Taken from the ARMA free public website: www.thearma.org... ARMA director John Clements provides his interpretation of how the Krumphau counters the Ochs guard, arguing against the "windshield wiper" interpretation.
I know this is an old video, but since it seems people are still commenting, I'll add: 1) for a guy who claims to be an expert and who claims to be well-read and one of the world's best scholars of historical fencing manuals, you'd think he would have taken the time to learn the proper pronunciations of the words. It's pronounced like "ox", not "oaks". I mean really, the guy has been studying this stuff for decades. Get the little things like that right. 2) his initial block that he does to establish the bind is a horrible defense. It is something that the period manuals say you should NOT do. It is an empty parry, a parry to the opponent's sword. What he does is not how the Krumphau is described in the sources either. So not only is it not part of the Krumphau, but it's something that is criticized by the manuals. Performing that parry just gives your opponent the time to take another action. 3) his interpretation is based on a certain illustration that he thinks is showing the Krumphau, but is really showing another technique. The position he ends his interpretation in is indeed in the manuals.....except it's the other guy that's winning! This end position is shown as what happens when you do a Zwerchau underneath to counter someone throwing a Zwerchau around to the opposite side. It ends in the same position with your blade hitting or locked against their head or neck and their blade is trapped on the outside. Look at 2:15. That very same position appears in the sources, except it's the man on the right who's winning, not Mr. Clements. Furthermore, he is showing his interpretation of the krumphau from the right side beating right Ochs. The manuals describe it beating left Ochs (not right Ochs, as he claims). They do not say that it's a guy in right ochs thrusting through into left ochs. They clearly say that the Krumphau breaks a guy who stands against you in left Ochs. It also specifies that your blade cuts over the opponent's hands. All of Clements' demonstrations show his "krumphau" cutting below the hands. 4) re: his idea of not standing still in guards. I'd agree that you shouldn't just stand totally immobile in a fight. But it's also totally stupid to be waving around your sword and bouncing around like he proposes. That just wastes energy and gives the opponent chances to hit you. 5) his interpretation is also engineered to fit his faulty interpretation of the "segno". Cutting diagrams that appear in later sources like Meyer, and his completely made up idea that every master cut occupies a different line on the segno. This is totally false and has no basis in the earlier sources. The Krumphau is explicitly described as an oberhau, a cut from above. Clements' claim that his interpretation counts as an oberhau just because the sword starts higher than it ends is faulty. That is not what defines an ober or unterhau. What matters is the path the sword would cut through the target. In his case, his Krumphau would cut a diagonal upwards path, which is an unterhau. His claim that his interpretation is an oberhau is complete bollocks. He even later shows that cutting from a sword-low-point-back guard is still a "krumphau" which is an "oberhau". By his ideas, there is no such thing as an unterhau, since even the quintessential unterhau, a sweeping cut from the tail guard/nebenhut into ochs is an oberhau according to Clements. It's nothing but an absurd attempt to validate his interpretation. 6) see 3:27. You're right John, he is hitting you. That's what that illustration in the sources is showing. Also at 3:44, when he shows that the guy on the right goes into Ochs to defend the cut, how he "still gets cut". Yet if you watch, the Clements did not hit him. Going into ochs defended him from Clements' faulty Krumphau interpretation. Clements had to force him (at 3:56) to adjust his sword position to show that he could hit him. It's a typical case of confirmation bias with an instructor using a non-resisting opponent to demonstrate a technique. In conclusion, his interpretation is in opposition to the manuals, in contradiction with what is described in them, is based on other baseless interpretations he has made, trying to counter strawman interpretations of a silly windshield wiper interpretation that is only valid if you travel back to 2003, and is not martially sound as demonstrated in the sources. This video should stand only as an example of bad HEMA.
