right shoulder, if he then strikes high to the opening, then strike strongly with the long edge to cross arms against his strike, and as soon as the swords clash together then immediately wind the short edge on his sword toward your left, and stab him in the face. Or if you will not stab him, then strike him immediately with the short edge, from the sword to the head or body."



If you are stepping well to your right and cutting with crossed arms straight at the opponent's hands from above with the long edge and no bind, then we don't have an argument.

What you and me consider a home run are obviously two quite different things. It is a bit weird since you earlier stated that it is all about interpretation and we can never be sure... There are no homeruns here. Just more or less likelyhood of correct interpretations.

As for the Windshield wiper/agile version. To be honest I am not quite sure how you define it. If you didn't get my description, here goes my explanation for how to throw the krump straight at the hands of the opponent:

1. Start from a low or high guard like Tag, Einhorn, Wechsel, Neben or Schrankhut.
2. Step well to your right side while throwing the point diagonally towards your left side, with the long (or short) edge, at his hands from above (through the A- or H-line) while moving your left hand under your right elbow so it stays well away from your opponent's point at your right side.

This also works against an Oberhau, as described in the treatises.

Again. This is how you cut a krump to the hands:



Or

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00001840/image_136

You keep on using Anders Linnard's clip to prove that it works. Do note though that Anders is very skeptical about your interpretation and he doesn't consider it a krump at this stage. To me it looks like a Zwerch that goes underneath the opponent's blade. I don't think it is a Krump as it doesn't move the hands away from the opponent's blade when going straight for the body. Basically, Anders did this:



Not sure if it was me you targeted, but I never said you could cut a Krump like a Zorn. Only that you can cut a Krump along Meyer's Zorn-line. However, the difference to the Zorn is that you cut it along the opposite Zorn-line. So for your right Krump you throw it along line A or H, depending on how you look at it.

The idea that the system has to be symmetric has little foundation, just like the notion some people have that there is a left Tag for right handed fencers. The system is assymetric at its core. However there are cuts along almost all those lines.

The Zwerch covers all lines but the vertical A- and E-lines; B,C,D,F,G and H.
The Zorn covers the B- and H-lines.
The Mittelhau covers the C- and G-lines.
The Krump covers the A-, B- and H-lines.
the Schiel and Scheitel covers the A-line.

Only the E-line seems not to be used with proper cuts, although there are motions for that too.

There simply is no need to try to squeeze the Krump into the D- or F-lines. They are already covered by the Zwerch, which again is what you have embedded into the Krump.

And yes, the Krump is a concept for many masters. So choose who you trust; the masters' actual words or your own interpretation thereof. Meyer, e.g, says that both the Schielhauw and the Zirkel are actually Krumphauw.

Also keep in mind that the krump is described with the following features:

1. Can hit the sword or directly to the body without touching the opponent's blade.
2. Can hit with the long or short edge, or the flat.
3. Can hit the weak or strong of the opponent's blade.
4. Can hit the opponent's flat or on top of his short edge.
5. Requires you to step well away to the side from the opponent's blade.
6. Requires that you hit from above, not just that you start your cut from above.
7. It is tied to the stance of Schrankhut, sometimes starting and ending in that stance.
8. With the cut your rear hand is moved away from the opponent's blade, to protect it.

Enough for now.

[Roger Norling]

One more:

"Eyn / haw / heist der Veller / und kumpt
aus dem krumphaw und der stet geschreben
nach deme twerhawe / do dy hant
ist geschreben / und der sal vo[e]r deme
therhawe sten / und der get von unden dar
krumes und schiks / eyme ober deme gehilcze
yn / mit ort schissen recht zam der
krumphaw von oben neder /"

A strike is called the feint/error [Veller] and
it comes from the crooked strike [Krumphaw]
and it is described after the cross
strike [Zwerchhaw] which is described
firstly and it shall be before the cross strike.
And it goes crooked [Krumt] from below
and is shot in over the cross guard at him by
shooting the point just as the [Krumphaw]
from above and down."

