Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu

I've heard he hangs out at a small gym (not as a kru or anything) that's near Samart's, at least a few months ago. I'm not really sure. He's a very itinerant person. He's not really "at" gyms, at least for long. Probably the best bet in Chiang Mai would be Hongthong, just because of the number of large Westerners that often train there (speaking only of reputation, we haven't been there for years).

If interested, there is a long history of shunning the knockout in traditional fighting sports, going back to Ancient Greece. I wrote about this in the post below, drawing possible parallels between Thailand's Golden Age low KO rates and Hellenic boxing. There can be a lot of debate on the role of violence in combat sports as both entertainment and edification (presenting some higher value to public fighting).

As Muay Thai promotions in Thailand tap into the hyper-violence visuals of MMA, modifying their rules and scoring trying to capture the MMA casual audience, promoting viscous knockouts and knockout rates with size mismatches & much sought bonuses, its Old School "don't hunt the knockout" ethos of its Golden Age and beyond has seeped into the UFC. Here Khalil Rountree who has trained a great deal in Thailand and expressed a great deal of respect for the art does a mercy finish (he's been known to not show restraint in the past), satisfied with a symbolic show of dominance. As has often been pointed out, Thailand's Muay Thai has been about dominance, not aggression. The dramatically raised slow fist here even somewhat invokes the executioner's strike that can be found in some traditional pre-fight Ram Muay. He then, post-victory, performed a modified Wai Kru (respect to his teachers), showing how intentful his performance was. The wai kru was nearly removed from some entertainment promotions in Thailand. It's a beautiful thing to see MMA in some way kind of "catch up" to Thailand's Old School respectful fighting and dignity, while Muay Thai is busy trying to catch up to MMA. via Sean Madden There has been quiet, growing concern over the new damage seeking forms of Muay Thai. Everyone loves the bonuses and the pay, but not only is the long term care and concern for the fighters an issue, older generations worry about Thailand's Muay Thai losing its ethos, its way of being, as it seeks more eyeballs across the globe. It's no small thing for Rountree to end a fight like this, in a display of values. It shows that Thailand's Muay Thai, as it traditionally has been, has something to say to contemporary combat sports beside what cool elbows, kicks or trips one can do. It's a centuries old sport of great violence, but its culture traditionally has carried with it principles of restraint and control, principles exemplified in its scoring (which Westerners sometimes have a hard time understanding), making its deeper value its greatest gift to the fight world. There is of course much to socially criticize in Thailand's Muay Thai as it has historically developed, the conditions and liberties of fighters, their economic well being, disparities and injustices of many kinds, but part of that history was also used to find and fashion a sport founded on restraint in the face of violence.

Info is probably hard to find, so I forwarded your question to Patrick Rivera, a USA coach who knows the Philippines. This is what he said: I hope that little bit helps!

If you haven't seen it, this is Sylvie's list of recommended gyms: How long are you coming to train? What are your aims?