I realize this is old as hell now, but *THANK YOU* I'm serious. I'm just a beginner coming from some bowie knife practicing, but when I saw the weapon on his neck, or on/near his person I considered it a complete failure. This whole lecture feels like something that would immediately crumble in unarmoured combat. When we make slashing motions or diagonal cuts, we *NEVER* expose our sides or arms/wrists for a slash to the side. It looked okay until I noticed how deadly that razor sharp "blade he doesn't care about" gets withdrawn quickly against his neck. May not kill him, but it'll compromise his ability to fight.
He is describing some "Handarbeit" and "Verkehrte Hawe", but this is just 33% of Ein Stück. Start, Middle, End - this is how it works. I agree with most of your points FoolingWithFühlen. The Opponent won't give up or stand there and will let you move three times when you just have to do normal Versetzen. 5) Disagree - Krumphau can be cut from any Leger or Hut. It's most natural way is from Schrankhut to Schrankhut. And e.g. in Meyer it is NOT described explictly as an oberhau. In so many chapters can be understood (after you read and trained it for some time) that not technics should be forced, there has to be Gebärden, Fühlen, Reizen, Nehmen, Treffen and Abzug -> The most important one. Agree - this is a example of bad fechtkunst, this is fechtinterpretation. Nothing more. People read but don't understand, the see, but don't get it.
Oaks? What is this oaks? I don't see any oaks! This video is named after a cut that, according to Liechtenauer's Zettel, is supposed to 'krump nimbly to the hands, throwing your point to wrists', but this video doesn't have any of that. It just has you giving your opponent a cut the gut, while simultaneously giving him control of the centre, and letting him gently stroke your neck with his sword! The only way to save yourself is to parry with the flattamuhstrung!
What source is he getting this from?! this is not how the krump is done as you should be going for the wrist and controlling there sword. If you knock your opponents sword like that then they will just go weak and hit you in the face with the pomal.
The response from 6:38 seems kind of dangerous to me. It looks like the momentum could be easily carried and realigned with a flick of the wrist... and get you killed.
For the life of me I wouldn't want to use this technique, neither in a real sword fight nor in a competition. Having the opponent's blade right there against my body and near my head as you've shown still feels too risky to me. You say that there won't be an issue since the opponent reacts to bring their blade back, but that isn't the only possibility. What if my opponent panics and pulls back sharply along my face? I'll get a nice cut along the face using this version of the Krumphau. On the other hand, the windshield wiper motion would actually be safer for me and would reduce the chance of a double hit.
How effective is the actual cut though? I I don't see this as very effective against tommy mats... and some of those manuevers left the neck/head exposed. It takes 90 seconds to bleed out to death and in the heat of battle, incapacitation is usually not instant (I'm a Marine Corps trained combat life saver.... I know my shit). So I feel like someone with a cut on the arm or torso will still be dangerous when their sword is two inches from your fuckin neck and head.... I like the CUT and most of what he's teaching here..... it's just a couple of the techniques seemed suicidal. I practice the Krumphau a lot with my sword, but it just seems like a fancy manuever most of the time.... a lot of the time while sparring my partner and I have trouble delivering it, without getting hit ourselves with an "after blow." (just because you cut/stab someone, doesn't mean they won't / can't stab you back in the next few seconds). I thought the whole point of european swordsmanship, was setting up a strike, so the opponent can't strike you back.
+Stephen Richards Exactly. He says that the sword Isn't a buzz saw or a light saber but it doesn't need to be. The opponent could just draw the sword back running it through the neck as he does and do more damage. And as you say "just because you cut/stab someone, doesn't mean they won't / can't stab you back in the next few seconds ". So even if you do connect with damaging cut your opponent can still counter.
Borislav Krustev so then in this manuever he's risking the danger of having a sharp blade inches from his neck/head, so that he can deliver an ineffective cut?
I'm looking at Meyer's 1570 right now, and it's really looking to not be a wind, then cut over, it looks like a cut against directly against the blade with a lever of the underhand. Comments?
