Haupt Stoss!

[Jeffrey Hull]

Alrighty,

Not to arouse ugly nationalist sentiments or anything, but perhaps you all may recall the invigorating vignette near the end of France versus Italy during the 2006 World Cup held in Germany, where Zidane jolted Materazzi with a head-butt to the chest for speaking ill of the man's kinswomen, so it seems.

For a snazzy action-photo of that, and full story, go to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/footbal ... 991652.stm


Now, while perusing Sigmund Ringeck's Knightly Arts of Combat by the esteemed David Lindholm, I found this passage in its ringen (wrestling):

Das vij. Anlauffent Ringen
Wann du zu im lauffest so begryff im sine baid arm und stoss in mitt dem haeupt an die brust so foelt er an den rucken

...Which is more or less what football-fans witnessed this year to their disgust and/or delight.

[Keith Culbertson]

Well that is interesting that you found that quote to show continuity of observed attacks available for general use, but it does not excuse Zidane

anyway, Italy was helped in other ways it seemed besides Zidane's temper/reaction, ie vs Australia and the USA.....a little suspicious sad to say, despite their great skill as a team.

[philippewillaume]

Hello
Well you know soccer player are not that steady on their feet, so there is a bit of dramatisation. I mean in that respect professional wrestling should take lessons from professional soccer player. (I do not believe that one teams is more guilty than any other that just the way soccer is)

On the technique, I am not sure that it is a head but to the chest. It is possible that it is that but I have problem with the way the sentence is constructed and the vocabulary used (using medieval dictionary and grammar).

Wann du zu im lauffest so begryff im sine baid arm und stoss in mitt dem haeupt an die brust so foelt er an den rucken

The 7th in running wrestling
When you run at him, so holds (as in lock) both his arms (baide+ plural = both) and strike/push/shove in at him with the head at the breast so falls(foelt=fallen) he at/on the back (or fails/collapses) he at the back, where foelt is felen/falen

I have two problems with that sentence. The first one is I am not sure if it is fallen or falen.
“Er foelt an den reck” with foelt= fallen) is not a very current grammatical structure at the time. In the manuscript you fall over or across a body part.
If we assume that foelt is falen. The grammatical structure is more correct i.e. falen an something.

And the second is the “stossen mit” bit stossen.
I believe that it implies, the head and the breast are ours and not those of our opponents.
If it was the case of our head to his chest it would have been something along the line of.
Stoss deinem haupt zu (but an would do) seine brust
Or
Stoss im die haupt zu seinem brust (or even zum) die brust
But stoss him mit implies that it is our head ad our breast and that it is how we stoss and not what we stoss with.

And lowering the head to the chest or raising the cheast to the head is used in plenty of “ki” exercise where you lower the back rotation point or taking advantage of the backbone resistance and a force action vector.
So basically pushing that way, you will be able to throw people.

I am not saying that this is necessarily what is written but that there are other possibilities.
what do think

phil

[JeffGentry]

Philippe

I think I see what your saying, there is a takedown from a low body lock where you drive into the opponent with your head and chest at about his chest level while pulling in on his hip's.

Like this
http://sports.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/arma_clb/photos/browse/f0ba?c=

Jeff

[Jaron Bernstein]

Well that is interesting that you found that quote to show continuity of observed attacks available for general use, but it does not excuse Zidane

anyway, Italy was helped in other ways it seemed besides Zidane's temper/reaction, ie vs Australia and the USA.....a little suspicious sad to say, despite their great skill as a team.

Euro football (soccer) has always had a reputation for violence. I don't see what makes this so exceptional.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Philippe's take on the play is plausible.

Although both my take and that of Lindholm are similar and thus disagree with what Philippe suggests, I would point out (in all fairness) that Lindholm makes clear in his commentary that he is dismayed with why anyone would want to head-butt another to his chest, when perhaps more effective things could be done.

[JeffGentry]

Philippe's take on the play is plausible.

Although both my take and that of Lindholm are similar and thus disagree with what Philippe suggests, I would point out (in all fairness) that Lindholm makes clear in his commentary that he is dismayed with why anyone would want to head-butt another to his chest, when perhaps more effective things could be done.

Jeff H.

I haven't realy studied the text to any extent, I just posted those pic's to illustrate what i thought it may be.

I am not firmly attached to any interpretation.

Jeff

[Jeffrey Hull]

JG:

I could not access your pictures of a possible interpretation of the Haupt Stoss, so I confess I did not get a look at them. But your interpretation may itself be plausible, since Ringeck did not illustrate his text anyway, which allows us some variance of exactly how it may have looked, as long as it agrees decently-closely with the text.

Thus too the pictures in DL's book are based upon his own educated guess, an interpretation which had to rely upon the words in that text-passage, but also of course upon the testing of it in sparring that surely DL and his guys put time & energy into doing.

[philippewillaume]

hello, Jeffes
To be fair the zulauffens are a tad nebulous.
I think as well there is a difference between the actions covered by schlagen and stossen or fassen, griffen and begriffen for that matter

I think each of those words has a precise meaning and the problem we have is that we can not really be sure as to what that meaning was at the time (and possibly at the place the text was written)
And of course what we understand by each of those words is colouring our interpretation.

To echo what jeff H is saying, I think we are in the realms of the possible/probable here. So I think we can not really have a clear demonstration for one case or the other.

