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]

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

[Sir Edward]

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.

[Ian]

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.

[Jessica Finley]

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

[Ian]

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.

[Jessica Finley]

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: 

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. 

[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]

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.

[Ian]

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. 

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.

[Sir Edward]

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.

[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.