I think this is an interesting concept, and the way Michael does it is very intriguing. Now I do agree that I wouldn’t let a blade that close to my neck, but if you modified the technique a little I think it could work. I’d like to see some other interpretations of the kruphau by other hema practitioners. I did enjoy Michael’s video on half handing though.
6:28 you don't need a special technique to cut a guy if you just stepped out of the way of his sword. Just cut with an oberhau, it's arguably even more defensive. Other than that though, this mostly just seems extra dangerous. A shielhau or a zornhau don't involve pushing your opponent's blade back into you, and they can both defeat thrusts in basically the same way. Plus it's kind of disingenuous to say "this is supposed to defeat ochs, but only works once they move out of ochs". The most plausible example of a krumphau I've seen is a strike to the wrists as they move into ochs, before they have a chance to move back out of it into a thrust (or during their thrust if you're late but have the footwork to make up for it).
In my opinion, this interpretation of the Krumphau looks not save for me. I prefer to strike on his blade (standing in the hut ochs) from above with a certain impulse while doing a sidestep. so he can't harm me and after his i strike with a kurzhau (with the short edge of the sword) to the head of my oponment, after this i move in the nahe mensur (short range) an die grapling or move sidewards out of his reach with an extra blow (umschlagen). i hope you understand what i try to say.
Working as in "to build, to test, to continue, to evolve through practical empiricism" - or in short, "to go to work" - Today's world of combat, martial arts, etc. is ludicrously saturated with conjecture, theory and violently empty calories of competitive glorification with very little work done to genuinely see not "can it be done" - but rather, "does it follow an obvious underlining principle towards efficiency of efficacy" - I see little romance or stagnating arrogance in the vids approach .
+mang kanor Especially in armored (talking about plate armor here) fighting, in a scenario where you have 2 fullyarmored swordsmen you have no way to thrust or slash trough the armor, easier way is to wrestle your opponent to the ground and stick that sword trough the gaps or lose the sword completely and use your rondel dagger instead to go trough the visor or the gaps.
I'm generally open minded to various interpretations but they kind of have to be in the sphere of logic. This Krumphau is just ridiculous. First, you let your opponents blade to be inside. From there he can either cut you or just plain old stab you with a quick Zucken. Or just do a cut with the short edge if he walks past by you on his left. Not to mention that the attacker has his flat presented in such a way that the sword could be easily blocked. If it wasn't in such a position it could easily translate into a Zwerchau before an attack or Durchwechseln (if you can call it that) right after the block, stab the opponent and that's it. I don't even want to talk about the silliness of the idea that such a thrust (from the Ox) would be a viable attack against an opponent at such a distance unless it was meant as an opener i.e. a strike that would open the opponent to other strikes. Instead of doing this fancy to look at "technique", just do a nachreisen and deliver a swift blow to the hands that are extended nicely in your general direction. The whole concept just bothers me. This is just my opinion but I strongly disagree with this video.
Well he is right about that a long sword isn't as dangerous as a light saber, but the fact that he directs the opponents blade right to his neck bothers me, too. A sword doesn't need to be super sharp to do heavy damage to somebody's neck, throat or artery. Even a jagged blade can do heavy damage with low force. Another point against this riposte is: Armor. How many types of armor, whether plate or not, are protecting your kidneys and how many are protecting your neck?
Alexander Bürger As a mater of fact, in medieval times you are more likely to have neck protection than rip protection. All the long sword techniques are from unarmored fighting. However it was a "fashon" to wear heavy padded jackets and a color that protects against cuts to the neck, and some of those colors might be mail....
Specifically, first off, the theory behind this cut, which is essentially either a Zwerchhaw variant, a Flugelhaw, or a simple Unterhaw, hinges entirely on the grossly mistaken interpretation regarding one of Meyer's cutting drill diagram (and by extension, the even more mistaken attributions to Fiore's Seven Swords), which on its own holds almost no merit, but is easy to see how one can misinterpret it.