New Film Evidence on Early Modern Muay Thai History The above video edit study of the best fighter in Thailand, Samarn Dilokvilas, is taken from one of the most remarkable film records of early modern Muay Thai. This post contains various treatments & edits of the archive footage, highlighting its aspects. Previously of the early modern period we've primarily had short very clips produced for newsreel, with opponents of unknown skill, edited to present to the foreign eye something exotic and unusual (a playlist of early modern Muay Thai footage here). With newsreels we never really know how much the action has been chosen and constructed, or how distortive that may be. The colonial British regarded Siam as comparatively "uncivilized" and the few glimpses of fight footage feel like they were chosen with that view in mind. They are brief, clashing keyholes into the art, but now read almost like puppet shows for theater goers, from a far away land. There was also a Thai filmed dramatic reenactment of a fight, which for some time was taken as genuine fight footage, the earliest on record. It suffices to say that before this film, our visual evidence for how Thailand's Muay Thai (Muay Boran) in its early modern period was fought was deeply fragmented and full of artifice. You can watch the full archive footage of the Samarn vs Somphong fight for the unofficial title of Best in Thailand, from which my edits are cut (the story of this fight and who the fighters were is further below): this footage originally was published in this longer Thai Film Archive. In this case we have lengthy, if significantly edited, fight footage purporting to cover all the rounds of a fight, as well as the showcase of some bagwork, sparring fight preparation and coverage of the historical context of the fight. And, the two fighters are thought to be two of the very best in Thailand, a showdown of great magnitude. It is far more than a keyhole. We get the sense that we are watching an actual, continuous fight from 1936. It gives us insight into the relationship between Thailand's Muay Thai and Western Boxing. You can see Samarn's Western Boxing influenced bagwork in this short edit, as well as an excerpt from General Tunwakom teaching the "Buffalo Punch" of Muay Khorat, which Samarn includes in his light work: The State of Early Modern Muay Thai and British Boxing Beginning with the first decade of the 1900s Bangkok itself was undergoing powerful modernizing influences, much of which embodied by its relationship with the British Empire. Bangkok was a deeply cosmopolitan, thriving Southeast Asian city. It has been estimated that there were as many 3,000 British serving with the Siam police in 1907. The future King of Siam, HM King Vajiravudh, who would modernize the sport would spend near a decade coming of age in Britain in college and military school (he would be given the honorary rank of General in the British army in 1915 and even thought to fight for the British in WW1). Regular Boran Kard Chuek fights were held at the city pillar (and likely in many other undocumented city locations), but there was no stadium or fixed ring in the city until King Vajiravudh came to the throne and implemented Western Boxing's influence. It was a gambling sport of the people whose gloveless, violent nature would ruffle British sensibilities. At a time when colonial powers were using the excuse of beneficently civilizing peoples of Siam's bordering countries as their governance was taken control of, British sensibilities did matter. When prince Vajiravudh's father, the famed King Chulalongkorn, formalized the three regional Schools of Muay Boran (Lopburi, Khorat and Chaiya, bestowing teaching authority to tournament winners) in 1910, he was not founding these styles, but rather consolidating them up (and to some degree secularizing) them as the sport itself was likely beginning to experience change in the face of Bangkok's modernity. This was an act of preservation and commandeering. Through the religious reforms of 1902 outlawing non-Thammayut Buddhism mahanikai practices the National government had begun discouraging customary Muay Thai pedagogies within the wat, moving it away from their magical practices. Fight wicha & magical wicha were likely seen both seen as fighting techniques. The aim was to put more martially trained men under royal auspices and in rationalized contexts. By 1919 British Boxing was taught along side Muay to police and all civil servants at Sulan Kulap Collage. The modernizing, internationalizing art of Judo was also offered. King Vajiravudh, returning to Siam to eventual ascent to the throne saw British sport as key to a society's modernization and Nationalization, and Muay Boran ring fighting was to be shaped to reflect the more rationalized (rule governed, safety concerned) character of British Boxing. The first fixed roped rings in Bangkok (1921, 1923) held both British Boxing fights and Muay Thai fights. you can see a Modernization of Thailand's Muay Thai timeline here It is enough to say that in the Muay Thai of the 1920s a modernization movement was significantly modeled on and inspired by British Boxing, and much of how Muay Thai is today comes from this modernization effort a century ago. But...did this influence change how fighters actually fought in these new rings? And if so, how much? Did Muay Thai/Boran on the one hand adhere to their own characteristics which were purposely counter to Western Boxing, pushing back to maintain its