Hi Matt.
The Krumphau is, believe it or not, still pretty hotly debated by some of us. You'd think there would be a consensus by now as to the fundamentals but, well, there's not. I think that every time John C. and I see each other we get into it over the Krumphau. He's brought me around to some of his thoughts on it (though not all...yet...), but the more I look the more questions I find.
The guy doing the Krump looks like he ends in a right Ox stance. I thought you ended in the Barrier Guard. If he's in mid-motion then why is his left foot forward and not right foot forward like in Goliath or Meyer?
The guy on the left hasn't "ended" at all. He's still performing the technique (note that the next Tafel is "the Krump completed," performed by the figure on the left of Tafel 20). Meyer and others teach that the end of the Krump is the barrier ward, yes, but if your motion continues through that "ochs" position then you'll end up there.
The krump is normally described with a step out and to the right with the right foot. This image may be an exception (there are plenty) or, more likely, it's showing the technique prior to the step. Note that in the "Krieg" phase of combat steps are less frequent and less dramatic.
Also, does the Krumphau break the right or left Ox stance? Goliath shows it breaking the left Ox, but a typical right handed swordsman usually stands with his left foot forward. This would put you into a right Ox.
It's normally simply described as breaking ochs with no regard to sides, but Goliath (and Meyer?) both set it against the *left* ochs, specifying that you can perfrom the other krump against the other ochs. It certainly works better that way in my experience.
I can't speak for every swordsman, but because left ochs is more stable (uncrossed arms and all that) I think that it is more common than right ochs. I know that I use it much more.
If it breaks the left Ox stance, the most likely attack from that stance is a stab or a strike from his left to your right openings. Its awkward for me the other way. How does the Krump cover you?
Here's where the arguments start, and where I think we have a lot to figure out still. As I understand the Krump it covers you with the (usually over-stated and over-performed) windshield-wiper motion. It's like "waxing off" with the sword, where you aim at your opponent's stark or hands. This motion covers the trajectory of every possible attack from left ochs, when combined with a step.
Likewise, every image I've seen shows the Krump hitting the incoming attack *from above*, not sweeping up from below. But certain interpretations which sweep up from below have proven very effective (though against the opposite ochs), so I'm still working some of this out so that function meets form, since the first is supposed to determine the last, not exist in spite of it.
Doesn't ringeck say it breaks over and under strikes from HIS right side? Is this a translation error or a perception error? This would be difficult from a left Ox stance. This supports my breaking the right Ox theory I mentioned since strikes would come from his right to your left from a right Ox.
He does and it does. That, in fact, is what I think is happening in that image from talhoffer, above.
Striking from a right ox into a left ox seems similar to the cross strike. If a Cross strike, in a way, ends in a left Ox stance, could you not break that with a Krump?
Sure.
Or do you strike into a left ox from his right? This supports both. He could strike from his right Ox into a left Ox. Or is that too specific? Am I splitting hairs?
Given the amount of information that we have at this time, yeah, you're probably splitting hairs. But keep it up, because maybe you'll crack it.
Can you perform the Krump after the bind or any master strike for that matter?
Yeah, you could, but there's a whole big list of from-the-bind techniques. In order to perfrom a krump or any other strike from the bind you'll probably have to disengage or "twitch" off (zucken), so then it comes down to chicken-and-egg stuff.
Wouldn't using the Krump kind of push his strike into your lower left leg?
If you do it slow. Hit it like you mean it!
If you should step far and push his blade down like in Meyer, wouldn't a regular over strike be just as good? Fiore shows this technique. What about crossing those arms makes this strikes so special so it can break an Ox?
That's a great question. I've got lots of theories...some of them even work, but I'm still not fully satisfied with any of what we have, yet. Currently I'm pretty firmly holding to the idea that the "krump" doesn't refer to the hands (though they do cross when performed from the right), but rather the manner in which the strike is thrown. Crookedly.
I am going a million miles a minute, I know, but every once in awhile I think of something that really shakes everything I thought I knew up. I swear the Krumphau and Schielhau drive me crazy! If anyone could please redirect me in the right direction I'd greatly appreciate it.
I know what you mean! I used to think I had the krump down pat (and I'm still confident in my academic research...it's performance I'm fine-tuning...the two should not be at odds!). The Shielhau used to drive me crazy, but not anymore. I've got it.
Or, as with all these things, I think I've got it. See a few recent Schielhau threads (since the last year, really) for some stuff that may give you a lot of insight, hopefully, into the Schiller.
Jake
Sen. Free Scholar
ARMA Deputy Director
