Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu

Karuhat's First Fight vs Hippy above, the video of the fight Study of the Fight I made the comprehensive fight video database so I could watch all of Karuhat's fight videos chronologically, and study them for myself. He's just such an extraordinary fighter, and we're so fortunate to know him over these years, it seemed that something like this is what I should do. I'm not speaking as an authority, only an informed enthusiast, and sharing my notes - things I've learned from filming and documenting him for perhaps more than 50 hours, filming and documenting the Muay Thai Library and in much discussion with Sylvie. note: see at bottom my notes on the fight date and whether it was for a Lumpinee Championship My Notes: Karuhat vs Hippy - June 24, 1988 This really truly is an extraordinary fight, one of the best documented in Thailand's Muay Thai. Two young, small, incredibly fast fighters who would become iconic to the Golden Age of Muay Thai, meeting for the first time. And all of their speed and skill is apparent, despite the being only 20 and not yet at their prime. Round 1 Hippy told us that he felt like Karuhat underestimated him in their fight fight at 105 lbs. He didn't feel respected. They were about the same age, Hippy slightly older, both at the age of 20. Hippy was already likely becoming a gate-keeper at the lower weight classes, an in his career rising legends would have to pass through his excellence at the weight. Like Karuhat he was very small even when fully adult. Karuhat must have felt confident in size at 105 (if indeed they are fighting at 105, which lore seems to say they are)...they would fight again two months later at 108 which would have been a concession to Karuhat. You can feel that immediately Hippy wants to set the respect tone. The first round is marked by lots of high kicks, head kicks, and both fighters exchanging aggressive plows and walk-overs. Its a pissing contest right off. The first round is a round of asserted dominance and self-respect. Round 2 The space became more compressed in this round, with Karuhat bringing the sharpened femeu attack, several contested exchanges, one with Karuhat driving Hippy into the ropes (but unable to land a decisive scoring blow), one with Hippy able to kick Karuhat to the ground, off a caught kick. Round 3 Having watched the first two rounds I was really looking forward to Round 3. Hippy got his respect in the round 1 high kick battle, and then got the edge by putting Karuhat down in Round 2, in an otherwise very femeu exchange round. What would Karuhat pull out to step up his game? Was Hippy still holding another gear in reserve? The round is all drama. Hippy puts Karuhat down catching his kick. You never want to go to the canvas, especially as a femeu fighter. Karuhat steps on the gas, catches Hippy's kick in return and driving him along the rope, he has to get that point back. Hippy pulls out an extraordinary skateboarder carve along the rope saving himself, forcing Karuhat to smile and nod. It's a huge moment. The whole question was whether Hippy, one of the fastest fighters in Thailand, could handle Karuhat's acceleration of his game. It feels like the fight is decided right there and then. Hippy then catches Karuhat's kick and puts him back on the canvas, a big redoubling. Karuhat works a femeu exchange using the Saenchai shuffle (not sure I've noticed him doing that before), leaving his artful calling card, but the round was Hippy's. Round 4 Karuhat decides that because stepping on the gas didn't work he goes to challenge Hippy's speed. It's a round full of kick battle scrimishes, kick and tap backs designed to score small points and show of skills. It's a very good skill show, Karuhat winning a few of them, but after round 3 these feel like small points. Karuhat is toying with the idea of trying to win the fight on style, but Hippy is super fast. Round 5 In watching round 4 I'm left wondering, Does Karuhat have anything more in his bag? I'm not sure the stuff of 4 could win this fight. The fight itself feels like its Hippy standing his ground as a top 105 lb fighter. Karuhat comes out in the round as if he has the style lead, but then make a big, dramatic plow of Hippy across the whole ring, but misses the big payoff kick. Playing it cool only had lasted a few seconds, he takes a big swing at Hippy and that miss is big. Hippy's face on the miss is hilarious. A few more misses and Hippy checks and an oddly joyous end. In terms of the study of Karuhat's style, this first fight was a fight of momentum and varied attacks. In Hippy Karuhat is facing someone supremely fast and quite femeu and athletic. There was a lot of Karuhat changing the dial, and Hippy matching him technique for technique, style change for style change. It all came down to particular momentum windows where Karuhat looked to impress himself, big plow moments, or big strike attempts that Hippy was able to escape from. By round 4 Karuhat tried to technique the fight, but he still needed big moments. In another sense, this was a battle of charisma fighters, and Hippy had the sanae to stay with and surpass Karuhat at age 20. A Super Edit of the Fight This is a Super Edit I made of the fight, just scrubbing through the footage and identifying themes and strategies as I saw them. It's my kind of film editing note-taking of the fight: note: this fight has been adjusted from the Wikipedia page of Karuhat's (and Hippy's) record, based on what both Karuhat and Hippy have told us. Hippy specifically says that they fought only 3 times, and his record against Karuhat was 2-1 in those fights. The Wikipedia record records 4 fights, and has the date of this first fight in year (no day or month) 1987, while adding a second fight with the specific date of June 24th, 1988. Hippy says that the rematch of this fight happened within 2 or 3 months (and not a year), a quick rematch being something OneSongChai favored as a promoter, which means most likely this fight occurred on June 24th, 1988. I'm not sure which date is correct, but it seemed best to correct toward this date. There is evidence that the account is still not correct, as Wikipedia (and we ourselves in the past) says that this fight was for the 105 lb Lumpinee Belt, but at the end of Lumpinee belt fights the score is read first before the winner is declared, and in video you'd typically see the belt being put on. Neither thing happens at the end of this fight, so it is more likely that this fight was not for the 105 lb belt. Both Wikipedia and Hippy say it was for the 105 lb belt. It could have been for the belt but the belt customs were not part of this for some reason, or the belt is just part of the lore of this fight somehow, but I've adjusted the record to reflect the 1988 date, and not included the belt, as per video evidence. A further complication in dating this fight is that the OneSongChai video places the date of this fight in the Thai date of 2532 (1989), which does not seem possible according to other accounts and records. In going through Karuhat's record I've seen other apparently OneSongChai discrepancies, so perhaps that was another one. In any case we are pretty sure that this is their first fight, and that in 2 months they would rematch for a fight that is for a Lumpinee Belt (you can see the belt in the victory pose of that video). Here is personal communication in which Hippy says there were 2-3 months between their first and second fights, as as a matter of documentation:

For convenience I also put together a spreadsheet of only Karuhat's video recorded fights. You can find that here, with hyperlinks: A Complete List of Karuhat's Video Recorded Fights Here are screencaps of that:

If you sign up to the forum you can subscribe to this topic and get email alerts of new posts and information. I want to start to lay the groundwork for a complete study of the fighting style, technique and fights of Karuhat Sor. Supawan, one of the most sublime fighters Thailand ever had. Not only have we in the Muay Thai Library & other projects been able to document his style, as he exhibits it and has reflected on it in present day (you can see links to all of our documentation here, probably totally over 50 hours) the video record of his fights is one of the most robust in Thailand's Golden Age. We've known Karuhat for a long time now, and studied and awed over his fight videos, but somehow it never all came together just how many of his fights are out there. They seem like they are spread about and didn't relate to each other. We had put together a playlist of his fights and other videos, but it still felt very inconcordant. It wasn't until marvelous people started putting together very detailed Wikipedia record entries for the Golden Age fighters of Thailand (yes, only a few years ago there was almost nothing, this is yeoman's work) that his career started to take more comprehensive shape. When he fought and beat or lost to someone could be understood in the context of other fights. Part of this came out of my desire to just sit down and study his fights from earliest to latest, but realizing that there was no way to do it. The thing to do, as a resource, was to align his fight videos to his record. Again, I'm so thankful to those of Wikipedia who have assembled a fairly detailed record for Karuhat, for this next step couldn't be done without it. Here is Karuhat's record of all of the so-far documented fights with hyperlinks to videos of the fights that exist. There are 35 videos in all out of his 100 documented fights. I've reversed the order of the record, from earliest to latest, just because this is a tool for my own study and the Wiki standard of running it in reverse just is jarring to me. If you click the spreadsheet word "watch" you'll be taken to the video as it exists out there in the world. (Some videos can't be included in playlists.) Here is the list in screencap form, just for convenience of browsing it. The fights with videos are bolded, and I'm starting from the first video watch which is his first fight vs Hippy. I've also included his age for fights. Karuhat tells us in this interview that he started pretty late (in Thai standards) in Muay Thai, fighting his first fight at the age of 16 with zero training. He had his first fight when he was 16. Started training and fought Hippy for the 108 lb Lumpinee title in about 4 years. A true prodigy. He would win his first Lumpinee title (112 lbs) vs Pairojnoi by the time he was 21. Again, go to the spreadsheet where the WATCH hyperlink is clickable to see those fights. I made this spreadsheet originally for myself, as I want to begin studying Karuhat from first fight to last. But, as I started putting it together I realized just how bit a resource it is. Part of the difficulty is assessing the fighters of the Golden Age of Muay Thai, aside from the language barrier, is that we don't have narrative pictures of fight careers, like we do for great Western Boxers. What made Ali great wasn't this incredible performance or that, but really the story of his career, and the way fights were fought in succession, in development, in comeback, etc. With the new Wikipedia detailed entries we are starting to get the first aspect of that. But, the video record of many fighters is sparse. Many know the greatness of Samart from highlight videos, but far fewer realize that we have no video from Samart's prime, which is what really made his so acclaimed. He is still widely considering the greatest who ever fought, but we have little sense of Samart in his actual prime. In the case of Karuhat, his video record was rather rich. As mentioned we have by my count video of 35 fights, out of the 100 documented fights of Karuhat, a sizeable archive. In building this database there still are probably errors and corrections needed, so please if you find something to add or correct please do! You can message me on this forum. Some of the dates (matching the video to specific fights) was done through discussion with Karuhat, but that process also may have a fallible memory. Any additional information or hypothesis is welcome. Notes: A few interesting things were discovered in putting this together. Both Hippy and Karuhat disagreed about their record against each other and the Wikipedia record. Hippy says they only fought three times. Karuhat says four times, including a draw (the draw may be the show fight they recently fought?). The Wikipedia instead has a record of 3-1 for Hippy. Hippy says that the 108 lb belt fight occurred only 2 or 3 months after their first fight, so I've removed the 1987 "first first" from the record as Wiki has it. Hippy is pretty adamant about only fighting 3 times, and that the fight before the 108 lb belt fights was a short time before. He explains that this was a OneSongChai predilection, to offer very quick rematches on notable losses, so fighters could reclaim their name/form. Also in listening to the video of Karuhat's final victory vs Chatchai it seems that this was his second title defense of his 122 lb Lumpinee belt, a notable defense to add to his accomplishments, before he lost his belt to Wangchannoi. Quite a run he had there. He beats Chatchai for the belt in December of 1993. In January he fights the impossible Wangchannoi. Has to defend his belt vs Boonlai (does so, a shame we don't have that video), then he has to defend it against Chatchai in March (does so), than is forced to defend it in April vs Wangchannoi (loses it). You can see it below: The 122 lb belt in the early 1990s was on fire, the whole division was jammed with talent. Part of the reason for this is that the 118 lb weight class was run by different promotions. These were all OneSongChai fighters. So all the 118 lb big names with OneSongChai were forced up into 122. But, Karuhat was even small for 118. So he was really fighting up, up at 122 lb. Importantly though, powerful gyms and connections could protect fighters, and find them favorable match ups. A fighter from a powerful gym or connections could hold a belt for a while, even a a long time, this way. Karuhat did not have the political power to force favorable match up (something to consider in any GOAT conversation). He won that belt and was put right into the meat grinder, and had lost it by April. He would win it again a year later vs Meechok. These are the things that come out when we put the video together with the record. Wishlist fight videos for me are: his final Bangkok fight and victory vs Silapathai at the age of 27. Silapathai was just such a wizard, we have only one fight preserved between them. Karuhat was 1-1; and Karuhat's title defense against Boonlai who was so deft (but had significant size on Karuhat); Karuhat's lone victory vs Boonlai (1-3); also Karuhat's loss vs Lamnamoon in 1993, his win vs Kaensak in 1988, his win vs Weeapol in the same year would be beautiful to see. That being said, it is special that we have so much of Karuhat's career coming together, as of other great fighters of the era we are not so fortunate.