Now I do believe that threre are multiple cuts that fall under the "Krumphaw" moniker, and they can be performed in a variety of ways in different situations, some more forward and some more perpendicular, but all of them coming straight downward as an oberhaw, as is described explicitly in the 3227a. In fact, you can see me doing several of these various Krumps, some as strikes and some as handworks from the bind, in my videos against John Farthing (two break Ochs!) and Viktor Blancheri
Secondly, it blatantly ignores the Anon Gloss' instruction to throw the standard Krump at an opponent who comes at you as he assumes a LEFT Ochs (btw, what is "Oaks?"), and an exclusive majority of Krumphaw illustrations show this. Meyer even has one instance where one counters an opponents Unterhauw (which ends in Ochs) by "falling upon it with crossed hands", and the depicted scene (Plate G back right) is the same as the other Ochs-breakers, with its opposite on the other side of the plate.
return, it is simply logical that my efforts to learn and grow as an individual Scolaris in Artem simply be utilized and directed elsewhere for now. In the meantime, what are YOU doing to learn the Masters' arts for yourself? In this year, what manuals have you read all the way through? How much time do you spend analyzing and contemplating the passages? Have you attempted translating on your own? Have you made an effort to try something entirely new for once? We'd all be interested to know. :)
I remember when I first got into HEMA, I was very confused by this demo. But resources were scarce back then and I simply followed it. Now, having known who John Clements is, it all began to make sense.
Looking at it now, this video is truly nonsensical. In a position like the one at 1:54, if the attacker simply puts their body weight into pressing down with the sword, it would cut the carotid artery and cause death. Is ARMA still insisting on this absurd interpretation?
After having a few sparring rounds, and reading some of Dobringer myself (from the ARMA site, ironically), I can safely say... Damn... I hate being a rookie who bought into this guy's crap.
From an ARMA member since '09, you might want to learn something before you judge the Art. How has "reading some of Dobringer" taught you enough to judge JC's teachings? How many world class martial arts students have you trained?
I know I did, but I don't remember writing that... That was rash and stupid, for that, I apologize. I will avoid saying something like that again in the future until I have a better hold on this art. And then, I'll share my thoughts more tactfully and with more credibility.
Tempo6132 Don't apologize. You aren't the one at fault for other people paying for false teaching. Look for HEMA guys and keep reading Dobringer. You're on the right track. You're a swordsman, not an apologist. Proper fechten allows for deceiving your opponent, not yourself. Go to Wiktenauer and stop letting ARMA take your money.
Once you're the one having pommeled someone in the face you're in a position to quickly win with grappling. seeing as you've already twatted them one it doesn't take long to have the blade at their throat.
I didn't do that. I made few successful ochs breaking krumps in sparring. Opponent was using this possition only in defensive manner, but that is pretty normal. The thrust made from ochs position is weak, slow and THAT is something that DOES NOT WORK (meaning thrust as a vorschlag/first strike). It's not even noted in any fencing manual I know, and I have never seen a successful attempt of this action in any sparring.
I disagree. Krump without any problems displaces the opponents ochs and after "winding" to the mutieren position it endangers lower oppenings. Or simple cut to the fingers works perfectly if the opponents ochs is extended. In sparring we never see the clear displacing of ochs, because every fecer knows the krumphau is displacing their point or attacking fingers. There is no counter to this, so best way to prevent this is to retreat. After all, I am Andrej Bobrík. That question made you silly.
It would have been so amazing if Clements ever read the texts instead of looking at the funny pictures - but of course that would require to understand the source instead of interpreting the soures like a peasant
Not so fast. There's plenty of videos showing it working in the accepted method, so please don;t pretend that their aren't. If the windshield wiper way didn't work it would have been scrapped long ago as research advanced. There are actually other ways of doing things that work as well. In fact the ARMA interpretation is the exception, not the norm. Please stop presenting it as if it's a widely excepted concept because it isn't.
