About the Windshield Wiper Krumphau...

[CalebChow]

I've been told that the WW interpretation doesn't really have a practical use in serious combat or something along those lines.

What exactly is the difference in ARMA's interpretation of the Krumphau? I couldn't quite tell in the illustrations in the articles+essays section.

Thanks!

[John_Clements]

I've been told that the WW interpretation doesn't really have a practical use in serious combat or something along those lines.

What exactly is the difference in ARMA's interpretation of the Krumphau? I couldn't quite tell in the illustrations in the articles+essays section.

Thanks!

We are not officially making ours a matter of public instruction.
Suffice that the WW is 100% incorrect. A considerable failure of interpretation and application.

JC

[LafayetteCCurtis]

I'm not an ARMA member, but I've never thought the Krumphau looks much like a windshield-wiper movement at all--to me, windshield-wiper implies a strictly rotational movement going almost entirely in the vertical plane with a nearly static pivot, whereas the Krumphau as I understand includes a component of "reaching out" as well as plenty of translational movement, especially when it's used against high targets (such as when we try to break a defense in Ochs).

[Mars Healey]

The only time I've seen the wind-shield wiper explanation used is to introduce a student to the Krump. Once they get the basic idea that it's a sideways barrier move, then the instruction moves on to the actual details of the move.

[Ciaran Daly]

I've been told that the WW interpretation doesn't really have a practical use in serious combat or something along those lines.

What exactly is the difference in ARMA's interpretation of the Krumphau? I couldn't quite tell in the illustrations in the articles+essays section.

Thanks!

We are not officially making ours a matter of public instruction.
Suffice that the WW is 100% incorrect. A considerable failure of interpretation and application.

JC

John, why would you keep good technique secret? I just don't understand.

[Alan Abu Bakr]

John, why would you keep good technique secret? I just don't understand.

Neither do I.
I'd also be curious as to what a WW krumphau is (I'm somewhat of a beginner, so I don't know the krumphau ...unless I know it, but don't know the name)

[John_Clements]

The only time I've seen the wind-shield wiper explanation used is to introduce a student to the Krump. Once they get the basic idea that it's a sideways barrier move, then the instruction moves on to the actual details of the move.

See, that makes no sense to me either. A "sideways barrier" move?

All I will add here is that the Krump is a major cutting action.

[John_Clements]

John, why would you keep good technique secret? I just don't understand.

Neither do I.
I'd also be curious as to what a WW krumphau is (I'm somewhat of a beginner, so I don't know the krumphau ...unless I know it, but don't know the name)

The ARMA and I give an extraordinary amount of material away for free.
We readily make public considerable insights, interpretations, and technical instruction as it is.

If, at times, we keep certain discoveries or realizations more proprietary, that is our privilege, particularly since over the years we (and myself in particular) have had much of what we do intentionally misrepresented, mischaracterized, and misunderstood by non members or ex-novice members.

Additionally, the amount of original ideas and research we have had borrowed, stolen, plagiarized, ripped off, and copied without attribution, recognition, or acknowledgement by others in the historical fencing community---including groups and teachers who at first tried to belittle them---is without question.

So, if we elect to keep some things confidential for the time, I am sure you understand. Especially if the nature of some things cannot be properly shown except in person by an expert.

Historically, this is itself something the masters of defence themselves advocated and is a common practice in many traditional Asian martial arts. Make sense?

JC

[Ciaran Daly]

John, why would you keep good technique secret? I just don't understand.

Neither do I.
I'd also be curious as to what a WW krumphau is (I'm somewhat of a beginner, so I don't know the krumphau ...unless I know it, but don't know the name)

The ARMA and I give an extraordinary amount of material away for free.
We readily make public considerable insights, interpretations, and technical instruction as it is.

If, at times, we keep certain discoveries or realizations more proprietary, that is our privilege, particularly since over the years we (and myself in particular) have had much of what we do intentionally misrepresented, mischaracterized, and misunderstood by non members or ex-novice members.