I'd add here, more generally, to hear of your excitement for photographing what you'll be experiencing is awesome. Just as a personal observation, in our day and age when phones take better and better photographs, and images become more ubiquitous, in order for photography to go beyond this and separate itself out you want to move into a different kind of experience. For me the Fujifilm approach to design moves you as far as possible from the phone snapping photo. You feel in your hand a certain kind of designed thing, or at least I do. And, the lenses have distinctive character and traits. The camera and using it has qualities. So in a certain sense, if you are moving away from a high end phone (which is also an option), you want to feel a the camera, and its lenses differently than you would if you had a flat rectangle in your hands, otherwise just shoot the phone which can be quite capable. For me, the Fuji experience combined with moving the photos for edit into a program like Lightroom Classic was a big artistic difference. It felt like choices were being made. But...this probably moves you well past your ideal budget of $1000. A good phone is going to have image stabilization for video, pretty decent low-light performance, and even some high pixel files. If you are spending the money to move away from a phone you have to think about all the whys you are doing that, and find a way to tap into those whys. edit in: I'm not actually putting down phone photography in this, just to be clear. With improved specs, some subtle computational advancements, and the big convenience of just having it with you so much (which can impact your subject matter and process), a phone is really also an interesting option. I'm just saying that if you are going to shun the very capable phone (which can create its own artistic options) then its probably good to think about all the ways in which one moves away from what the phone offers.

I'm not really experienced with cameras outside of the few I've owned from Fujifilm, but I'm super in love with them. It's not a camera that I've owned, but I've had similar, maybe the Fujifilm X-T30 II would be something to look into. It has a good sensor, shoots 4K video, and gets you into the X-series lenses, which are great. I'm not sure what focal length you have in mind, but the Fujinon F XF 16MM.F2.8 R WR is a great, somewhat fast wide lens for coverage, and the XF 56 mm F1.2 R WR is absolutely gorgeous, and very fast for any mid-portraiture. You'd have options to work up in lenses in the future if you chose, though this would put you over budget. If I recall the kit zoom lens was solid. I love the old school camera design of the x-series cameras. They also make a Fujifilm X-S10 with a deeper, more modern grip (and image stabilization). Fuji generally has very classic design approaches, with physical knobs that turn, a throw back feel for the camera which I really like. I'm not really a photograph through a screen guy, and don't enjoy touch controls. Once you settle in its enjoyable to shoot. But, if its just specks vs specks I'm sure other makers like Sony would have strong offerings. For me its Fuji for design, its reputation for color, and the X-series lenses. edit in: I've had the Fujifilm Fujifilm X-T3 and X-T4. These were the cameras I really loved. The models have gone up to X-T5 now, so maybe you could get either of them at a decent price. I really love the X-T4. It's a very strong camera.

I don't think so. We've been pretty much told over and over that no Thai in the country around Sylvie's weight will fight her, so unless they were fighting a few years before we've lost touch with some of the names who are active at this size.

Good catch Kristen. Looks like this is the Vietnamese fighter:

Thank you for this, its awesome to read. By our experiences a truly unique and spectacular instructor. Not only as person, a historic fighter, but just as an incredible technician, an explainer of principles, and a man of enthusiasm and passion.

My experience is that there is an absolute dearth of English language study on Thailand's Muay Thai, even broadly, but that the kinds of questions you are digging into fall into the center of the aporia. One has to really reach out into other subjects or examples of study, from other cultures...or, look for the examination of other aspects of Thai or Southeast Asian culture, and just piece together a perspective. Most of the first hand adventure tourism contacts are quite myopic, and the few more academic approaches lack direct involvement. There is no Bourdieu-like perspective that is out there. And really only Sylvie through her documentary work, and her historic fight record experiences (nearly 300 fights), even brings the material for making such a perspective...though that isn't her intent.

Yes, its a radically different kind of conception. The Western sport concept of "fair" is the elimination of outside influence and largely a question of measurement or tabulation. The best description I've found of Thai (festival style) fight gambling logic, in the literature, was Clifford Geertz's classic study of Balinese Cockfighting. This mapped very well onto things we've experienced. I attach that essay in this post: I talk about the Thai gambling reality of "other minds" and outside forces beyond the ring in this speculative post, which pulls in the necessary connection to powers beyond the ropes: The concept of merit earning though, I think, has to be central.