I still think what is shown in the Video does work, even if it might not be the most optimal response from Krump or the best position to strike from with Krump.
I remember doing this, but with a sidestep, with a turn of a blade, but the picture of the crooked cut didn't make a connection at the time. I think the easiest way to translate it to FMA is to call it an abaniko strike, but with a longsword in hand. Very nice.
I think I'm beginning to see and understand - Every attack holds a defense, and each defense holds an attack. This isn't like boxing where a punch is a punch. When you strike and attack, its really a guard, not in absolute, but like putting your arms out to catch a ball that's already in the air coming towards you. When you deflect/block a strike, its really an attack. I'm not saying these words as flat, cut and dried or absolute - but I think these are basic "attitudes" for fighting with a two handed sword.
For your sake, dont pay attention to this gentleman. He has made gross misinterpretations of the manuals. For a start look at blood and iron, and Martin Fabian, as well as others in the Hema community. This guy's "krumphau" is a horrible misunderstanding.
No, just recalling what I have observed over the past 3 years and the past year and a half in particular. Such blatant and ignorant disregard for the historical sources by those who really ought to have known better was what ultimately lead me to resign; there is nothing I could have done to correct that problem, and I wasnt going to passively support it by my continued proximity, so I left everyone to their own devices. So no, there is no "cred building" here, just honest recollection.
I think his argument makes a great deal of sense. The reason why it looks so dangerous is because it's ending in the middle of the action. When he feels your blade bite into his belly, he is going to back up very quickly, and it's not going to end with the back of his blade behind your neck. His instincts are going to drive him back, away from your blade. You're only in that position for a split second, and during that split second, his mind is paralyzed by pain and fear. I remember cutting my thumb with a kitchen knife once and the sudden pain and the sound of tearing skin was shocking. The chances of him pulling off some sort of retaliatory strike are very slim.
The first technique shown seems completely ridiculous to me. Even if you're scoring a cut on the opponent at best it's a cut to his arm or ribs, while he has his sword at you head and neck! All he has to do is press make a draw cut as he is pulling out and your neck is being cut! I mean just because it's in a manuel why do people think it's necessarily a good technique! Maybe these were theoretical drawings or something
Agreed. Just because you're cut in the kidney, and even if you're cut across the back of the hand, it doesn't stop you from making a solid counter attack to the neck. Unless this is a first-blood duel of sorts. But, this sort of treatise may more be a training manual for teaching beginners specific techniques. I highly doubt a man who has trained with a sword would go into Oches for a thrust, except perhaps as a feint for a more effective strike. It's not exactly a compliant enemy combatant, just an archetypal, aggressive beginner's enemy.
you're assuming the swords are extremely sharp, but they weren't back than, also the attacking person will have to react to the counter by trying to counter himself, which is only possible by moving the sword away from his neck
spndrp He didn't say "weren't sharp," he said weren't "extremely sharp." His wording choice was poor but not incorrect. Movie myth leads people to believe that you need your sword so sharp that it can cut through a piece of paper dropped over it. Not true. A common technique in medieval fencing is to grasp up on the blade. It's called "halfswording" and it can really only be done on a blade that is sharp *enough.* A sword does not need to be "razor" sharp (that's way way too brittle). It needs to be "sword sharp." I.E. A sword doesn't need to be a lightsaber or sharp enough to shave with to still cut someone.
I don't know. The technique just looks strange. I'm probably being way too cautious, but the idea of having the opponent's blade pressed against or extremely close to my own neck doesn't sound like a great idea. Sure, I know it's not a light saber, but still, it doesn't need to be one to cause severe damage it's that close to the neck.
Yep a Schnitt, or slice can be done with a push or pull of the longsword. You'd slice open his neck to the spine or open his face to the bone with ease. Like a hot knife through butter.