Additionally, the amount of original ideas and research we have had borrowed, stolen, plagiarized, ripped off, and copied without attribution, recognition, or acknowledgement by others in the historical fencing community---including groups and teachers who at first tried to belittle them---is without question.

So, if we elect to keep some things confidential for the time, I am sure you understand. Especially if the nature of some things cannot be properly shown except in person by an expert.

Historically, this is itself something the masters of defence themselves advocated and is a common practice in many traditional Asian martial arts. Make sense?

JC

I can certainly understand your feeling that way - if I had those same experiences I'd be more than a little pissed off, and perhaps disinclined to share my insights with a community I felt had given me a hostile reception. I am a newcomer to WMA and can't comment one way or the other on the politics of that community, but I will say that in my experience blazing a trail is one of the classic "no good deed goes unpunished" actions.

Ultimately though, I feel that same secrecy serves noone. Whenever I ran into it in Asian martial arts I always smelled bullshit. I understand a trainer's secrecy before a boxing match for example - but not in academia and not in the broader field of martial arts. Sure, historical masters of defense would keep techniques secret because their lives and those of their pupils depended on it, but that's no longer the case today. And if you're worried about being ripped off, the internet can be a great leveler there. It can be a pretty easy matter to discover or prove that no, actually, John C was demonstrating x technique correctly long ago, here's the site and the video.

You have to be bigger than those people anyway - in the long run teaching with integrity and generosity of spirit does not go unrecognized, however things may seem now.

[Jeffrey Hull]

I would be nice if some fencers would stop trying to get us to reveal our discoveries in an unseemly or untimely manner. Some fencers at other forums have, for example, tried to trick a few of us into divulging things that they ought to figure out on their own, and then gain resentment thereby.

To keep some secrets is the perogative of a fencing teacher or school, it is historically verifiable (e.g. Talhoffer and other masters), and is not the expletive whereby you described it. (Such vulgarity is considered uncool at this forum.) Would you say that whatever secrets are kept by MACP means that the combatives of the US Army ought to be suspect?

Anyway, it would be nice if other fencers would simply understand. For some unknown reason, we get disparaged for keeping confidence, whereas when various other organizations do similarly, then that is "okay", because they are in the favour of the so-called WMA Community, for we lack "courtesy" or whatever. That is just not fair.

[Ciaran Daly]

I'm not arguing that it's not your or anybody else's prerogative or not to share their insights. It's obviously your choice. What I am arguing is that we are better served by openness than secrecy.

The "historical masters did it" argument is easily disposed of. And so what if some people "steal" your insights? It's just proof you were right. Being overly concerned about people that don't have the integrity to give credit where it's due, or who gossip and snipe, is undignified. Let those people reap what they sow and don't give them a moment's thought.

Sorry for the vulgarity, by the way. I'll keep it clean here from now on.

[Stacy Clifford]

John did say that we may choose to keep some things secret "for the time", which means that while some things may always remain private, some may also eventually be made public. We are not the kind of organization that immediately trumpets our latest discoveries to the world the day after we make them. If we have some new interpretation of a technique, then we want time to refine and test that interpretation and share it with our own members before we share it with the rest of the world. That's a reasonable privilege of becoming a member I believe, and does not diminish the nature of our scholarship in any way.

Keep in mind also that there are a growing number of people out there writing books about the manuals and WMA subjects, and if some of them pirated our research and published it, they would not just be acting dishonorably, they would be profiting off of it. John is a published author with many more books in the works, and several of our other senior scholars here have also published their research or have projects ongoing. It is their right to expect that their work developed within our organization using our methods and resources and testing and feedback from our members be protected until such time as they can rightfully benefit from it. It is not fair to ask them to share these things prematurely. John is absolutely right, we are very generous with the amount of information we provide to the public, but as long as we are producing original research, we have the right to decide when is the proper time to make it public and to preserve some of it as incentive to join our ranks.

[Ciaran Daly]

Eloquently put Stacy. Thank you.

[Mars Healey]

John, I apologize if I explained it poorly.

I give you The Krumphau as I practice it.

