I know of three variants of the Krumphau, which I will refer to as the Pynenberg version, Knight’s version, and the Other version.
Knight uses a window-wiper motion as shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs1fuRl77fQ&list=UUBsDIGcIhlamARsPHYEJkzg&index=1&feature=plcp EDIT: I mistook Knight’s version for a short-edge, window-wiper krump. He uses a long edge window-wiper, which requires changing some of the arguments.
Pynenberg uses a long-edge cut that mutates into a short-edge: http://vimeo.com/49951783
Textual Argument 1
This cut is executed thus: stand in the Wrath Guard with your left foot forward; if your opponent cuts at you, then step with your right foot well out from his stroke toward his left side; cut with the long edge and crossed hands against his cut, or across on his hands between his head and blade, and let the blade shoot well over his arm, as can be seen in Image D in the figures on the upper right.
Other’s version is in no way a long edge strike. Pynenberg’s starts as a long edge strike, then mutates. Knight’s version is a long edge strike throughout.
Textual Argument 2
Pynenberg’s seems to draw my arms forward as I perform the wind, which seems to match the phrase “let the blade shoot”.
Knight’s and Other’s version doesn’t really seem to “shoot” over the blade as there is very little forward movement. And what movement there is feels more like an active push.
Visual Argument 1
In the video, Knight aims specifically for the mid-point of the blade. He says that aiming too close to the cross or the point will cause problems. But in Meyer’s plate, the target is the cross. So if Knight says his version doesn’t work there, then we have to question it in the context of Meyer.
Biomechanical Argument 1
Meyer says that the Krumphauw may be “against his cut, or across on his hands between his head and blade”. With Pynenberg’s and Knight’s version this is just a matter of targeting using the arms and maybe the hips.
Other’s version doesn’t lend itself to attacking the hands. He says himself that targeting the cross will be ineffectual, so the hands would likely be even less effective as a defense.
Biomechanical Argument 2
Pynenberg’s gives you two opportunities to succeed at your parry. The long edge first performs a glancing strike to redirect the blade, then the krump with the short edge cements the defense. Failure to perform either correctly still offers some protection via the other.
Textual Argument 4
Meyer refers to the Zornhau as the father stroke. Using Pynenberg’s interpretation, we can employ the father stroke as the starting point for both the crooked and squinting strike.
Tactical Argument 1
Pynenberg’s version delays the decision to perform a Zornhauw, Krumphauw, or Schielhauw until the blades have clashed. Knight’s and Other’s version requires you to dedicate yourself to the Krumphauw right from the beginning.
Textual Argument 4
Meyer stresses that the concept of Indes is not just about the bind. Rather, it is any kind of decision that needs constant observation of everything in order to make a snap judgment. While this is a rather tenuous argument, the idea of waiting to decide to crook or squint until the blades clash would seem to fit into his idea of Indes.
Tactical Argument 2
Combing the 1st and 2nd biomechanical arguments with the tactical argument, I see the thought process as this:
- He is attacking me with a high cut.
- I am going to perform a Zornhau in response.
- Oh no, the Zornhau missed his head. I will now mutate into a krump at this hands.
- Oh no, the krump hit his blade rather than the hands. Time to short-edge into his head.
This one parry offers me two opportunities for a single-time counter-attack and one double-time counter attack.
Knight’s and Other’s version only supports the double-time counter attack. Meyer considers these to be valid but inferior to the single-time counters.
Textual Argument 5
The rebound cut, Prellhauw, is generally thought of as an action in response to a strong bind. Yet is it grouped with the other cuts. So it would not be automatically out of place to think of other cuts in that section as actions from the bind.
Tactical Argument 3
If we delay the decision to use Krumphauw until the clash, we now have another action from the bind. One can wind, rebound, thrust, squint, or krump depending on how the Fulen or feeling of the bind plays out.
In this sense the crooked and squinting cuts are really just winds that are done in a continuous motion with the father stroke that originated them. Again, this in line with the concept of Indes and reacting instantly as opposed to “bind, feel, think, react” as distinct steps.
Experimental Argument 1
In my own free sparing Pynenberg’s version is far more reliable and effective than Knight’s or Other’s version. I say this having only used Pynenberg’s a handful of times after spending years trying to master either Knight’s or Other’s version.
Textual Argument 6
According to Meyer, a Short Cut begins as a krumphauw that falls under the sword.
This is a secretive attack, and is described thus: when your opponent strikes you from above, stand as if you would respond with a Krumphauw , that is to bind his sword with the short edge, but let it fall and drive through under his sword, strike with the short edge and crossed arms over his right arm to hit his head, thus you have closed off his sword with the long edge, and accomplished the Short Strike, and stand as is shown by the smaller figure (mid background) on the left of illustration B fighting against the right.
We will need to experiment to see how each version works with the Short Cut.
Visual Argument 2
Other’s version starts with a low vom Tag on the right. Meyer doesn’t use this guard, his vom Tag is high and in the center.
Looking wider, only Danzig and Ringeck use Other and Knight’s vom Tag. Everyone else uses something that is higher on the right or in the center like Meyer.
Biomechanical Argument 3
To perform Other’s version from another guard such as Zornhut or center vom Tag one would first have to mutate into low vom Tag. As this is a parry, there won’t necessarily be time for that.
Pynenberg’s version can be thrown directly from any guard that you can throw a Zornhauw.
Knight’s version has more options than Other’s, but I still don’t see it being used from center vom Tag.
Tactical Argument 4
If we accept Biomechanical Argument 3, then it follows that Pynenberg’s version is superior tactically because you can use it from more guards.
Textual Argument 7 (via Mike Ruhala)
In Book 3, Meyer says explicitly that Krumphauw can be thrown with either edge. Furthermore, anything with crossed wrists is a Crooked Strike, even the Squinting Strike.
Textual Argument 8 (via Ben Floyd)
1.12v.1 wrote:This cut is executed thus: stand in the Wrath Guard with your left foot forward; if your opponent cuts at you, then step with your right foot well out from his stroke toward his left side; cut with the long edge and crossed hands against his cut, or across on his hands between his head and blade, and let the blade shoot well over his arm, as can be seen in Image D in the figures on the upper right.
Given the variety of ways Meyer says to do a krump, Winden is definitely part of the corpus of how to throw one. The quote above is the first description of the Krump. The winding there is actually Verkehren (Reversing).
1.19v.1 wrote:Verkehren is this: bind your opponent’s sword against his left, and as soon as it connects, push your pommel through under your right arm; at the same time withdraw your head well from his stroke to your right. Then press his blade or arm down from you with crossed hands so that you trap him such that he can no longer attack, but you make yourself space to work at will.