@@andrelaboy2002 Yesss, yeesss, tell us how easy it is to do that after your left kidney and part of your intestines just spilled loose. Especially given there are things one does to mitigate draw cuts like that, quite reflexively. To do a draw cut with a longsword, you need leverage and control of your opponent's body. The bad news in this above moment: He has a sharp steel lever buried -inside- you half a second before you thought to try it. 99% odds say, he's the one that is in control of your body, and in a position of better leverage too. If he tucks his jaw, as he reflexively should... you'll just end up giving him a story to tell the ladies when they ask him abouy that nasty scar. Ever done any longsword cutting tests with sharps? If you haven't got leverage, you're not getting to bone half as easy as you think.
I think I'll put more faith in a guy who has made an intensive study and PRACTICE of these forms his life work, rather than in you armchair "researchers" with your own ideas. You have probably never held a sword or engaged in any form of armed combat. You can theorize and read manuals all day but until you've put as much time as he has into actually holding a sword and seeing the reactions of people up close your opinion just doesn't hold any weight. That's exactly the point John is making about how inaccurately sword-fighting is portrayed. They don't take into consideration the visceral reactions of a person engaged in close quarters combat.
See thats the thing. Some of us have been making an intensive study and practice of HEMA our life work. Some of us actually read the Fechtbücher. Some of us actually do hold swords, and regularly practice fighting both Blossfechten and Harnischfechten. Quite frankly, John is wrong. Not to mention the guy doing ochs is doing it horribly.
Oh, sorry, you're referring to a completely different technique, where the Krumphau user steps to the side, dodging the enemy's stroke, and cuts down onto his hands or arms. Yeah, I don't know why Clements is calling this a Krumphau if that is a Krumphau, they are completely different. I am seeing a technique very similar to the one that Clements is using here in the video you referenced, though. It has an effect similar to schiel but doesn't face the false edge forward like schiel does.
Dont get me wrong, there were a good number of folks, such as Jeff, Corey, and others, who actually did active study research and interpretation and it lead them to some rather interesting and effective conclusions, but they were sadly a very small and un-vocal minority. A majority of the rest, however, either didnt read the sources at all, unable to tell a Veler or an Auswinden from a Rompere di Punta or a Durchwechsel (and would bullshit you into thinking they knew otherwise), or did (cont)
Okay, I understand the theory but I wouldn't want to use this though. There are too much preparatory movements involved. Better off using absetzen. I'm not a German school practitioner though so I probably won't know as much techniques but in terms of efficiency it's easier to just deflect and stab simultaneously instead using so much wasted movements. Another thing is it's risky when the other opponents sword is actually right next to you instead of the other side with your blade blocking his. Just opinions. I use a mixture of every style and I'm always on the balls of my feet so this stance for "krumphau"? That's a big no for me. If I were to use absetzen I can just charge in or counter with it so I'm always mobile. Interesting video though.
That throw away comment about the "crooked cut from both sides", which in action is another doubled Zwerch cut, is another cherry picked quote from one of Paulus Hector Mair's plate titles, but if one were to actually READ the plate, one would see that its describing the two different Krumps coming from both combatants at different parts of the fight, and not some Krump-Krump combination, which exists nowhere in the sources whatsoever.
This is just a bad interpretation, by my estimation. But you know that they wore armour on the neck in the Middle Ages, right? It is a weak cut across the neck, in armour it wouldn't likely kill the person. In any case, I think it is ignorant to look only at the historical sources to judge the quality of techniques. In a real fight, a man will do whatever the hell works in ordre to win. Indes is the most important bit. Sorry for my bad English. :)
+bcharville There is literally a line from one of the masters (i cant remember which right now) who says that if you lose technique in a fight, literally fuck yourself.
Shirts back then had collars, and weather depending, could be rather thick. Draw cuts are not the way to go unless all else fails. Unarmored does not usually mean naked. In the end, the guy who took a longsword to the guts is probably done fighting effectively.