[Alan Abu Bakr]

I'd like to add, that I indeed like the info I've found on the ARMA page, and this forum. They are good sources for info on HEMA, for which I am thankful.

particularly since over the years we (and myself in particular) have had much of what we do intentionally misrepresented, mischaracterized, and misunderstood by non members or ex-novice members.

"intentionally misrepresented, mischaracterized"?
Those are rather strong accusations.
...but how on earth can someone intentionally misunderstand something? That defies logic.
...and since you say "intentionally misrepresented, mischaracterized, and misunderstood" none of this makes sense.

Additionally, the amount of original ideas and research we have had borrowed, stolen, plagiarized, ripped off, and copied without attribution, recognition, or acknowledgement by others in the historical fencing community---including groups and teachers who at first tried to belittle them---is without question.

Stolen? If it was given away for free, then that is impossible, though. (maybe I just misunderstood that)
Also, I don't understand why you would be upset about borrowing.
The rest is understandable, though.

Especially if the nature of some things cannot be properly shown except in person by an expert.

What about a video? (I would much prefer a DVD, rather then a book, to learn from. There exists a few now, which is very nice)

Historically, this is itself something the masters of defence themselves advocated and is a common practice in many traditional Asian martial arts.

True, but for a completely different reason (namely, that others wouldn't know those tricks, so they wouldn't have to face them), which is not really any good, for HEMA in modern times.

Some fencers at other forums have, for example, tried to trick a few of us into divulging things that they ought to figure out on their own, and then gain resentment thereby.

Trick you? Are you sure that they didn't just ask innocent questions?
...and why should they figure it out themselves, if there are others, who know, and can teach them?
Do you figure out everything by yourself? No.
You learn from others, who themselves learnt from others.
Some might say that: No, I learnt it myself.
To them I say: No, you learnt from medieval masters (through their books).

If everyone learns for themselves, then everyone works from scratch, and we will never reconstruct HEMA.

and is not the expletive whereby you described it.

(here I assume that what you are saying, is that the reason for keeping secrets [amongst the old masters] wasn't the one she mentioned)
If that is true, then no doubt you can prove it to be true?

Would you say that whatever secrets are kept by MACP means that the combatives of the US Army ought to be suspect?

They have the same reasons to keep secrets, as the old masters had: Avoiding to have to face the techniques themselves.

For some unknown reason, we get disparaged for keeping confidence, whereas when various other organizations do similarly, then that is "okay"

Could you please show an example of that? Both of an other group keeping a secret, and of that not being criticized.

for we lack "courtesy" or whatever.

You are no doubt not aware of this, but many ARMA members, are, though good with swords, not good with words.
Many things that you say, could be said in a much nicer way, whilst still saying everything you wish to say (I most certainly don't avocate lying, or bending the truth, but you don't have to do that, to say things, in a way that won't upset people [well a few might still do so, but that's life]).
That can also be said about that swordshow video, showing how to block with the flat, and those cutting videos with blunts on youtube (the use of blunts, which forces one to rely more on force, also serves to strengthen the myth about HEMA swords being about brute force. Just look at the comments on the videos. It's not just the complete idiots who think this, though some have realised that they were wrong, as others corrected them)
I agreed with those videos, which of course, makes me all the more concerned about the flaws (the ones who aren't affected by them, are mostly those who already agree, and therefore didn't need to see them. Those who are, are basicly getting an even worse image of HEMA and/or ARMA)

Also, though you seem to have reasons to keep your krumphau a secret, I feel that you are rather disparaging, to groups who use WW.
You call it martially unsound, without showing why, or how one does it correctly.
If you're going to keep quiet about it, you shouldn't go about saying, how good it is, and how bad others do it.
You can do that after you reveal your version, but doing it now, is just rude.

I'm not arguing that it's not your or anybody else's prerogative or not to share their insights. It's obviously your choice. What I am arguing is that we are better served by openness than secrecy.

Exactly!

Keep in mind also that there are a growing number of people out there writing books about the manuals and WMA subjects, and if some of them pirated our research and published it, they would not just be acting dishonorably, they would be profiting off of it.

Very true.
Shouldn't you be able to do anything about that, legally?