Main > The Courtyard
On the Krumphau
Jessica Finley:
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
Sir Edward:
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.
Ian:
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 :)
Jessica Finley:
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
Sir Edward:
--- Quote from: Jessica Finley on 2012-09-11, 17:01:16 ---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.
--- End quote ---
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. :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version