Michael Chidester wrote:I don't think we're going to agree about this one, Christian. I've considered your arguments here in the past and don't find them convincing, as you clearly aren't swayed by mine. Striking to the hands as you advocate is tantamount to handing the opponent control of your sword by offering to bind your weak against his strong. He needs not abandon his guard or otherwise move beyond retracting his blade slightly in order to defend himself, because you're striking to an opening that he has already closed. That's the reason why I've never been satisfied with my Krump interpretation in the past, which matched the one you're advocating. Striking along the line Bill has described with the intention of binding middle to strong, on the other hand, offers you a very dominant position as well as an immediate Mutieren to his opening.
This is likely to be my last post on this subject. And, indeed, we needn't agree on this.
It's not attacking a closed opening - it's quite the opposite. You're attacking what seems to be a closed opening by changing the angle of attack, thereby making the opponent open.
If I hit your hands, we're done. If you retract - excellent!! That brings me to the changing through play - I drop my point (which is the only part of the sword invested: "throw the Point on the hands") under your sword and thrust. There's a reason both plays for breaking Ochs are included. Your only safe response is to retract the hands, thereby harmlessly moving your sword away from me, rather than toward, and this sets up the changing through beneath.
It seems to me that you're trying to bend the text to your will because you're having trouble making a technique work. The text clearly says to hit the hands, no matter what we'd like it to say. The texts simply don't say to bind, which would be a straightforward enough thing for them to say, were this the intent. If you can find the word 'bind' in the texts for breaking Ochs, save for the messer work, I'll be swayed. Until then, it just seems to me that you're "rolling your own" because of some problem in execution of the what the text advocates.
As with all science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This isn't *my* interpretation: it's the one that 95% of researchers have reached, including native-speaking Germans. Since your scepticism is based on questioning fundamental interpretions of German words meaning "on", "over", and "above", I really think you need to re-think this. I do not say this condescendingly - I just don't know how to approach the question any further with you at this point...though I'm sure I could make the point clearer in person, rather than with online words.
All the best,