Main > The Courtyard
On the Krumphau
Jessica Finley:
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.
Sir Edward:
--- Quote from: Ian on 2012-09-11, 01:16:45 ---I'll just keep the ARMA stuff to myself from now on because I fear it will always leads down one path.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: Jessica Finley on 2012-09-11, 12:07:19 ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Ian:
--- Quote from: Jessica Finley on 2012-09-11, 12:00:52 ---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:
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. :)
--- End quote ---
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?'
--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2012-09-11, 14:11:50 ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Sir Edward:
--- Quote from: Ian on 2012-09-11, 14:23:42 ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Ian:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version