own identity resisting its influence? Or were fighters synthesizing Western Boxing with Muay Boran fighting styles? Was what was happening in the ring a combination, or an uneven example of both? We have so little visual evidence its really hard to say, but this one film (which actually seems to present two fights, more on that further down) is our deepest, most substantive look into the early history of modern Muay Thai as it actually was. My own feeling has been - and I should get that in front - is that while we may prefer to think of Thailand's Muay Thai has possessing its own pure lineage, tracing lines of of styles back even hundreds of years, the true nature of Thailand's Muay Thai is that it is, and has perhaps always been an absorbing art, a synthesizing art, which has taken numerous threads of influence and experience (including international influence) and woven itself into something absolutely unique: an at least 100 year old highly optimized, deeply tested ring fighting art. And substantive to modern Muay Thai has been its dialogue with Western Boxing from its inception in the early 1900s. Not only did British Boxing and Thailand's ring Muay Thai exist side by side in Bangkok, and not only was Muay Boran remodeled on the rules and engagements of British Boxing, but the fighters themselves fought in both sports. The cross-pollination was unavoidable, and probably in some ways quite effectively pursued. The 1936 Fight For Who Was the Best in Thailand: Samarn vs Somphong The fight in question in fact is purported to be for who was the best Muay Thai fighter in Thailand. I think the record is probably a little thin on this, but Alex Tsui provides a very powerful picture of the build up to this fight. Please read his original write up which contains many more details on it here. an excerpt: It was Samarn vs. Somphong III, fought at the Pattani Municipal Government Hall, on 29 April, 1936. Samarn Dilokvilas (career 1926-52), was the grand champion of Siam, from 1933 to 1939, and in those years, he was truly invincible and widely revered as a national hero. His rival, Somphong Vejasidh (career 1930-51) was the most dangerous puncher during the same period, being unbeaten all the way until he captured the 128-pound title at Suan Sanuk arena. A showdown with Samarn was inevitable. Samarn versus Somphong, the most fabulous arch-rivalry in muaythai (then called Siamese boxing in the western media) before the Second World War, enacted a total of six encounters stretching from 1933 to 1939, each a classic in its own right, that captured nation-wide interest and media coverage, in pre-war days of Thailand. Samarn had won the first showdown, an unprecedented ten-round muaythai match at the constitution celebrations, 1933, in what was always remembered by critics as one terrific epical battle. The rematch, in early 1934, was likewise very close, and Somphong managed to clinch a draw, at Suan Sanuk. Thereafter, both went separate ways abroad to campaign in pro boxing, which was a premier spectator sport on the international scene. Samarn fought in Penang and Burma, raking up a record of 9-1, having lost once to Young Tarley, but won the rematch. His last oversea outing was a knockout victory, in four rounds, against George Goudie, lightweight champion of Burma, on 14 October, 1935. Samarn’s ring savvy was so tantalizing that the media in Penang had given him the rather adorable title “Gentleman of Siam”. Somphong’s overseas campaign was just as enviable. A 10-1 record in Singapore (Asia’s most popular boxing hub right up to the 50’s), all against proven pugilists on the international circuit speaks for itself. His last outing was a kayo over Japanese champion Yoshio Natori in four. So, when the two top fighters of the kingdom were set to meet again, for the third time, it was national news, for the question after the two bitter battles had remained to be decided – Which of the two was the best fighter in Siam? So we have two of the best Muay Thai fighters in Thailand, arch rivals, facing off after each has also been a dominant professional boxer in the Southeast Asian boxing circuit. The two fighters embody, one could say, the acme of the sport as it was in relation to its modern inception in dialogue with Western Boxing. They are Muay Thai fighters and boxers. How would they fight? The fight is a remarkable document of the relationship between Western Boxing and Muay Thai in early modern Thailand. It's boxing influence is visibly pronounced. And, there is telltale Muay Boran presence as well. In my film-study edit of the style of Sarman Dilokvilas you can see the boxing footwork, the slips, the jabs, the angle taking, but also the reverse elbows, the throws, the spins, stance switching. It is an amalgam. There are some problems with the footage that I discovered in frame by frame study. The first of course is that it isn't' continuous. It has been edited to capture the "action". And, given the rest of the archive film, and its purpose, this seems likely done by someone who wasn't particularly knowledgeable about fighting (at least by class). This to me means the cut of the film itself probably left out a great deal of the art of fighting, the distance taking, the manipulation of tempo, moments of defense or delay. It presents a very clashy fight. It may have been like that, but editing is a powerful aesthetic tool, and to properly edit a fight take a knowledgeable eye. This is to say, this footage in my view likely suffers