ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Courtyard => Topic started by: Ian on 2012-09-09, 14:01:16
-
Hot off the presses at ARMA is a very good explanation of John Clements' current interpretation of the Krumphau.
I'd ask that you put away your prejudice and watch, he's just being a good instructor in this video :) Mr. Clements as usual, does an excellent job of applying the basics of biomechanics to his interpretation of the most misunderstood cut in the Liechtenauer tradition. His explanation and demonstration are pretty convincing in my opinion. I'd like to hear the thoughts of the people much more experienced in WMA than I.
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/OntheKrumphau.mp4 (http://www.thearma.org/Videos/OntheKrumphau.mp4)
-
Hey Ian -
Krumphau seems to be on the brain for everyone! :) I've posted about it on Swordforum, as well as just hitting it in our Longsword training at class here... so it's quite fresh in my mind.
I will open by saying: This in no way resembles what is described in texts. It is irrelevant if he makes it look "like the drawings" in the end, for I can get to a single plate of a manuscript through, really, any motion I choose. :)
We are told to crooked on him nimbly, throw the point on the hands. That is the most distilled way to describe it, and nothing I saw in John's version was a physical representation of this instruction. If we look at a more detailed instruction (from the Von Danzig manuscript) it says, if he is in Ochs, ...and spring with your right foot well to your right side against him, and strike with the long edge with crossed arms over his hands. It doesn't advocate parrying his point aside, or any such nonsense.
Now, in fairness, why John's "Krumphau" looks reasonable to you is because it is a type of action that is described in our texts. I would call what he is doing an "oberhau parry followed by a mutieren". There are times and places that this is an appropriate action. But against a man collected in his guard (and in a thrusting guard no less) it isn't the best plan of attack, and would be unlikely to work if John's partner felt safe enough to thrust at John's uncovered face.
In other words, the training dynamic (no protective masks or gauntlets) is getting in the way of interpretation on this one.
Jess
-
Thanks for the reply Jess! I agree with what you've said, but I still tend to like John's attempt if for no other reason than I've never seen a krumphau that makes sense to me. Many other interpretations of the krump seem to ignore biomechanics and what the body naturally wants to do, or the movement is just plain wasteful or awkward. You're right though, I'd be interested to hear John's refutation as to why his version doesn't seem to follow Liechtenauer's text description like most interpret it.
-
Here's another video that has nothing to do with the krumphau, but also imho contains very good information.
It's a very good demonstration on why static parries are mostly useless, and why cuts are more appropriate. It also goes in to a very interesting discussion in Indes and Fuhlen:
If anyone's interested in watching it, your computer may be upset about a .m4v, just force it open in QuickTime, windows doesn't always recognize .m4v's as QuickTime files.
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/LongswordLesson1.m4v (http://www.thearma.org/Videos/LongswordLesson1.m4v)
-
Thanks for the reply Jess! I agree with what you've said, but I still tend to like John's attempt if for no other reason than I've never seen a krumphau that makes sense to me. Many other interpretations of the krump seem to ignore biomechanics and what the body naturally wants to do, or the movement is just plain wasteful or awkward.
Really? Whose Krump are you looking at?
You're right though, I'd be interested to hear John's refutation as to why his version doesn't seem to follow Liechtenauer's text description like most interpret it.
I think you obtusely nailed something there: John chose a version that looks nothing like anyone else's. I'd hazard a guess that "singularity" alone was the reason. :)
Here's another video ... It's a very good demonstration on why static parries are mostly useless, and why cuts are more appropriate.
I have to say that I disagree with a lot in this video. :(
The setup, where he tells his student that the student may NOT thrust at him. Well. Hrm. So you took away one of the wounders... and in fact, in the time/measure that John then attacks in... the appropriate action for the student WOULD be the thrust. So, he has to parry, because he has been instructed not to put the point online, which then means that John can do an easy zucken to the other side.
Additionally, the translation he is working with leads to confusion. The text reads, I say to you truthfully: no one can defend himself without danger, rather than "fear".
But honestly - I had a hard time watching it based solely on the teaching style. To me, it read as a bully picking on a kid while a bunch of people watch motionless. What does it teach ANYONE to take away 1/3 of the art, give them no instruction, set them up to mess up, then read from a book about how he didn't do what he was supposed to do?
Yea. I got mad watching this FOR the man's sake who was being picked on in this video. This isn't how one is respectful of their students, nor is it a good way to inspire students.
Jess
-
I haven't watched the second one yet, but I agree with Jess on the first one. What he's doing is viable, starting with a parry and then winding or doing a mutieren as a riposte, but is not krumphau. The Krumphau as described in the text is very simple and is a single action.
In the first video, as he gets into the second half of it and is describing his downward cutting action, it looks more to me like a very low Swerchau at that point, or an unterhau even. The windshield-wiper analogy is admittedly silly, but I've used it myself, because it's an easy way to describe to someone who is new to it which way the sword moves in your hand. But it is a downward cut.
-
The krumphau is not simple... otherwise it wouldn't be constantly reinterpreted and debated from group to group. So I don't think the text is clear as to what the krumphau is supposed to be. I'm not being convinced that John's current interpretation is invalid, I think others are just very attached to their interpretations.
I in no way interpreted anything he did as being bullying. I get that people don't like Clements' personality, but it seems like it's just fashionable now-a-days to hate John Clements. I'm not re-watching the video, so just from memory, I believe he just told the student to not thrust at his 'face' and only because they're wearing no protective gear. I don't think he was saying you can't use a thrust in general.
I'll just keep the ARMA stuff to myself from now on because I fear it will always leads down one path.
-
Hey Ian -
Please accept my apologies. I in no way intended to shut you down nor to force you to censor yourself on this board.
I will withdraw, as this is your thread and I am interested in your thoughts (I know my own).
