Breaking Guards

[Bill Carew]

Others have probably trodden this path, so I don't think this will be too controversial. I currently conceive of the krump along the sign of the sword as follows (this is the right side version of the 5).



It's a simple conceptual expansion of Meyer's sign of the sword. The krump as vertical (windshield wiper) confers few (if any) advantages by comparison. Works beautifully from vom Tag or Schrankhut.

Please don't get caught up in precise angles. We are using the sign for broad concepts and ranges of possibilities, not precise angles. What is important here is the concept of the krump, as angling in toward the opponent's openings from the left and above when struck with a step of the right foot (vice versa for the left krump).

Think of the sign here as the crosshairs of your gunsight, and the centre of the sign as your desired target (body part). If you want to strike krump to the hands or arms of an opponent hewing an oberhau, aim this sight (sign) at their arm and strike in this direction with the krump. By the same token, using this concept, it is perfectly possible to strike krump to the head or neck of the opponent.

The key advantage of this, over a directly vertical hew, is that it is always angling in toward the opponent's body, which means, even if you miss your first target, or if you are striking to the flat of the blade, your sword is still angling in toward the opponent's body the whole time, making the follow-up hit even faster. We've found this works beautifully with all the devices in the sources, and unifies the 5 hews conceptually in a logical, practical and beautifully simple way. YMMV.

Cheers,

Bill

[Christian H. Tobler]

Hi Bill!

For the sake of clarity - I don't use the windshield wiper mechanic anymore. I stopped using it around the time when Thomas Stoeppler explained some of his mechanics on SFI.

I like your use of the diagram here.

Cheers,

CHT

[Christian H. Tobler]

Lest there be any doubt that "uber" can imply hitting the target, here are two other occurences within the same set of (von Danzig) glosses:


vnd mit der rechten slach in mit dem swert vber den kopff

"...and with the right, strike him with the sword over the head"

So val im mit der langen schneid oben vber paide arm~ | vnd druck mit dem schnit von dir

"then fall to him with the long edge above over both arms and press [him] with the slice from you."

Best,

CHT

[Cory Winslow]

I'm also convinced the plates are, in some cases, just grossly wrong. Look at the one for cutting a Zwerch under his to his neck. The Glasgow illustration makes sense; the one in Goliath doesn't even show a Zwerch and is a great way to achieve a double-kill!

Oh, I completely agree! That particular image confused us for years until we realized it was just plain wrong...

On the other hand, some images in Goliath seem to be spot on. Its a strange book.

[Jake Norwood]

@ Michael E. - I totally jive with your approach to Krump here. I used to use it extensively in early 2005 and 2006 (following a pretty public debate over it all in Provo with John C.). However, I admit that I never spent much time trying it in sparring or from schrankhut (which I tend to neglect in sparring). I'll have to revisit that.

@ All - Great stuff here. Regarding the Krump as it breaks ochs, I've found that the Messer version works fantastically well in the longsword, particularly if I'm willing to seek a bind. So much that it's my "standard" use right now (I pulled it out a few times in Houston lat month, actually). I feel that it really effectively nullifies Ochs under the definition of breaking that I discussed at the front of the thread. The "Goliath" version, which Michael is advocating, feels like it might be the best/most reliable variation for actually hitting the hands of a guy in left ochs, though, if you're not seeking the bind. And the mechanics of thrusting the left arm under the right, etc., still apply in the event of a bind, of course.

There's an interesting tactical difference between breaking Ochs using vom Tag as the starting point vs. using Schranckhut. The stroke from vom Tag is faster, but you have to work harder to get outside his Ochs. Conversely, the stroke from Schranckhut is slower (longer arc), but you're already outside his guard.

I suppose you do have to work harder, since you're not as far outside of it as you are in schrank, but is it that much of a difference in gaining the outside? Much of this can probably be negated by the arc that Michael's describing, or even just beginning the Krump with a more zorn-like motion. How does this change in time requirement modify the tactical use of the krump, if at all?