some from the same interpretative problems as Newsreel footage. Compounding this problem, the edit itself reuses action sequences, repeating them at different times in the fight, sometimes cutting them into different rounds. I started documenting these by timestamp, but as their number grew I just left it to another day. This just adds to the artificially constructed, and perhaps mis-representational nature of the film, not something that would be immediately apparent. above an example of many repeated action sequences This being said, there is still a lot left on the bone. Lots of techniques and exchange moments. Editing these clash-like exchanges into quick repetitions and a slow motion copy (the video at the top of this post) is to help reveal both their technical nature and to capture their rhythms (removing them from the master, original film edit, whatever it's intention). It seeks to catalogue the fighting techniques of Samarn Dilokvilas, who purportedly was the best Muay Thai fighter in Thailand. How much of a window into the state of 1930's Muay Thai does this fight between Samarn Dilokvilas and Somphong Vejasidh give us? These are both fighters who moved to the professional, international boxing circuit after dominating Thailand's Muay Thai, to great acclaim (mirroring the career patterns of later World Boxing Champions Saensak in the 1970s, Samart, Samson, Weerapol in the 1980s and 90s). They fight with a boxing influence. Sarman on the bag looks like a boxer, again: Did much of Thailand's Muay Thai reflect this? Or was this pocketed knowledge. A small piece of evidence toward understanding this is also found in the archive film. There is another fight in the footage, also edited for action (also with duplicated sequence cuts). It looks like it was a pre-fight show the day before the big fight. You can see that the rope configuration is different, with only two ropes instead of three. So these fighters may very well be important Muay Thai fighters in the Pattani (southern Thailand) scene. While the Sarman vs Somphong fight edit features very little clinch or grappling, this fight as it was edited is almost completely clinch and grappling, peppered with clashing entry strikes. Clinch breaks are still very quick, there is little fighting for position, but we really don't know how much this presentation has been manipulated by the editor of the footage. He might very well have liked to produce a contrast between the two fights, aesthetically, and may have cut out a lot of the art of the fight as boring to non-fight fans. Early Modern Muay Thai and Grappling How much clinch or even grappling (with a possible Judo influence?) was in Thailand's Early Modern Muay Thai is an interesting question. A 1922 Australian news report says that while throws are permitted, clinching is not, while it is unclear how clinch. This possible prelim fight which is filled with grappling-type action is perhaps the best evidence for the role grappling played in some Muay Thai contests in this era. Here is a slow motion edit of those clash entry grappling exchanges, as well as the complete archive footage of the fight: Conclusion What we are left with are two Muay Thai fights, one that features two of the best in Thailand which is quite boxing heavy in style, and the the other a possible prelim fight that is predominately grappling and clash entries. Two very different "Muay Thais". My own suspicion is that Muay Thai in the 1920s-1940s was very eclectic. When the railroads were built in the first decades of the 1900s the diverse knowledge of provincial Muay Thai and its fighting styles were suddenly becoming more connected. Chiang Mai and Lampang fighters could much more readily fight fighters of Pattani and Nakhon si Thammart in the South, or Khorat in Issan. The melting pot of the railroads, nexus'd in Bangkok, but actually in various hubs (this significant fight was in Pattani) must have produced a great influx of new fight knowledge, with styles interacting with styles. It is notable that the symbol of modernization, the train, features prominently in the film, and there are no Thai "wais" in that footage. Everyone is shaking hands proudly in a Western manner. Modernization. If we add in that Bangkok itself, the heart of Thailand's modernization and growing Nationalism, Boxing in part a symbol this internationalizing standard, at first by the King himself and other royal elites, but then systematically within the Thai government, police and civil service. Thailand was encircled by a Southeast Asian professional boxing circuit, born of regional colonialism, in Burma, Singapore, the Philippines, and international boxing surely represented the world standard of fighting within Thailand. It was honorific for Thailand's Muay Thai fighters to succeed in the Southeast Asian circuit, and Thai fighters likely successfully boxed abroad before even the turn of the century. In thinking about the state of Thailand's Muay Thai in the 1930s we must consider these flows of people, from the provinces into Bangkok via railroad, the outward international interaction with the Southeast Asian boxing circuit, and place that Boxing held in the royal and government concept of modernization itself. At this time Muay Thai was rich, eclectic and evolving, full of cross-influences, but also likely held areas of strong resistance, local knowledge bases which preserved and hardened themselves in terms of identity. It was as true mixed martial art ecology of fighting.