Jess
-
No apology necessary Jess. It's just frustrating that any time the name John Clements comes up, more often than not it's just like blood in the water... The man can do no right in a lot of people's eyes, and I think he has a lot to offer the community. The irony is that a lot of people don't like him because of how rabidly he defends the 'ARMA way' and it's amusingly resulted in people just trying to rabidly defend their own opinions against his.
It's become an Us vs Them kind of thing with HEMA/WMA at large vs ARMA. I wish there was more of a willingness to work together. Everyone's quick to point out how ARMA doesn't play well with others, but it's pushed lots of other groups to do the same. It's silly...
I want the martial art (I hesitate to use the word sport, because it's an art designed to kill, not to win matches/points/games) to evolve, not diverge.
-
Hey Ian -
I understand where you are coming from in hoping for a greater community. That said, have you spoken with anyone who was in ARMA that is no longer? I was approached last week by a woman who is now completely gunshy about WMA after the horrible things said about her and her husband by ARMA leadership because they didn't want to renew their fees. They were called thieves, morally corrupt, etc. The group they were associated with was removed from ARMA though the rest of the group wanted to continue being ARMA. Etc. These things *do* tend to reflect upon my view of the rest. I do look at people's art through the filter of their actions.
That said, is John completely athletic, dynamic, and energetic? Sure. He is! Have I pointed people to ARMA that I think might appreciate their approach? Sure, I have. I don't think the man's the devil. I do think there are a lot of good people in ARMA.
But - that doesn't mean I have to agree with his interpretations.
TO THE TECHNIQUE:
There are vids out there of a Krump that look like mine. Maybe have a look at this video of Keith Farrell (a man whom I have never worked with) doing his version of a Krump: The flourish of the Döbringer codex HS 3227a by Keith Farrell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoK8nvv0nZo#ws)
I don't strike it with the flat, but the rest? yep. Just like I do it. 100%. And I think Keith looks PLENTY athletic, biomechanically solid, moving with instinctive reasoned movements, etc. Also - this is a great class. :)
-
If you don't have 35 minutes to devote to this, the relevant part is at 7:40 or so and runs for a couple of minutes.
-
I'll just keep the ARMA stuff to myself from now on because I fear it will always leads down one path.
On a lot of other forums, it quickly turns to spit and bile, that's for sure. But I didn't think that happened here? We just chimed in with our opinions on what was shown.
The problem with ARMA really comes from ARMA itself, and unfortunately that does lead to some bad blood in the community at large. ARMA is downright mean to anyone outside their circle, and often to their own members. I think Clements is certainly a very capable and knowledgeable fighter, one who would probably mop the floor with me if we were to fight, but he's not "the rosetta stone" of the historical arts that he thinks he is either. Rather than debate these techniques with others in the community, he makes his own interpretation and then goes on and on about how wrong everyone else is. Most of his articles will spend at least a third of the text complaining about everyone else.
Meanwhile, the rest of the community will debate these things, but some consensus will emerge, and in the case of the krumphau, I think more often than not it'll be executed in the same way by most people. If it looked just like an unterhau or a more vertical swerchau, why would the period masters give it a different name and describe it with a deep step to one side?
Like I said, I think what Clements is doing is fine for his school and his students, but I don't agree with making something up that doesn't match the text, and then claim that it does. The most commonly accepted interpretation in the community does match the text, and is easy and simple to do, and achieves the goals that the texts describe. Could we all be wrong? Of course we could, but when everything matches up like that, I think there's a higher burden of proof for dissenting opinions to overcome.
And I worded that the way I did intentionally. "Commonly accepted", since there will be dissenting opinions, and continued debate on the finer details of it, but more often than not people will agree on what a krumphau actually is. Similar to the science community, there's a certain amount of peer review, interaction, and debate that occurs. ARMA is always on the fringe because they choose not to participate in this, which is really a shame. I really would like to see them back in the community on equal footing. But they like it this way.
So I apologize if it looks like I'm being anti-ARMA at all. It's not that I'm anti-ARMA, it's that at this point I'm part of the larger community that they've chosen not to take part in.
Oh, and I think we need to be careful not to confuse on-going debate with a lack of any sort of consensus.
Here's a good analogy... if a TV news show has a debate between an astrologer and an astronomer, they appear to be on equal footing, but one has the scientific consensus behind him and the other does not. :) Debates aren't always as meaningful as they appear to be. Sometimes they are. It really depends on the debate.
If you don't have 35 minutes to devote to this, the relevant part is at 7:40 or so and runs for a couple of minutes.
Nice! I like how he's drawing out his opponent before executing it, similar to the nebenhut play that we all love. :) That's a nice way to teach it, as more than just a breaker for Ochs.
-
TO THE TECHNIQUE:
There are vids out there of a Krump that look like mine. Maybe have a look at this video of Keith Farrell (a man whom I have never worked with) doing his version of a Krump: The flourish of the Döbringer codex HS 3227a by Keith Farrell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoK8nvv0nZo#ws)
I don't strike it with the flat, but the rest? yep. Just like I do it. 100%. And I think Keith looks PLENTY athletic, biomechanically solid, moving with instinctive reasoned movements, etc. Also - this is a great class. :)
I have no problem whatsoever with the mechanics of what he's calling a krumphau. I do have a huge problem with it working in a real fight though. The technique he's demonstrating is one of those things I think of as a 'vacuum technique.' It works great in a vacuum, and when you introduce it to the real world, it kills you. It seems to be predicated on lots of things happening in sequence with correct timing to get it done right. It's like one of those scenarios in unarmed martial arts that begins by someone saying 'I do this, then you grab me here, then I do this and I win...' And the student says, but what if I did this?
At 11:10 in that video he demonstrates what could happen if the footwork is not spot on. He takes a sword to his side before he can land his krump. I imagine that if the defender doesn't perfectly step forward in a line exactly like in the drill every time, the result would be the same, or worse, and the attacker would be dead if not at the very least severely wounded. It feels like it relies on so many stars aligning for a clean technique to be delivered, that it marginalizes the krump to a very specialized cut to be used only when everything falls perfectly in to line.
