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]

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.

[Sir Wolf]

ummm.....


.... i like Turtles?

[Thorsteinn]

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?
 

[Jessica Finley]

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/
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/

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

[Jessica Finley]

Back to the Krump:

For fast, messy, and yet still generally how I would interpret it -

Love these guys and their work.

[Sir Edward]

Back to the Krump:

For fast, messy, and yet still generally how I would interpret it -

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?

[Ian]

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.

[Jessica Finley]

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

[Sir Edward]

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.

[Sir James A]

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.

[Sir William]

No you're not Sir James- I hold that dinstinction of being the noob among noobs in swording.  Working on that.