I think as well that the zulaufen probably make it worse, because what we understand by that we act when the opponent is committed to his move (ie going forward) and we are tacking advantage of that move.
So I can see the head but/ positioning of the head at the opponent chest work in those conditions. (I made it work).
Since we grab (if we understand begriffen as to grab) both his arms. He can not really punch us and since he is moving an emergency kick or knee is not that easy to achieve (and since we are doing a zu lauffen we can even move in such way that it makes that kick or knee even more difficult.
The head but or head push may just be what we need to make him fall.

That being said as Jeff H and David said, I really do not see the point of a head but into the chest there.
I think we are in a case where we agree with what is written but we are not to sure on how in translate in action.

phil

[Mike Cartier]

I hate it when people spoil a good fight with some silly sport.

[Jeffrey Hull]

To be honest, I find no real difference between griffen and begriffen. And as far as stossen, it can have a number of meanings, depending upon context.

You can find a given thing referred to in virtually the same stanza by two different names in various fight-books.

Why Ringeck likes to have this head-butt to the chest is not for us to question, but for us to reckon.

[philippewillaume]

Hello jeff H
I really think there is some subtlty and that where the problem is

According to BZH
Griffen is to grab and that is it, as far as the transitive use anyway.

Begriffen is to engage, to feel. to grasp (physically and intellectually) to seize, to encompass or to clasp around
http://germazope.uni-trier.de/Projects/ ... id=LB00682

Stossen, stv. red. III. ( II2. 662b-665a) stâჳen: lâჳen FASN. 256,33 –: stossen, pulsare, tundere DFG. 472b. 601c. allgem. u. zwar absol. od. tr. stossend berühren, bewegen, forttreiben
So we have that very strong notion of moving forward, it is not necessarily a strike it can be but not necessary

I think medieval german is a very precise language, so it think that words are chosen and used for that slight difference of meaning.

Nonetheless that does not disprove one version or the other. It just re-inforce that it may not be as clear cut.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Dictionaries are nice -- but let us look at specific examples in fight-books, like the Rosz and Kampf parts of Von Danzig (1452); and combatives in Wittenwiller (1491):

In those parts at least, Von Danzig uses begrif only to mean verb "grab/grip with hand". He uses grif to mean mostly noun "hold", once for verb "grapple", or in one instance "(eye) gouge".

Wittenwiller uses begrif to mean verb "grip with hand" mostly, but sometimes "grip/clamp with arm". He uses ergrif to mean verb "grip with hand". He uses grif for verb "grip with hand". He uses angrif to mean verb "assault". He uses vassen to mean verb "grapple/seize/hold".

The term stoss is an often misunderstood verb, it almost never means "thrust with sharpened point of sword" as many mistake it to mean, and it can mean a whole host of things armed and unarmed -- "jolt, punch, kick". Thus it is not a synonym for stich.

Well, we could go on, but that gives us an idea of the larger pattern

The two-dozen plus German fight-books I have read lead me to what I already stated previously about the language in those texts.

Generally speaking, sometimes there is subtlety, sometimes not. Sometimes synonyms, sometimes not. Sometimes a given master uses a word exactly, sometimes contextually. Sometimes masters may differ regarding choice of words, or a given master may differ from edition to edition, or even in illustrating the same play in differeing ways from edition to edition. I think you may get my point.

[philippewillaume]

Hello jeff
Yes I do see your point and I do agree with it ;
I think it varies from on author to another as well, in place as well in time. Language was not stabilized at that stage, and we are talking about technical language.
We can see the problem we have with modern vocabulary between different martial arts today.

The only difference I would make with you is that I am not sure we can use other manual to get a general cross purpose meaning. I think the meaning of the word need to be established for each manual.

If we use grif as an example, in VD it is used as a noun, so you do not have the ambiguity of griffen and begriffen.
If grif is used a substantive, I believe we can use begriffen to mean griffen (as in the last line of )
http://germazope.uni-trier.de/Projects/ ... id=LG05575

So I would say that we have a slightly different meaning between Ringeck and VD here.

In a text where you have ergriffen, begriffen and griffen (all used as a verb). Then they will have a different meaning.
The context in which they are used may converge in final understanding of the sentence but I will be in sauch way as it staying true to the initial nuance. It thinks it is made worst by the English language that does not have the granularity of the German even medieval.
May be I was a bit misleading before, but which ever text begriffen/griffen/ergrifen will generically mean grip/grab, but I think if used in the same text they express a level of grabbing.
So if you want, it is like translating jab, straight and hook by punch. In essence it is not wrong but we are losing what type of punch it is.

But in think in our case we have the added difficulty that for Ringeck, VD or Wittenwiller a jab may not be exactly the same thing and for us two it may not be exactly the same thing either

To use our current example, In ringeck
Begreiffen= a grip without direct control on the part grabbed
Griffen =a grip with direct control (but not quite a lock yet)
Vassen= lock of the part concerned.

And I am pretty sure that it is not the case for Wittenwiller, who probably have even more granularity by having ergrifen.

To explain what I meam by the constance of meaning, lets use the schlag/stoss (in Ringeck you do not really have the opposition stoss and stich), in ringeck murder stoss. Some we schlag sometimes we stoss, in some case we have hold of something and we stoss in some case we stoss with hand appropriately closed.

I think the meaning of stoss is always the same and when the context indicates a stike I believe it means to strike with et same body motion as when we stoss with both hand holding. And that is a different way of striking than schalgen. But it is a strike non the less. (if you want what makes it a strike is the context)


Phil
I hope I did not muddle the topic