- from hs.3227a, ca 1389 (emphasis mine)

Illustrated and described in the Glasgow Fechtbuch

"Das ist der text vnd die gloß aber ains stucks auß dem twerhaw vnd haist der feler / Feler wer wol fu~ret / von vndten nach wunsch erru~ret /

Merck mit dem feler werñ alle vechter die da geren versetzn verfu~rt vnd geschlagen / das stuck treib also / wen du mit dem zu vechtn zu im kumbst / So thue als du mit eine~ freien twerhaw zu seiner lincken seittñ zu dem kopf wellest schlagen vnd verzugk mit dem haw dein schwert vnd schlag im mit der twer zu der vndterñ plõs / seiner rechtñ seittñ / als am nachstñ da hernach gemalt stet / So ist er vndten nach wunsch geru~rt vnd geschlagen / "



The Feler is interesting, as it can be interpreted in so many different ways and seems to be both a feint and a continuation of a broken attack, somehow related to both the Krumphauw and the Zwerchhauw.

Meyer tells us this:

"The other strikes, which still can be hit with further displacement, as in with the Kurtzhauw and Feler etc. will not be reckoned into fencing, especially since only accident or chances will be given that way, and One thus leads one on to provoke, operating wrathfully, and drive from one’s advantage, which often times cannot be done without danger, and so because of this no other displacement will be shown. "

[Roger Norling]

... and another thing, that I would like to have clarified, regarding the ARMA interpretation:

If cutting along line D or F isn't a cut that goes up but instead down, as you claim in the video, doesn't that at the same time mean that a cut that goes along the exact opposites of B and H also have to be considered cuts that go up? So the Zornline is in fact for an Unterhauw?

In the clip John clearly shows it as a cut going from below upwards also. He even says that the undercut is the Krumphauw, explicitly



Interestingly, John also claims that it doesn't work to put your blade against the opponent's left shoulder underneath the opponent's strike to the left opening, which is contradicted by several masters, like Ringeck and Falker, as it is a basic counter for an opponent who makes a Zwerch to the left opening . In fact, the ARMA Krump more or less helps the opponent's blade to go there.

"Hie merck den pruch der wider den õbern twer haw
Merck wen du im von deiner reichtn seittñ mit ainem ober haw oder sunst an sein schwert pindest / schlecht er dan mit der twer vmb / dir zu der andern seittñ / so kum vor auch mit der twer vndter seinem schwert im an den hals / als am nãchstn hernach gemalt stett / so schlecht er sich selber mit deinem schwert

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"

This is highly similar to what you show, at least in the final stance, but it is the left fencer who is doing the correct action here and the right fencer who loses.

[Randall Pleasant]

Roger

Please forgive me but I will probably be pulling back some from the discussion. It has been a pleasure but family and work are really push back on my time. I know you, Anders, and many others are skeptical. You should be skeptical, that's good scholarship, it is healthy for the arts we study. When John Clements released the video none of us expected instance acceptance of his Krump interpretation. After all, acceptance within ARMA was process. What we hope you will do is keep this interpretation in mind and work with it over the next couple of years, giving it a really good evaluation, especially in comparison to other Krump interpretations. My goal in this discussion was to get you and other to not instantly throw this new interpretation out the door as some did on the first day the video was released.

Again, this has been a great and fun discussion. I think you, Herbert, Anders, and others for taking the time to engage me in a scholarly manner during this discussion.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Roger Norling]

Fair enough Randall. I fully understand how time consuming these things can get, especially when you stand one against many.

But likewise I would suggest that you keep in mind that this has the potential to be a false lead, a faulty conclusion. Lord knows such things happen to all of us, even when we have wandered a long way on that path... Looking to the sources I am fairly convinced that this is the case here, but I will keep your interpretation in mind when I look through the sources. I would suggest you do the same and try to find proper sources that more clearly point towards how you interpret the Krump than what you have presented thus far. If you wish for the rest of the community to accept your interpretation it is quite vital.

EDIT: Oh, and do keep in mind that many of us are not necessarily against certain variations of how you apply your interpretation, ie the actual technique. We just don't agree that it is a krump as the sources describe it.