Also, yes! Indes is the heart of it! Just as in modern warfare, first hit, first kill is the general rule. The guy who relies on having a second shot is the one who dies, 99 times out of the hundred.
Most HEMA groups are very different from ARMA. You can always visit your local HEMA group and get to see what kind of culture that club has. Hopefully it's one of the many good ones.
The whole thing just slowly but surely stagnated and came to a grinding halt. Unless some drastic changes and overhauls are done, there will be no stopping the inevitable decline into obsolescence, and that truly saddens me, because that is not the ARMA I grew up reading about, that is not the ARMA I was constantly informed to be as such; but alas, that is what it is and has become. How it happened, I dont know, but that said, I truly wish that things will improve sooner or later...
I'm the master of sword, I was very good of sword fight with the sword, you can't get hurt these blade there real that why you need to be careful with those.
looks scary to fight against though because at least you are landing attacks i just worry if someone where to know about this technique they could instead of trying to defend themselves just brute strength swing down on the person using this technique as it leaves an opening
I'm only guessing. But I think it's tape. And I think it's there because it makes it easier to follow as a student. It's easier to see if he uses the front or back edge because he has tape on one of them. And it's easier to see where the blades meet because of the lines on the blade.
Interesting technique and development - but bears no relation to the descriptions of the krumphau in the manuals. The fundamental krumphau is based on shooting the point over the guard to his hands and develops from there. This is not that! - but nevertheless, a good move in its own right.
Kevin Spies These are poorly done krumphau's. However, that being said, any well done meisterhau/vorbogenhau requires a good push pull of the sword, good body mechanics and will easily do catastrophic damage to your target. The krumphau's usual target is your opponent's wrists when they are in an Ochs. This strike will EASILY remove ones hands. And since there are only two sure fire ways to stop a sword fight (catastrophic central nervous system damage, and remove the ability for your opponent to hold a sword), this one works just fine.
...yet you did not show me alternatives. Lets just say in my skill-stage of swordplay, even doing it wrong is better than doing it w/o any guidance. I live very remote, and my biggest problem is the lack of training-partners. I keep your words in mind though, and will seek advice from my own sword master here in europe as soon i have a chance to meet him again.
Against an Oberhaw, it fails to throw the edge, be it long or short, across the hands or blade, as is specifically instructed (and some even say to ensure that the blade well overshoots the arms) in order to restrain the opponents weapon (as if it were a Shepherd's Crook) and provide an opening for the follow on action provided your edge or point doesnt hit him on the first tempo. Instead, this cut tries to hand snipe from underneath and ignores the opponents sword, binds being coincidental.
read what little they did bother to (as in, beyond looking at pictures) and would merely reverse engineer drills and "official" interpretations to crudely force fit into the text instead of trying to read the original intent of the Masters' words (such active and dedicated scholarship hardly being actively encouraged in any means, btw...). Either that or pointless navel gazing and speculative guesswork concerning things already revealed, all of which never went anywhere or achieved anything...
The main difference I'm seeing is that in the Schielhau Krumphau vid, the strike used is a stab rather than a cut. Is that it? The basics seem to be the same otherwise; in both cases it begins by catching the enemy blade and then turning into something similar to ochs. In Clement's version, he uses a cut from there; in the version you presented, a stab to the throat is used instead.
You certainly can throw a cut or transition into a stab. I've experienced both things happening out of a Krump, as defined like it is in this video. The whole point of the "Master Cuts", and guards is the ability to do multiple things from each of them. Pretty well refined art. What amuses me here is all the folks calling Clements and idiot... because they're usually not doing scholarship but trying to find fault. Was in ARMA during this time... the point of the exercise of a lot of these cuts and how they work is to reconstruct gaps or address uncertainties. Some people come from HEMA schools where they don't consider what Clements does here a Krump at all. That's also completely fine: As the point of both ARMA and HEMA is reconstructing what these techniques were, by combining snapshot descriptions and illustrations to find out how they worked. Clements conclusions here were his opinion on the matter: But it wasn't gospel or iron clad. He put forth the argument and interpretation, and groups tested it. Some of the groups actually had a lot of success with this interpretation, and were able to make other discrepancies in the sources make sense IF Clements were right here, that the other, diverging views had not been able to sort out. Does that mean they are wrong and Clements is right? No. Nor vice versa.