The ARMA version just appears to be more universal and tactically sound when applied to a real life fight in which someone's probably going to wind up dead or unable to continue after the first exchange. In combat techniques, especially hand-to-hand combat, all one need do is ask themselves, 'Will you bet your life on that working out?'
Like I said, I think what Clements is doing is fine for his school and his students, but I don't agree with making something up that doesn't match the text, and then claim that it does. The most commonly accepted interpretation in the community does match the text, and is easy and simple to do, and achieves the goals that the texts describe. Could we all be wrong? Of course we could, but when everything matches up like that, I think there's a higher burden of proof for dissenting opinions to overcome.
I think this stems from the fact that John also sees that 'commonly accepted' technique as tactically ineffectual and working only in a drills and actions that don't take place at full speed with full intent to kill.
-
I think this stems from the fact that John also sees that 'commonly accepted' technique as tactically ineffectual and working only in a drills and actions that don't take place at full speed with full intent to kill.
If that's the case, I'm not sure why he thinks it wouldn't work. The krumphau that we do works great when used appropriately. Depending on your distance, you can either hit the person, or knock their sword aside and follow through with another attack. I think what he's attempting to show turns it into two distinct actions even at close range, and is much more reliant on the other guy doing what you expect him to do.
Maybe it's just me, but I think he's over-complicating it and making it more risky.
-
Sir Edward, you're ignoring the bulk of the rest of that post you quoted me on, in which the instructor himself shows his own technique to be ineffectual if not perfectly executed under the alignment of all the heavenly bodies above. That's my problem with it. To be done 'appropriately' requires too many things to fall in to place that you cannot count on.
The technique itself requires your blade circumnavigate your opponents cut or thrust, which to me is CRAZY when the purpose of their cut or thrust is to kill you. I would never bet my life on a technique that requires I perfectly get my blade over the top of his blade while simultaneously hoping I'm stepping far enough to the side and my opponent just doesn't bother to follow and have it all work out just perfectly and pretty. Chances are, unless you're at the absolute top of your game, you're now dead. That technique seems like the overly complicated one.
John's technique seeks to bind, wind, cut in one fluid motion (not two distinct motions when done at speed), requiring no stars to align, but to do what would naturally happen anyway, and as a bonus, you just separated your opponents latissimus dorsi from the rest of his body faster than you can blink if done at speed.
-
Darn it, Ian, I wish I lived close enough to visit.
The errors with drills are errors with drills. Just because a drill can get finicky doesn't mean the technique is bunk. He's saying "this will get you *something* if you use it, don't obsess on what that something is".
The Krumphau is my #1 go-to technique in a bout. Now, admittedly, nobody is trying to actually KILL me so I can't say for sure that it would work in a "real sword fight" as I have never been, nor ever intend to be, in a real sword fight. That said, the "circumnavigation" that you are seeing isn't actually there... At least not when it is done solidly.
Let me try to present it this way: The Krumphau needs to do three things to be what the manuscript says it does. It needs to -
- Break Ochs by hitting the hands
- Block an Oberhau by suppressing his blow and allowing you to cut up or wind to pflug afterwards
- Block an Unterhau by suppressing his blow and allowing you to cut up or wind to plfug afterwards
I haven't seen where John demonstrates his technique doing these things. After all - he doesn't use it against Ochs to hit the hands. The text flat-out says strike crooked and hit the hands. Not "bind with his blade and wind over to thrust his flank"
The Krumphau I use, I use against *anything* low (works quite well against Fiorists), and works even better against people who are stronger than me (many people I fight) because I am *not* striking into his blow. I am instead striking the Krumphau into the flat/top of his sword, that is, adding a deflection and extra power in the direction he was already putting his power, which is why it slams to the ground, giving me plenty of time to cut back up from it.
But! Don't take my word for it - we have other descriptions of the Krumphau from other manuals. Let's look at Leckuchner's messer treatise. He says "When you come to the man in the Zufechten and he holds his messer in front of his head in the guard Stier (Ochs) on his left side, set your left foot in front and hold your messer to your right shoulder or in the Schrankhut at your right leg. Leap to your right side with the right foot and strike onto his messer with your true edge. Indes, wind your point into his face."
Try using John's interpretation with a messer. I think you'll find that it is completely ineffective when put in one hand.
I think there are a lot of subtleties that can be argued about the Krumphau. Is it long or short edge from the right side. Most manuals say long, some say short. Do your hands go low, high, either, both? Should your point stay in presence or should you let it go through nebenhut going back? So many things I'd concede points on. But John's interpretation has no teeth when applied against Hick's law. (Do what the manual says)
Jess
-
Ian,
Well, based on my experience in the fight, I'll have to agree to disagree. :)
Ignoring the whole "what is a krumphau" thing and just talking in a comparison of the methods and their risks:
In John's method, he's closed to a very close distance, and may not be able to react as quickly if the opponent does something he doesn't expect. If the opponent pulls back toward Ochs at the moment the blades make contact, or tries to regain the center line, he can get lined up for another thrust. There are other possible counters as well (as with anything). To me the the important part is that John is giving him the inside line as soon as he starts the wind. If the opponent is surprised by this, it's certainly viable, but John is definitely relinquishing the inside line. Of course this can work, it's just that to me it's the riskier of the two.
What Jess's video is showing is actually two distinct actions, where the krumphau itself is the second action. But it's very similar to one of the manuscript plays based on cutting down into alber or nebenhut to intentionally draw out your opponent slightly out of distance. That last part is important-- out of distance. Doing this in distance is dangerous. Out of distance, you're making a specific opening to lure the opponent into attacking in a predictable manner. If they fall for it, you have them (with a variety of possible cuts to use depending on position). If they don't take the bait, you have time and room to react to what he chooses to do with it. It's a little more situational and works better with overly aggressive opponents or opponents who don't have as good of a sense of distance as you do. But distance control is a big part of this.