add in, some historical detail on the mandalas of power in the early Ayutthaya period, referenced further up: Victor Lieberman - Strange Parallels_ Volume 1, Integration on the Mainland_ Southeast Asia in Global Context, c. 800-1830

Continuing a bit with my footnotes and further reading, here is an interesting passage which speaks to the head hunting practice in the Philippines (a practice that is thought to be a warfare logic that was fairly common in pre- and early history mainland SEA, though becoming marginal in the rise of the city state), something that I've discussed in my treatment of the logic of Soul Stuff. from Some Comparative Thoughts on Premodern Southeast Asian Warfare Victor Lieberman Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 46, No. 2, Aspects of Warfare in Premodern Southeast Asia (2003), pp. 215-225 (11 pages) V. Lieberman rightly points out that SEA in the Anthony Reid hypothesis, faces a counter logic in its own history of warfare, and interrogates it with a series of prospective questions.

Thank you so much for reading the somewhat dense material. I do feel its an important conceptual adjustment we have to make if we are going to picture the nature of warfare and contest in Southeast Asia & Siam in particular. I hope you enjoy the rest of what you read.

Continuing from the article above, The primary result of warfare in Siam was that a village, a tow, wld be marched as slave labor en masse to a new location in proximity to the victor's land. There were constant forced migrations that often involved harsh marches. This is 1 reason why warfare could involve evasion. For this reason capture & surrender often involved strategic assessment from the nobility, towns caught between major powers. Escape into the forests was a option for the common folk. The conclusion paints a vivid picture of the kinds of choices that faced the towns and villages that would be relocated to the Chiangmai region of Lanna. Continuous warfare instability, famine, tigers and bandits.

More footnotes on the prominent role of slave capture and resettlement, restating the broad thesis and picking historical examples, from Volker Grabowsky FORCED RESETTLEMENT CAMPAIGNS IN NORTHERN THAILAND DURING THE EARLY BANGKOK PERIOD*

Thank you so much! Glad you are getting a lot out of the material. Your trip sounds fantastic, and you've picked some great mentors to train with. I don't know much about the private training situations, but I do think with Burklerk you should stay with whatever accommodations he has as Lampang can be spread out. And Sagat isn't at 13 Coins which closed a while ago. He trains privately in various gyms, often at Jaroenthong's gym in BKK. Sylvie helps book privates for him. I suggest contacting her through Instagram.

It's awesome to hear you studying the fights of Chamuakpet. I haven't looked at them closely in a while so I couldn't say, but I like your idea that he's tracking the openside with his knee. Karuhat's switches seemed to be score relevant, closing the openside when he had the lead, etc.

footnotes. More on the transitory, seasonal migration of culture in SEA. Not only the patterns of tradewinds, but also large scale slave captures in warfare. Not only was there a continuous cultural mix from external cultures, slave warfare was constantly stirring the influences within SEA itself. "Southeast Asian Slavery and Slave‐Gathering Warfare as a Vector for Cultural Transmission: The Case of Burma and Thailand" (2009) and then a restatement of the Anthony Reid thesis with detail on slave management by skill:

More footnotes to the thesis that war was essentially labor capture, and that this was extremely wide spread. In the 1830s Chiang Mai (region) population was reported to be 3/4s comprised of war slaves. from "Of Corvee and Slavery: Historical Intricacies of the Division of Labor and State Power in Northern Thailand", Katherine Bowie

In interested in the principle of Soul Stuff, as expressed in religious/spiritual/political terms, this article on Barami, and the reforms that the first monarchs of Bangkok Siam made is an excellent, detailed capture, if you wade through the historical details. The King viewed as embodying, or pursuing the Ten Perfections: THE VESSANTARA JATAKA, BARAMI, AND THE BODHISATTA-KINGS: The Origin and Spread of a Thai Concept of Power << JSTOR This royal, rarefied bodhisattva Buddhistic Barami is, I believe, connected to the much older martial Barami of Kings and chieftains, which finds itself expressed in culturally still through the values of charisma, and in Muay Thai still. From the introductory paragraphs: And from the conclusion:

Just part of footnoting, some details on the issue of manpower in Siam, a notably under-populated region, from The organization of Thai society in the early Bangkok period, 1782-1873.