So the criticism is that the guys sword is touching him after he binds and winds? Guys the opponent just had his hand/arm deeply cut or the point sunk into his chest. The most he can do is a feeble little slap with his sword in return. Not a light saber ='s you don't die if a sword is laying on your arm.
Clearly you've never seen actual knife fights before. People can return lethal stabs upto a full minute after getting stabbed, even in the chest. Adrenaline can make humans do crazy things, and I certainly wouldn't want the blade of an opponent I've just stabbed to be up against my face! All it takes is a panicked back pull from my opponent to cut my face in two. Fights are not perfect, and there's no guarantee your opponent will instantly drop after you stab them. This Krumphau is a very dangerous and unsafe interpretation which doesn't have much safety for the user. Again, you might disagree, but look through Meyer's writings and you'll see a pattern of all the techniques having the user's safety as paramount. He wouldn't teach such a dangerous technique which puts the user at such risk.
For someone who is so proud of his manuscript study, Clements should re-read the description of the Ochs. My copy of von Danzig clearly says that the attack from the Ochs is a thrust towards the 'Untere Blossen', ie the lower quarters. So you *don't* turn your sword right side up on the thrust, you step forward and thrust downwards with the short edge down. His whole interpretation of the Krumphau fails because he is defending against an attack that has no basis in the manuscripts.
You really wouldn't thrust from Ochs as a beginning attack anyway, unless you were just feinting, or you are stupid. Lol. The only time I see a thrust from Ochs actually landing is if you have your opponent's sword bound and wound to your cross.
All the BS comments about getting cut just by the blade touching you. I don't care if it is a longsword or katana, both need energy and all of it has been taken out by the initial bind as well as the opponent's sword movement has been hindered to pull back and give another cut. Worst case is a small cut on the cheek. Also, in an actual encounter, by the time the opponent realizes his cut has been stopped, he'll have been cut himself.
slicing, bro, slicing. not to mention that your blade ends up outside so the opponent not only can counter it instinctively but also slice your throat with ease
It isn't as easy as you think. Again, the energy has been taken out and by the time you realize what happened, the sword doing the krump would be inside you, possibly removing your hand or arm. Your movement would be hindered, and the attempted natural slice would end up being a natural graze at best. It is easy to imagine things differently, especially in slow demonstration, but it is different if you're being countered while doing a face to face stab with force. You just won't have the time to react
Jonathan Allen I am well aware what a slice is. What you described is exactly what I have been trying to say you aren't going to be able to do. You aren't going to be able to react in time to push your sword against the person and push or pull to make a wound to sever anything. I wouldn't be to surprised if you might get touched or grazed, but that isn't enough to cut deep enough.
My god... watching this video again after a while... I forgot just how many fallacies and straw arguments are inherent in this presentation and in the theory in general. Completely ignores and disregards the textual description AND visual depiction of virtually every instance of a Krumphaw found in German fencing manuals; not to mention that the equivalent actions of the Rompere di Punta in Italian longsword, Kuneri Uchi in Kenjutsu, and a similar cut in Chinese longsword also disagree with it.
Maybe thats just wishful thinking, but it is a good thought nonetheless. But as I told Farthing a while back, even if things do turn around and the next generation of members are lead to achieve their own scholarly and academic greatness, as happy as I will be for them, it will be a journey they will have to take without me tagging along; I burnt myself out trying to be a voice of reason for those who couldnt be bothered to be one themselves, and being unable to gain anything from them in (cont)