-
The analogy to me falls in to what we see in Mixed Martial Arts. It's a good test-tube, because the fights happen in real time, with real intent, where bad technique is paid for with immediate consequences. Basically, the fights get to happen to completion, for real, unlike sword-fights since well, we all know what would happen if it was real.
In MMA, people used to enjoy seeing two 'strikers' fight. That is, two people who like to stand up and throw punches, kicks etc... and keep the fight on their feet. Then the Gracie's happened, and enter the world of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu which rocked the MMA world. It took fights to the ground and put all strikers at a distinct disadvantage. What really happened though? It brought MMA from the realm of a sporting exhibition to the realm of reality. If you've ever been in a real fight or witnessed a real fight, you know that real fights almost without exception end up on the ground.
To me, the generally excepted version of the krumphau, is the HEMA/WMA community desperately trying to hold on to the world of a pretty striker's MMA match. More exciting, more in line with what we imagine sword-play to be... fancy flourishes and footwork. It's a longing for the romantic image of the sword. The Clements interpretation feels more like bringing it back to it's visceral reality. It's a dirty business, it's not pretty. It's quick, to the point, and gets the job done without necessarily being pretty about it. I tend to be drawn to that approach. Like a real fist-fight, I believe a real sword fight between even two skilled combatants would be over after one pass, and last no more than a few seconds from the first attack. It seems the masters left these things to be intentionally tricky. Look at Talhoffer, almost all of his works are missing vital pieces of information. The knowledge was to some degree, proprietary back then. I guess we all just need to do what suits our own styles best. But alas, I must go to work now, late afternoon flight today :)
-
Hey Ian -
Ok, cool. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think that a Krumphau is showy at all. It a quick hard strike to the hands from the right. That's it. Simple stuff. But I understand if it doesn't look like what you want a swordfight to look like.
For what it's worth - we have accounts of duels to the death. They frequently did not end in a single pass. Nor did they end quickly. But - all that's fodder for a different discussion.
If you and i ever get in the same space, we'll talk about this with swords in hands which will make a lot more sense.
Jess
-
Hey Ian -
Ok, cool. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think that a Krumphau is showy at all. It a quick hard strike to the hands from the right. That's it. Simple stuff. But I understand if it doesn't look like what you want a swordfight to look like.
Agreed, it's not a showy strike, just a simple cut, one of many in the system. A showy flourish might incorporate one, but not by itself.
Ian, I do get your point, and that does happen. When we train these techniques, we do work in an understanding of how the fight will naturally progress into grappling. At a close range, many of the techniques can turn into pommel strikes, throws in which you use the sword for leverage, or even dropping the weapon altogether to progress into wrestling. When people treat it more as a sport, these aspects tend to be downplayed, but they are still an important part of the martial art.
Personally, I tend to favor sticking to the sword techniques since that's what attracted me to these arts in the first place, but we don't ignore the "down and dirty" aspects of the fight either.
Going back to the two plays we were comparing, I'll put my preference another way. If I can end the fight from a safe distance, that is what I would prefer to do. But if I have to make him eat my pommel because we're that close, I can live with that. :)
-
ummm.....
.... i like Turtles?
-
OT:
Once my roommate was waxing poetic about some of the Fiore moves he had just learned and I looked at him and said that it was all well and good for Longsword vs Longsword but I knew I could take him in a unarmoured duel if I got to pick my weapons.
He asked what I would choose. I said "Heater Shield & Mace. I would be aiming for your hands a lot. Really anything I could hit."
He thought about it and said "Oh hell no".
OT v2: I've been out of armour for two months due to an impinged nerve & tendon in my shoulder. I was thinking of going to greatsword for a while to get back in. Thoughts?
-
Hey Hersir -
OT1: My favorite I saw on SFI years and years and years ago when someone was saying having longer reach was the most important consideration and THAT was why they liked two-handed swords. A man said, "Ok, were i to challenge you to the duel, you get to choose weapons." The other replied, "A Claymore!" the challenger replied, "Ok. I get dagger. We will fight in a phone booth." That, I found, was an important thought exercise on blanket declarations of "what weapon/system is best".
OT2: That totally sucks that your shoulder is messed up. I have had my run-ins with shoulder injuries as well and have largely healed through PT and retraining the way I strike some blows. I'll point you at this -
http://www.alignedandwell.com/katysays/want-traps-with-that/ (http://www.alignedandwell.com/katysays/want-traps-with-that/)
I found (upon review *after* injury) that I was putting a lot of traps into my strikes and guards. That is, I was putting pressure on the vertibrae of my neck, and over-stretching the muscles in the back of the shoulder - which led to an injury due to the fact that my arm wasn't sitting in socket anymore.
Another useful exercise I've been doing a lot:
http://www.alignedandwell.com/katysays/is-it-freezing-in-here-or-is-it-just-your-shoulder/ (http://www.alignedandwell.com/katysays/is-it-freezing-in-here-or-is-it-just-your-shoulder/)
But the real answer probably is: If your doctor gives you clearance to work out with the shoulder - then yes. BUT make sure you aren't doing the exact same motions that injured you in the first place. Have a fresh look at how you strike blows, make parries, form guards, and extend thrusts to be sure you aren't over-extending, twisting, cramping or some other weirdness that will re-injure you. Consider slow form work to remap the pathways of habit you have in your mind.
If you need some forms to work, maybe I can shoot some video later today or tomorrow.
Jess
-
Back to the Krump:
For fast, messy, and yet still generally how I would interpret it - Schielhau Krumphau (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIKMPIFJkzk#ws)
Love these guys and their work.
-
Back to the Krump:
For fast, messy, and yet still generally how I would interpret it - Schielhau Krumphau (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIKMPIFJkzk#ws)
Love these guys and their work.
I love the energy in this video. Lots of krumphau goodness. :)
Personally I'd wear more gear at that speed, but if you're practicing a narrow set of techniques, I guess it's alright to use t-shirts? :)
-
Back to the Krump:
For fast, messy, and yet still generally how I would interpret it
Love these guys and their work.