and later from "Siam’s Colonial Conditions and the Birth of Thai History" Thongchai Winichakul A bit more support of the notion that Siamese battles were personified moral contests, at least from the historical perspective. Further up in this thread this is discussed in terms of representational, ritualistic combat, a logic of combat that at least to me likely played out on the local level of betting, provisional Muay Thai over centuries: combatant as substantive representative for a community or clan. For more thoughts in this direction see, this theory on the Spiritual logic of Thailand's Muay Thai:

There is a really good 2+ hour video in the Muay Thai Library project which documents the legend Karuhat deciding to switch Sylvie from orthodox to Southpaw. It shows you how he did it, and talks about the reasons why he did it. It's really good: Karuhat was a switching fighter, one of the best, so some of this is just his own ability to step into southpaw, but he was trying to solve specific things in Sylvie's style. She ended up fighting for about a year and a half in Southpaw before switching back. I think its great, honestly. I prefer her as a southpaw fighter. She eats up space a little bit more, is much stronger up front, and kicks better. The problem with most moves to Southpaw is that offensive weapons may very well improve, but defense will suffer until fully developed, so in fights the comfort level might not be there for a long time. Generally though, if you feel better in southpaw that is a huge reason to go that way. And, southpaws have natural advantages in most matchups, you automatically gain those.

If interested in other examples of differing martial logics, these two videos by S.C.M. Paine who teaches at the Naval War College, on her theory of Continental (occupy) vs Maritime (trade) Empires may be worth listening to. I found them fascinating. She repeats her theory in each, the second one is a Q&A with more emphasis on contemporary events and is probably more engaging. The Geopolitics and History of Continental and Maritime Power - S.C.M. Paine (2 years ago) Sarah C. M. Paine - WW2, Taiwan, Ukraine, & Maritime vs Continental Powers (new) Her theory of empires is perhaps related to these historical questions about Siam & mainland warfare (there have have been informative debates over whether early Siamese empires were land oriented or maritime), but her theory does not explicitly map onto the land vs labor analysis. A dialogue between these two frameworks would be interesting.