RE: Image 4 - I have always thought this was roughly the same Duplieren from the left as shown in Image 3, except illustrated from the opposite side. Goliath's illustrations seem to do that frequently--show the same technique twice, performed on the same side, but illustrated from two viewpoints (one on each side).

Good stuff.

Jake

[Jeffrey Hull]

All that analysis by everyone is interesting. You guys have thought a lot about all that.

If I may, would like to bring it back to (over)simplification again:

To me the Vier Versetzen, with which we may "break" (brechen) i.e. counter the foe while he stands in any of four given main wards or as he has just moved into one such, and thus ideally before he can attack, seems like Liechtenauer giving us a most basic set of moves that are meant to end the fight before it begins.

You may disagree, but if I had time to teach only one Liechtenauer Directive and nothing else to somebody on the road to Jerusalem, then it would be the Vier Versetzen. (Yes, that was a shameless yet sincere reference to Kingdom of Heaven.)

In that sense, it would be Liechtenauer's more technical yet nonetheless wittingly simple explication of the same principle that Musashi emphasised, when he said (more or less depending on the translation) that you should just go right in and hit the man, get it done.

By the way, some would probably consider my manner of Krumphau to be too kenjitsu-like.

[Andrew Maxwell]

Others have probably trodden this path, so I don't think this will be too controversial. I currently conceive of the krump along the sign of the sword as follows (this is the right side version of the 5).



It's a simple conceptual expansion of Meyer's sign of the sword. The krump as vertical (windshield wiper) confers few (if any) advantages by comparison. Works beautifully from vom Tag or Schrankhut.

Please don't get caught up in precise angles. We are using the sign for broad concepts and ranges of possibilities, not precise angles. What is important here is the concept of the krump, as angling in toward the opponent's openings from the left and above when struck with a step of the right foot (vice versa for the left krump).

Ok, so I'm slightly confused but I think it is because of the whole two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional cut thing. Based on the diagram it looks (to me) like you're saying that the krump from the right goes from left to right, which seems weird to me- so either I'm way off your interpretation or I've misunderstood. I would throw the krump on the same line as the zorn based on that image (because where it differs- from my point of view- is not in that plane). So in an effort to follow this I used my mad skills in paint to do a top down view of how I see the strikes from vom Tag (the lines are the paths the point of the sword describes)



Make sense? 1 is krumphau, 2 is schielhau, 3 is scheitelhau, 4 is zorn, 5 is zwerch. (some of the lines aren't correctly proportional to each other but you get the idea). I assume you are commenting on the krumphau angling more forward than in the windscreen-wiper model (which is how I do it too). Unless you are using that diagram to show the plane o the blade at the midway point of the stroke? (In which case I think you'd be right)

[Dan Sellars]

if his is from the front and yours if from the top haven't you just drawn the same thing

[Bill Carew]

Chaps, thought the krump deserves its own thread, so I kicked one off at the link below. Feel free to continue there, and perhaps, explain to us how you do it.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=187

[Jeramy Gee]

Back to the vier versetzen; I think my opinion on this is probably a combination of the "hit the other guy immediately" interpretation and the "make him move so you can establish a dominant position/bind" interpretation. If you throw your krumphau against your opponent's ochs and manage to hit his hands, then great, the fight is done. The same goes for the other strikes. However, these aren't super-secret uncounterable moves. For example, you can defend against the zwerchau to your own tag simply by moving to tag on the other side, stepping back, or by cutting against it. In fact, being countered like this is more likely against a skilled opponent than being successful with the single-time kill. So, what do the directives tell us? They tell us what to do when the almost inevitable occurs. They tell us how to maintain the initiative against our opponent's counter. The lesson thus appears to be this: by all means, attack to your opponent. Just remember that you are likely to wind up in some kind of bind, a bind in which these particular attacks against these positions give you advantageous position.

Also, following the presentation of this material in shielhau.org's DVD, it would seem that you can use the vier versetzen as principles to counter actions performed out of the bind. For example, suppose your opponent winds to ochs. You could then krump from the bind on his sword and then procede with the usual krumphau follow-ups.