I'll concede that these guys are awesome as well. They've come up before, and I've said then that I wish all HEMA/WMA groups were at this level of energy and more importantly athleticism. The speed and intent with which they perform their techniques is the only way to know if a technique really works.
-
Hey guys -
Ed, I totally agree. You know they get cut up all the time. (Seeing the spark fly.. I have had a chunk of steel from a sword spark like that imbedded in my arm that we had to cut my arm to get out... so yea... I like more clothes).
Ian, so if I understand what you're saying, it's not so much that the *common interpretation* of the Krumphau bothers you, but rather the *common practice* of the Krumphau. In which case, I would agree that things should be practiced at various intensities, including OMG HARDCORE like these guys, and slower and more precise to work on proper habit formation.
Jess
-
Ian, so if I understand what you're saying, it's not so much that the *common interpretation* of the Krumphau bothers you, but rather the *common practice* of the Krumphau. In which case, I would agree that things should be practiced at various intensities, including OMG HARDCORE like these guys, and slower and more precise to work on proper habit formation.
I think that's a good way to put it. We can fight at speed all we want, but without the slower, controlled drills, we end up with a lot of bad habits. Practicing at both speeds and everything in between has a lot of value.
I'm not sure if it's my age, or the fact that I work behind a desk most of the time, but even when I'm at my fastest I don't think I'm as fast as those guys. However a bout at speed, with full intent, is really where the fun is for me.
-
I'll just keep the ARMA stuff to myself from now on because I fear it will always leads down one path.
I'm in no way good with a sword (I'm an armor-side addict) but I have met John Clements in person and taken a couple hours of class with him. I'm happy to discuss ARMA in general, though my thoughts have been posted before, I'll give it another brief rundown.
He's enthusiastic. He's had access to period manuscripts in person. He's been "eating, sleeping, breathing" this for decades. He's been on TV. He's been to other countries to present/teach. He's a great teacher, and a friendly guy in person. His enthusiasm really is contagious, almost like Mike Loades. For that, I like him.
He's got his own interpretation of things, and often claims it's the only right one. He's got a "closed door" mentality, and isn't nearly as forthcoming in sharing info with the rest of the WMA community (although he has changed a bit by posting some of the videos, as originally posted here). He does seem to have somewhat of an "ARMA vs WMA/HEMA" outlook. For that, I don't like him.
I am all for multiple interpretations of techniques in manuscripts. There is no "one true way" in WMA. There were multiple masters, and some techniques overlap, and some differ. Looking back at some of the things published 20 or even 10 years ago, even Christian Tobler has put out updated versions of his original interpretations. WMA is a "growing" art, we don't know exactly what they meant 500 years ago, and it's highly likely we never truly will. We can translate and try to decode manuscripts until we turn purple, but the best we'll ever do is put forth our best guesses at what the masters were trying to convey.
Technique drilling is great in a vacuum, as mentioned. The root of it is that unless you have two masters from the same school, who will react with the most likely counters to a specific technique, the battle is up in the air; people new to WMA can be the most dangerous because their actions are unpredictable and their "technique" is often crude - yet it's those exact aspects that could spell defeat quickly if the master is over-confident.
When the krump works like that, it's a great technique, but it leaves a lot to chance, especially with a live blade right next to you. While John's interpretation on the krumphau seems workable, I'd personally opt for striking as far out of range as possible, or closing quickly and taking to the myriad of sword strike ringen counters to immobilize the opponent as quickly as possible.
Again, I'm about as noob as noob gets with the sword, so if I sound completely off-base ... I probably am.
-
No you're not Sir James- I hold that dinstinction of being the noob among noobs in swording. Working on that.
-
<rant on>
This is why I hate using the German & Italian terms:
When watching all these vids I find I can do many of them BUT I find the over focus on unarmoured vs unarmoured Longsword dueling to be a distasteful effect in HEMA/WMA. It is forming a closed loop in which we abandon perfectly fine language from English to use terms that, by their use, exclude those swordsmen/women who have studied other systems or never learned the German or Italian thus leading to an even worse exclusivity focus and helping to kill growth & Egalitarianism.
<rant off>
-
I am confused by your rant.
When I learn swordsmanship I must learn a set of terms to refer to what I am doing. By default, I am learning a new set of terms that refer to specific actions. Whether those terms are in English, or German, or Italian, or Spanish, or Russian, for that matter... means little. New action has a name = Name is new.
If you mean that we should all have a common fencing language then what should that be based on? Page? Modern sport-fencing terms? But when they have no word for a Krumphau (because that strike exists in no other systems I know of) then should I make up a term?
And why is that superior to calling it what the people I am attempting to emulate call it???
I am not being defensive here... I honestly am confused.
In Judo, I used Japanese terms "O-Goshi", even if there are English words "Hip throw" or Medieval German terms "die Zwei Hüffe". It would be equally weird to use English or German terms when doing a Japanese Art as it would be to use O-goshi during my Ringen class (though I admit to referring to it sometimes for those who might know Japanese, much as I might refer to "Vom Tag, also known as Posta de Donna or just putting the sword on your shoulder")
But there are minute differences between O-Goshi, Hip Throws and Die Zwei Hüffe much as there are between Vom Tag, Posta de Donna and just putting the sword on your shoulder. So ... I use the specific one that invokes exactly what I want.
Remind me why that is bad?
-
Also I am confused by your linking language to armored/unarmored duels.
I agree, I wish more practitioners of the Art would study the WHOLE art, that is the armored and unarmored wrestling, armored and unarmored dagger, armored and unarmored spear, Long Spear, armored poleaxe, sword and buckler, messer, long spear and sword on horseback (rossfechten) AS WELL AS armored and unarmored longsword. To complain that there is a lack of understanding of the entire system by the exclusion of armored longsword is simply to scratch the surface.
THAT SAID: Our system is taught through the unarmored Longsword. It is there that he establishes the basics of the art, how to move, what our goals are within a fight, what nomenclature to use when breaking down an opponent's strengths and weaknesses, and how to mitigate those strengths and exploit the weaknesses. Once you have it in unarmored longsword he then applies that to the REST of the weapons.
I could (and do) lament that more people don't study wrestling. :)
Jess
-
On terms - I agree with Jessica. Her example of Japanese vs German is a great one. We don't have "wrap shots" in WMA, and "iron chicken stance" means nothing to us. It's a two way street; WMA people who learn SCA have to learn a new set of terms that have no relevance/relation to what they learn in WMA. I mostly hear the german names when I'm around my Order brothers, but Ken Mondschein's book uses Italian terms - which made it confusing to me - but part of learning anything is learning the terminology and differences.
On unarmored vs unarmored - that's what the source material is. There's a world of unarmored techniques that do no good when fighting someone in armor. Blossfechten is unarmored fighting; harnessfechten is armored fighting. Harness fighting is a lot less common for a few good reasons; proper harness is expensive, breaking arms and/or legs is frowned upon, and even in the best of controlled environments, injuries with armored combat are more likely than unarmored (as backwards as it sounds). I live for time in armor, though!
Back at our Order of the Marshal longsword shows at VARF, Sir Nathan and I did 5 or 6 "points" in our final show (the only one we did harnessfechten). We got the last "point" on video - VARF 2012 Harnessfechten (HQ) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i60yoQ76G7w#) - and watch the last bit where I caught Sir Nathan's crossguard, failed the yanking disarm, and he catches the back of my leg. We had a previous agreement we wouldn't drop each other like rocks, but he tugged enough I acknowledged in a real fight, he'd have got me. That little tug led to this beautiful bruise (http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t8/jba3/medieval/ouch/2012-06-12231719.jpg (http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t8/jba3/medieval/ouch/2012-06-12231719.jpg)).
Also worthy of note, is that during our bouts, we didn't use a single master cut, primary guard, or secondary guard. The unarmored combat techniques focus on unarmored combat and ignore armored combat because they're two completely different methods of engagement - there is some overlap, but it's minimal - and mostly takedowns and ringen from what I've seen.
-
Hey James -
Nice vid! And WMA has been referred to as the "Bruise Admiration Society", so good on that too. :D
It is true, that there appears to be little overlap between Armored and Unarmored fighting, however it's important to remember that the "Master Cuts" are only five of the 17 "Chief Techniques" of the system. The other 12 apply to Harnessfechten. :)
-
WMA has been referred to as the "Bruise Admiration Society", so good on that too. :D
lol, ain't that the truth. That and "lost fingernail admiration" as well. :)
-
<rant on>
This is why I hate using the German & Italian terms:
When watching all these vids I find I can do many of them BUT I find the over focus on unarmoured vs unarmoured Longsword dueling to be a distasteful effect in HEMA/WMA. It is forming a closed loop in which we abandon perfectly fine language from English to use terms that, by their use, exclude those swordsmen/women who have studied other systems or never learned the German or Italian thus leading to an even worse exclusivity focus and helping to kill growth & Egalitarianism.
<rant off>
I'm going to be operating on the premise that the over-focus on unarmored dueling and the language thing are two separate points, otherwise I'll be honest, I have no idea what you meant.
Over focus on unarmored vs unarmored dueling? The overwhelming majority of historical treatises are also focused in this way (also armored vs armored). This is the re-creation of an historical martial art, and it's goal is to stick to the source material and be faithful to the history. I'm not sure what you're suggesting it should focus on. As far as the language, I'm in 100% agreement with Jess on this. When I used to take Wah Lum Kung Fu many many moons ago, I learned the Chinese terminology. When I was a student of Japanese martial arts, likewise, I learned the Japanese terminology. This did not make the art exclusive or un-welcoming, it was just the appropriate way to learn from the source, as it would be for Western Martial Arts...
If by the over focus on unarmored vs unarmored longsword dueling, you're suggesting using mixed weapons and various styles of armor, well then we have that, it's SCA heavy, and it's not historical in its basis. It doesn't use historical techniques, weapons, or armor and allows any combination of things. In WMA/HEMA, the goal is to be faithful to the historical source material, and this often includes unarmored vs unarmored longsword because of the Judicial Duel etc..
WMA is also not limited to that scenario. Poleaxe, messer, wrestling, dagger, sword & buckler are just a few of the aspects I can name off the top of my head that are included. But once again, the goal here is to recreate, with faith and respect, the actual practices of those people of Medieval and Renaissance Europe. True to the source material, not altered for sport, fun, or the inclusion of personas of different time periods.
-
That's true, a lot of the existing material was written with the judicial duel in mind. But there's also the teaching aspect. A lot of it was written in the context of teaching the material, or showing off what that person could teach you (sort of like a resume), and learning the techniques is easier with matched gear.
We play with mismatched weapons occasionally, but when it comes to drilling the techniques, it usually makes sense to have both people using the same thing.
The problem with practicing Harnessfechten (armored combat) is that a lot of it is difficult to do safely, when you're talking about the historical techniques. Unlike the SCA (where the goal is to be able to fight again relatively un-killed), historical armored combat could treat the armor itself as a weapon, and as a barrier that needed to be circumvented. A lot of the techniques involve using the opponent's armor against them to knock them over or break their joints. The weapons are used to damage the armor, or are thrust through the gaps, or break bones in spite of the armor.
In that regard, SCA combat strikes me as a simulation of un-armored, or lightly-armored combat, but using armor for safety. If it were real harnessfechten, we'd see guys on the ground stabbing each other in the eyes with daggers. :)
But getting back to combinations of weapons and armor in the WMA/HEMA world, I think you'd see more mixture if you watched some of the free-fencing at some of the various schools. The tournaments and demonstrations tend to focus on matched weapons because it's easier to understand, or to enforce a fair competition, or to stick very close to the source material.
-
What I meant was I have seen in the HEMA/WMA a progression towards an over focus on the unarmoured longsword vs longsword aspect of the game and an over focus on using "correct terminology" whenever they can which can come off as haughty and snide.
This tends to breed contempt in people as they react to a perceived weakness and arrogance. I see this in the SCA with regards to the basket hilt & heater shield combo. As many of you know there is a great number of fighters that cannot fight with crosshilts, mass weapons, short swords, different shields, or great weapons or against same. Only like for like. In some Kingdom's there have even been folks knighted with this weakness.
In the HEMAA there is great discussion of artifacts and artificiality and these two are some of them. By not changing things up, by not making the match different, by not training for surprise we fail to counter weakness.
I'm having a hard time articulating my thoughts further on the use of non-English in the martial arts but to say this imperfect thing:
We have over 500'000 words in our language. My vocabulary is over 37'000 words alone. We have the right language to describe the actions. Let us use it. I do on the HEMAA forum so that none confuse my intent.
-
Well, for those that are interested in learning what the "haughty man" using only German terms means ... they can ask. Or they can read up. Or they can choose to not fully understand. *shrug*
When I started doing this, people talked of "single time" "double time" "single imperfect time" "the line" "inside/outside" "second intention" and other English terms that described specific things for those who had studied Aristotle, classical fencing, or other arts that referenced it. They confused me. I'd never really been trained in any of those things, and the more I read about it, the less I understood.
So I got in a room with a person who used these terms and dropped my ego and asked to have it all explained to me. This worked out well, and I found that I got it right away, once I was "taught" what these terms meant.
It didn't matter that they were in English> I didn't know what they meant until I was taught.
Did the people sound "haughty" because they used exclusive terms? You could take it that way. But would you take it that way if you were on a board for car enthusiasts and they were referring to the handling of a car using terms like "yaw" and "pitch" and "suspension" and "rear wheel cambers"? No. They aren't haughty for knowing a term I don't know. They have specific learning.
-
Well I don’t know if haughty or snide is the general intention of other practitioners of WMA/HEMA however it does help to sort of keep everyone on the same sheet of music so to speak when you all sling around the same lingo! Most especially if you are studying different weapons originating from multiple countries. At MASHS I’m studying three different weapon systems from three different countries of origin which are German longsword, Italian dueling sabre and French dueling epee and sometimes we’ll train with all three in the same class so it can get very confusing. Yet these three weapon types are so diametrically different from each other that no viably universal terminology could even be remotely applied. :-\
-
Yet these three weapon types are so diametrically different from each other that no viably universal terminology could even be remotely applied. :-\
... Except maybe "parry" :)
-
Nope! I thought we weren’t supposed to ‘parry’ in longsword! ;)
-
Of course we can parry - if we are doing it properly. (think the counter to the counter to the Zwerchhau, that is, parry and duplieren) :D
-
Of course we can parry - if we are doing it properly. (think the counter to the counter to the Zwerchhau, that is, parry and duplieren) :D
Oh, you mean the John Clements Krumphau. :)
-
Of course we can parry - if we are doing it properly. (think the counter to the counter to the Zwerchhau, that is, parry and duplieren) :D
Oh, you mean the John Clements Krumphau. :)
Wait! We still have the same problem! Are we going to 'parry' = English or Parieren = German or Parare = Italian or Parer = French! :P
-
All of the above? :)
-
I honestly prefer to use the offhanded Perrier when fighting longsword vs longsword. I find it especially useful against a French Spring attack.
-
Of course we can parry - if we are doing it properly. (think the counter to the counter to the Zwerchhau, that is, parry and duplieren) :D
Oh, you mean the John Clements Krumphau. :)
YES! Exactly that. LOL
-
I honestly prefer to use the offhanded Perrier when fighting longsword vs longsword. I find it especially useful against a French Spring attack.
lol, that put a wonderful image in my head. Here, let me fight you one-handed with my longsword, while enjoying a refreshing beverage with the other hand. :)
-
For what it's worth, after consideration, study, watching the videos over, and also reading the discussion on the JC Krump here (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=26856&sid=d00d4163d5d0c98e8e4c62fc83c8daa1), I am for the most part convinced that what they're doing shouldn't be called a Krumphau. I still think it's an incredibly viable martial technique, and I'm still not a fan of the 'standard' krump either. I like what JC is doing, but I will concede, it's probably not a krump. The arguments and rationale are just too much of a stretch when compared to the source material. The standard krump does fit the source material, but I'm still not a true believer of it working when someone doesn't just blindly thrust forward and completely doesn't notice you stepping off line.
-
Well, as with any other cut in the system, it'll have its advantages and disadvantages depending on what the other guy is doing. I think in the bouting I've seen/done, more often than not people are using it when the other guy isn't watching his distance, or is asleep in guard (it breaks Ochs), or as a feint to draw the guy out of Ochs, or in deflecting an unterhau. As a counter to a thrust, it's just one option. Admittedly I'm more likely to do something else against a simple thrust, unless it's a high thrust from Ochs, which I don't think people have done to me very often at all.
But I think something to consider also is that when someone is throwing a thrust, it doesn't have the same sort of lateral momentum that a full cut would have. It's hard to turn that into a cut with any sort of power if the guy moves. It's easier to redirect the thrust. To me I don't think the offline step is just about trying to avoid the thrust, it's also about getting around the other guy's sword and striking an opening.
As with anything, it won't work all the time and for all situations.
And also, it may not work with your personal style very well, and you may have a preference for other specific tactics. I just try to caution people against discounting something that may be useful in some contexts, especially since you can easily fall into a smaller repertoire, and then be completely hosed when you fight someone who does things differently than you're used to. And considering that the period masters considered it to be one of the five master-cuts (and it really is just a basic cut according to the texts), it's worth working with it.
You know, it occurs to me that we'll both be at DoK. We can break out the trainers and work through some ideas.
-
Wish I could make DOK. I'd love to sit in on this training session! :)
I love this stuff.
-
Wish I could make DOK. I'd love to sit in on this training session! :)
I love this stuff.
I'd love to see those 12 armored combat techniques too!
-
The krumphau was our primary focus @ class last night. Larry wanted us (Matt, Josh and I) to drill by using the Krumphau in more of a parry repost, two tempo action and we drilled four different secondary attacks after executing a Krumphau. Most of what we drilled coincides with what I’ve been applying anyways since I prefer to use the Krumphau more as a preparatory attack to open a line for a secondary attack which even though is a two tempo action can be nearly as fast as a single tempo if executed quickly and decisively enough.
-
The thing that is great about "striking to the flat of the masters", that is, striking the blade of an incoming oberhau (though this works with an unterhau or even Ochs and Alber) is that you are adding a surprising amount of power into the blow the man is delivering. It is virtually impossible for him to effectively fight this because he has to IMMEDIATELY change direction of his own blow *and* fight the power you've added to him. The suppression really does work well.
Against an unterhau, it's easy to "fall upon his blade" in such a way that you have literally stopped his blow before he can really bring it to bear. That's really nice, especially if he's coming from his right side because he's all short with his blow from below. That, naturally, leads to much more of a bind from the suppression, because he's already set up in opposition to your blow.
As far as attacking a man ready in Ochs, I think it's important to remember that a swordfight isn't a gunfight. That is, it is never advised to wait, just in Zufechten, in your guard, prepared to attack... I jokingly call this "high noon swordsmanship". That is, to stand like gunmen in a vacated street... twitching fingers... tumbleweeds blowing through the space between them. :) We aren't advised to attack a man *prepared to thrust us in the face* with Krumphau. We are advised to *break* Ochs with Krumphau.
So what does breaking mean? It can mean a hit (which is what most people want it to be), it can be something that stuffs his attack, or something that gets him to twitch and forget what his plan was. In all three cases it moves him from being on the offensive (in the Vor) to being on the defensive (in the Nach).
Attacking a man who is set in a good stance with his finger on the trigger is foolish. Waiting for his attention to drift, looking for him to blink, waiting for him to try to change his stance, looking for him to start to back up... THIS is when you attack a man. You look for that invitation (fencing language).
What invitations in Och look like:
- He takes the stance already with a forward weight and hands exposed - You can attack the hands because his hand motion is already spent and he must attack with his feet which is slower than your strike.
- He attempts to switch guards, most often to Vom Tag - You can attack the hands because his sword is moving backwards. This is the principal of nachreisen.
- He drifts into range without realizing it - You can attack the hands in the Vor because he is not prepared to step.
- He starts to thrust from Ochs, committing himself to that thrust - You can attack the blade with Krumphau with the "2-tempo" action we have referenced.
- And the best of all, if He is moving *into* Ochs from another guard in the Zufechten but isn't yet prepared in it - blast the hands.
And these are just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head.
Attacking the prepared man? Foolish. Because it doesn't work doesn't mean that Krumphau doesn't work. It means that is NOT how swordfighting works. There is a reason duels we have records of lasted hours. Two men not wanting to get hit are wary, prepared, and actually care about getting hit.
Jess
-
Those are all excellent points Jessica! :)
In the one example you provided:
He starts to thrust from Ochs, committing himself to that thrust - You can attack the blade with Krumphau with the "2-tempo" action we have referenced.
As a small caveat, one should be wary if the thrust from Ochs or Plug is only a feint and is changed (Wechseln / Durchwechseln?) into a vertical cut. – The deception is an invitation to have your blade attacked via the Krumphau but is pulled away (deliberately collapsed) before the blades make contact and the Oberhau is delivered to the newly opened centerline. ;)
-
Why, Sir Brian, you bring up one of my favorite things to do! :) And yet, it takes skill to read the difference between a committed thrust and a feint. :) As my old judo instructor used to say of fakes: "you gotta make him believe it." Or as Master Leichtenauer says "No one defends himself without danger."
-
Aye, the ideal feint is one that can still hit if they don't react to it at all. :)
This trips us up the most in drills. We try to mix in some non-reactions... and man, it throws you off.
-
I was tutoring one of our quickly developing novice students with some subtle tactics and he kept falling for my thrust from Phlug feint. I made it especially difficult for him when he wouldn’t react and take the thrust from his inaction. He tried several times to Krumphau the thrust but never successfully until I finally asked him why he kept trying to use the Krumphau against a thrust to the face from Phlug when there were other master cuts better suited for the situation. I slowed down my attacks and we stepped through his attempts to Krumphau the thrust and it became clear to him that since I was in the Vor his attempts for a two tempo (Krumphau + Attack) counter would always be behind in the tempo and would therefore almost always fail. He then wanted to try a Schielhau against the thrust and when we slowed it down it became very clear to him that the Schielhau not only displaces the initial thrust (feint or not), it furthermore keeps the active agent’s blade on the outside line the entire time he is attempting to clear his blade for the follow up Oberhau since the passive agent’s Schielhau is dominating the centerline and taking the shoulder of the active agent. ;)
-
Nope! I thought we weren’t supposed to ‘parry’ in longsword! ;)
Of course you can parry, Sir Brian. After all, that's how we avoid taking unwelcome longsword blows to our thumbs. :) Sorry, had to say it. Parrying is not limited as a fencing technique. It is a method of blocking strikes even in longsword.
-
Nope! I thought we weren’t supposed to ‘parry’ in longsword! ;)
Of course you can parry, Sir Brian. After all, that's how we avoid taking unwelcome longsword blows to our thumbs. :) Sorry, had to say it. Parrying is not limited as a fencing technique. It is a method of blocking strikes even in longsword.
Oh I know that Lord_Dane, I was just being a little satirical about the second ARMA video posted. In fact I have several ‘plays’ in my repertoire in dueling with the longsword that are inclusive with a parry. But yeah when I use my thumb to parry, I’m basically doing it WRONG! ;)
-
But yeah when I use my thumb to parry, I’m basically doing it WRONG!
Good news though. You only get to do it twice. ;D