A View from 270+ Fights Losing feels invariably bad and I do think there are some very profound reasons for this, but it also can be understood as so much more, especially in the service of growing as a fighter, or in support of the development of fighters. And, I do not mean this in the kinds of hyperpositive truisms that get passed around like "You win or your learn". I mean this in the sense of thinking of fighting as a personal path towards whole person nurture, the idea that fighting is an art, and fighters are in some very real and important sense artists, which is to say, creators. Their canvas is their bodies, their emotions, human instincts, the ring and the ropes, the opponents they face, the 1,000s of hours, but they are growing something, becoming something. They aren't just "winning" something. It's from seeing fighters as doing something with their Life Force, however you want to define it: anything from spiritual "woo" to just material energy. Some of these reflections came out of Sylvie's last fight against a fighter that many who surrounded her felt she should have beat. There was 5 kg between then, sure, but there was this expectation. In my view, it was really just a small technical issue, that if solved would have produced a very different outcome, but it was a close enough fight and very easily could just go to "water under the bridge" for a fighter who has fought 260+ times. Fighting, we've always understood, is a process. It's part of training. But this time I had a different set of thoughts. Losing is like pruning. We like to think of fighters on a very broad arc of development. They learn, they strengthen, they reach a period of peaking, then they decline. And because of this we try to create this peak middle level part of the arc and really extend and push for it. We imagine a period of extended growth that we just keep magnifying, improvement upon improvement, like a bush that just keeps flowering and flowering over and over again, every minute there is a flower, a state of constant bloom (much like how we see economic booms in the world)...until it suddenly doesn't. I'd like to invite a different conception, something that changes our ideas about losses. Now, believe me I'm no gardener, but we bought this plant, some call a Desert Rose, sold on the side of the road when we were driving through Isaan after a fight. Karuhat was with us and he told us that the Thai name meant something like "show stopper" because its blossoms are so stunning they gather a crowd around them (if I get that right). We've since had a little trouble in its care, reading up on it quite a bit, never being gardeners ourselves (that's its first bloom coming in above). In any case, one of the things we've run into - and of course actual gardeners are very familiar with this - is that flowering plants need to be pruned (or sometimes pinched), in order to flower better, more completely. The cutting back on the growth of the plant at certain stages, in certain places, allows it to direct its life-forces towards the next blossoms. And cutting away a blossom after it has reached its peak ("deadheading") also will further its future flowers. You do not hang onto blossoms after they've bloomed, and a plant does not just blossom richly if you just let it grow however it wants. There is no natural state of blossom on blossom-ness. Flowering plants need to be cut back, if we are moving towards a particular aesthetic. This is what losing it. It is an involuntary cutting back of the plant. It hurts. The plant suffers (it is injured). It is not "learning" so much as it is redirecting its energies, no longer in that direction. We picture things like undefeated records, or even winning streaks as a good thing, but one of the interesting things about Thailand's Muay Thai is that even legends of the sport experienced extensive losing (because fighters always were forced into matchups that gamblers wanted to bet on). Fighters would be forced up in weight, or be forced to face opponents that gave them trouble, if they had a winning streak. And any extended winning streak was a kind of artificial creation, something accomplished because fighters had excessive political control over who their opponents were. After a brief stretch those streaks often ended a career. The weave of fighting involves losses. When you fight well over 260 fights you see deeper patterns. You see progress and valleys, you see aspects of a fighter or matchups strengthen or weaken over time, and training or promotions shift. But, in considering the nature of losing itself it seems much more apt to think of it as a pruning process, the cutting away of a plant to make way for the possibilities of flowers. Now, a plant can definitely be cut back too harshly. You might cut into a plant's capacity to grow and support itself, but, in a deeper way in order to flourish a flowering plant needs to be cut into. There isn't really a "natural" uninterrupted continuously amplified growth to flower. We need to think in terms of cycles, and energies, pathways to growth, even in fight careers that last 10 fights, or 20, and not 100. We've always felt that if you are facing the right kinds of opponents you should be losing 20-30% of your fights, if your aim is to become the best fighter you could possibly be (and not just to be "top dog" of a pool of fighters in some way, which can also be important). This insight unto pruning gives greater sense to this instinct we've always had. Losing, in the right portion, at the right time, is productive. It's part of the redirection of the plant toward flowering. Its one reason we've also said that fighting a lot is really important too, because it taps you into these different deeper cycles. If you are fighting rarely this meaning, this use of pruning loses its context. It moves fighting into other processes, other meanings. As an artist in development, the plant moves through stages, and these stages cycle through. It isn't just flower after flower. And the plant likely lives and blooms through many more cycles than one might imagine, if you just think in terms of one defining arc of performance. And, there is pruning in training. There is pruning in the work.

Here is a Thai TV piece on Beetle Fighting featuring $100 prized Beetles (they have very short life spans). You can see the Beetles in action:

Totally. It's really all the fabric of the culture that holds Muay Thai together, and which made it become a sport (art). Every signification in the ring has some meaning. And I suspect Thais (Siamese) have been betting on ring Muay Thai for 500+ years, much longer than modern nations have been around. The roots of it run very deep in the culture.

To add a bit of the anecdotal from our own lives. Two brief vignettes. We were driving back to Pattaya passing through lots of rural land by Ubon, sprawling fields of rice clustered with Ox or cow, very very verdant. It just feels like another time out here. Karuhat is in the car and we are talking about Muay Thai, and about the land here. Karuhat somewhat spontaneously talks about the culture of the land. He says that out here people just tend and and take care of animals. His gestures and body language say how simple and natural it feels to him. This is a way of life. Karuhat lives in the bustling center of Bangkok, and prefers it that way, but he is wistful in that moment, and even says that he would like to live not far from a highway and take care of plants and animals. There is a distinct ecological, romantic picture of this mode of living. The second one is from Sylvie and her sparring with Yodkhunpon, the Elbow Hunter. They talks between rounds and she asks him what this particular food she kept seeing signs on the highway for, way up in Isaan. He tells her that its Ox placenta, it comes in season, and it isn't food. It's used in a preparation. He then says: They used to know how to prepare it, now they don't. And, as an aside he says "they used to know how to prepare Muay Thai" also. There was a parallel of a feeling of a lost knowledge connected to a more ecological way of the past. Yes, if they are selling the placenta people are using it, but perhaps there is a sense that even that knowledge is disappearing, just as the preparations of Muay Thai are disappearing.

These are previous reflections on Ruup which dovetail some with the themes above: