Main > The Courtyard
On the Krumphau
Ian:
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.
Jessica Finley:
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
Ian:
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.
Ian:
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
Jessica Finley:
--- Quote from: Ian on 2012-09-10, 13:06:05 ---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.
--- End quote ---
Really? Whose Krump are you looking at?
--- Quote from: Ian on 2012-09-10, 13:06:05 ---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.
--- End quote ---
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. :)
--- Quote from: Ian on 2012-09-10, 13:06:05 ---Here's another video ... It's a very good demonstration on why static parries are mostly useless, and why cuts are more appropriate.
--- End quote ---
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
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version