Agree. It's very hard to find a Baby Bear. Most everyone who enters the "alien" environment as an uninitiated is overwhelmed with their own experiences. Quite honestly the best - though never formalized as academic - work, ethnographic work is probably Sylvie's writing itself.

Sylvie's thoughts on masculinity and monkhood in Peter Vail's dissertation chapter are pretty good: https://8limbsus.com/blog/thai-masculinity-postioning-nak-muay-between-monkhood-and-nak-leng-peter-vail

To me, most of this understanding is to be found in the social form of the kaimuay. This has great variability, but as family space, the pseudo-orphanage, the novice monk parallel, the "camp" in all of its forms captures the meaning of Muay Thai as a social practice and a subject-conditioning context. But there is very little of value written about this. Maybe the "best" (?) isn't Muay Thai or the same culture at all, Loic Wacquant - Body & Soul_ Notebooks of an Apprentice Boxer (2003)

Agree. It's incredibly under researched and investigated.

Can you flesh this out at all? Everyday meanings? Performed in what sense?

Nah, I don't really think it is that, at least in the way that we think of Boran now, like a lost form of archaic Muay Thai. In general there has been an increasing pressure from gambler interests to reduce risk-taking moves. This has resulted in fewer and fewer techniques being seen in the ring (it has been said). Maybe there was a sense that they wanted to stimulate more risk-taking, more technical skills being shown (but not necessarily because they were older). I don't think the bonus techniques were all Boran (Older), maybe just more varied. But as far as we heard not many fighters really pursued these bonuses in an effective way.

I'm sure you've run into Peter Vail's work as he has several things to say about Muay Thai and its image building. I've specultatively written a lot on these subjects, but perhaps in aspects that would not be helpful. You can find my studies here: https://8limbsus.com/muay-thai-forum/forum/23-kevins-corner-muay-thai-philosophy-ethics/ As to your specific questions I think we have only very surface answers. There was a Lumpinee bonus policy (and a sign in the locker room) for specific technique knockouts. But we don't have details on those (it seems it wasn't much of an incentive.) Not sure about Rajadamnern. I think Channel 7 had bonuses, but not sure. These may have not been mostly Boran techniques. Sorry, these are just things we've run into in passing. And yes we are told that Muay Thai is part of the physical education in school. None of this information is established or detailed enough though to include in a study, unfortunately.

This is probably far afield, but reading your thoughts brought to mind this thread I did on how Thailand's rigors of training, the very shape of its hyper-masculine practice, support a kind of trans- experience for Westerners. Lots of sociology and theory in this thread, but who knows it might connect up with other thoughts:

The above is a kind of rough hypothesis, joining together broad brush issues of social mobility in traditional culture, Buddhistic cultivation of the proper affects, and the aesthetics of meaningful fighting in the culture. Along these same lines one could consider the traditional role of Muay Khao in the Muay Khao vs Muay Femeu dynamic. This could be considered a Bull vs Matador aesthetic, which I've argued expresses a deeper aesthetic dyad (the divinity vs the animality dyad). In thinking about social mobility within the culture, and the socio-economic factor in fighting style, it needs to be noted that the "femeu" fighter is often associated with the sophistication of the Capital of Bangkok (even though some provincial centers like Khon Kaen have produced a great number of Femeu fighters, Karuhat, Somrak, Pudpadnoi, etc), and Muay Khao, a style pridefully expressive of physical endurance, strength and a spirit of persistence, is strongly associated with rural life and the provinces. The classic Muay Khao vs Muay Femeu matchup of the Golden age could be seen as a passion play of the strong-from-work farmer chasing the cultivated artful Bangkok technician. (Some Muay Khao fighters like Dieselnoi chaff against this negative stereotype, emphasizing their femeu-ness when talking about themselves, others like Samson embrace their "unbeautiful" power and endurance, as an identity.) Within this matchup there is a cultural weighting of the art of fighting toward the sophisticated Bangkok artist. Just thinking in archetypes and clinches, the chasing Muay Khao fighter can be depicted as low "IQ", "just strong" and any number of class related pictures. (We have these same class divisions in America, we often don't think about them. The rough-and-tumble slugger, or the guy who is only "country strong".). Just thinking about the socio-economic realities of Thailand, & even Siam, and questions of social mobility, there has always been a polarity between rural and Capital power. When the Muay Khao fighter wins, and they won quite a bit in the Golden Age of Muay Thai with pretty much half of the FOTYs going to Muay Khao fighters, its that they have overcome the built-in aesthetic bias against the chase in traditional Muay Thai. They had to prove themselves persistent enough and/or artful enough to "catch" the Femeu opponent. Perhaps no fight typified the Muay Khao fighter not catching the Femeu Bangkok Prince of Muay Thai than Namphon vs Samart 2, you can read about it here: I add this inner picture to the overall concept of Chasing in the first post. It's not that chasing is completely removed from the aesthetic in traditional Muay Thai, in fact in its Golden Age the chase was an essential component of it as many matches, most excitingly, were "chase" matches. But, because the aesthetic was tuned to favor control over chase, chasers had to raise their game. It couldn't just be pure chasing, because buried within traditional Muay Thai was the indignity of the chase. This means one chases to control, one chases in a controlled manner, one develops an ART of chasing, of stalking, so that it doesn't feel and look like chasing. It raises the skill level of the chaser, perhaps bringing more social meaning to fighting as entertainment. I think this is something that is missed in people that think about the bias in traditional Muay Thai scoring. The bias towards "not chasing" actually produced some of the greatest stalking, chasing fighters on the planet.

One of the interesting things in Michael Chaney treatment is that he specifically would like to erase the highland/lowland distinction that a lot of historians focus on. This, for instance, in Thai-Siam studies can be quite emphasized. Part of this may be that highland cultures may have had more of a penchant for aggression or violence in combat - for instance headhunting seems to have persisted in the highland regions much longer than elsewhere in mainland Southeast Asia, and in Siam-Thai ideology these peoples have been positioned as "savage", opposed to the high culture of the Capital and its halo of authority out to the foothills of the North. I don't really know the distribution of ethnicity, but have you noticed an cultural connection between highland (or lowland) Burmese and present day Lethwei? That is a very nice data point. My own intuition is that I have doubts about Muay Boran (or Lethwei) directly coming from combat itself, at least large scale combat tracing back to the 17th century, for example. My main reason for this is that practically every piece of evidence I've seen is that this kind of combat is not weaponless at all. Everyone is armed with blades, spear/lance and/or shield. I'm sure every rice farmer was very adept at using a blade for work. If there WAS a direct development of a fighting art for or from military actions it most certainly would have been a weaponed fighting art, and the shield would probably be a significant aspect of that fighting. We can make conceptual connections to how Muay Thai, Muay Boran or (I guess) Lethwei may be related to weaponed fighting...but that fact that it isn't weaponed fighting seriously undermines some of that historical picture. I could though see subduing an opponent being part of much smaller scale raiding, which would be largely focused on slave capture. I think this makes perfect sense. I think trends in culture and expression really change and can change fast, in a decade or two, and not necessarily reach back centuries. A big part of the ideological picture Thailand presents about Muay Thai is that it is the reason the Thais were never in historical fact colonized (the story that is told). Instead it is presented that a series of Kings through strategy were able to find ways to absorb Western influence & control, and retain a sense of ideological identity. [sorry, I wrote all this before I saw that you brought it up! But I'll leave it in nonetheless] In the Thai telling they "won" because they were smart and pliant before a formidable force, something they navigated with great sagacity. You can see how the two mythologies diverge (not making judgements on either). The brief (allied) Japanese occupation left a mark on Thailand, but largely there has been seldom a sense that a foreign invader had to be fought off (since the Burmese defeat of Ayutthaya, with possible exceptions of some of the 19th century slave capture revolts in the Northeast, and the fight against Communism in the 1960s-1970s, and today's insurgence in the South). Largely, Thailand has painted itself as "whole". Maybe this makes a big difference in terms of what fighting means to a culture. Much further up in the thread this is discussed in broad SEA historical view by Anthony Reid. He suggests that even the way in which SEAians thought about property, identity, wealth, was shaped by the transience of wooden houses. This flows into the idea of the perpetual possibility of retreat. Houses were not valuable. The land in a certain sense is not valuable (because fertile land is not scare, as say it is in Europe). Speaking very broadly, invaders or raiders would come, villagers would run to the forest and take all their valuables with them (wealth had to be transportable), and the village would be burned. He presents this as nearly a pan SEA pattern lasting centuries. When the Dutch came and established trading posts in, I think Jakarta?, they were forbidden from building anything with stone. Everything had to be made from wood, with the exception of the palace (and perhaps wats). In the sense or warfare and conflict, if Anthony Reid is right, then raid (and maybe burning) were a regular part of the life cycle, as was fleeing to the forest or mountains, and relocating one's village. The main point was not to be captured, and to escape with one's relative wealth (rice, valuables). Personally, I see in this transience of the abode something even of the foundations of the Buddhist conceptions of the transience of the Self. As the palace and the wat were made of stone, you have the contrastive permanence of spiritual and political authority. This is quite different than in the West where one's home/land helps constitute one's more individual identity much more. The "castle" of the Self, to which Western religions are more focused on. In any case, an interesting speculation.

Importantly, the most substantial sources on this would point to this being a mode of Southeast Asian mode warfare, and not particular to Thailand. I'm just drawing on these wider observations and applying them to what we know of Thailand's Muay Thai.

I wonder if what is being depicted is (easily) identifiable ethnic differences, rather than just a practice. I'm feeling that the tattoos, at least at this time (late 1800s) indicated a people. I believe Burma had several warring, or at least conflicting ethnicities. Thank you for following along. It is a difficult thread, as some of this is just dropping article reference, and some posts are concept building posts. What is interesting is that all of this is very likely the kind of work that just is never attempted in relationship to Muay Thai or even combat sports/arts. The story of the development of Muay Thai is often a very simple one, with very little specific anchorage in history. And in English this story just gets repeated. But, because there is very little substantive scholarship on Muay Thai, one has to bring together diverse scholarship from other fields, and attempt to piece together a picture, create a new, richer, more complex story.

The above began as a Twitter thread. It may have thoughts added to it here, or there:

I think there is a fundamental moral divide between Thai fighting and Western fighting. 1. It's undignified to chase. 2. We want to see lots of chasing. This is probably buried within the social forms of governance, ideologies of "self" and "individual", mythologies of freedom. In some sense, this is at core why Thailand's traditional Muay Thai is often unreadable and incomprehensible to the West...and why when reformulating it for Western consumption you are cutting to the very bone of the culture that produced it, and which it expresses. The moments of "violence" are very readable, especially when cut into highlights. It is visually one of the more violent appearing combat sports out there, but the very grammar of "chasing" (between the cultures), which makes up the majority of a fight, is radically different. This actually drills down into ideas about social liberty. In traditional culture you don't really have much social mobility. You are more or less confined to your station. Social power consists in creating positive relations to those in local power, not "moving up" radically. In Western Capitalism there is a glorification of the individual. "You could be anything!" "If you try really hard the market will reward you". There is the (illusion/real promise) that "chasing" will be rewarded. So, in Thailand fighting is "positioning" for control, in the West its a passion play of committed chasing and "striking it rich". There are of course significant Capitalist forces within Thailand, & there have been for some time. These forces are in tension with traditional forms. Traditional stadium Muay Thai, as a hybrid between Capitalism and Tradition, plays out its "dialectic" (not a fan of that word, but, maybe its interface). Tradition (positioning) in some regard holds the Capitalism at bay. The West of course also has traditional forms, which explains why traditional Thailand has meaning to some of the West, but the dramaturgy of a fight, "why we watch", is at least in this core way, antithetical. The appeal to new Entertainment models though, within the country, amid younger demographics, is signaling a new relationship to Capitalism, social mobility and chasing itself. When Westerners bend back toward traditional Muay Thai, they (and I'm one of them, being self-critical) it is to some degree in response to seeing how the "chase" principle of (Western) Capitalism, esp fueled by pictures of anger, frustration or rage, is not only one of self-determination. The lack of control, as when viewed from traditional postures, ultimately undermines liberty itself. In the fighting ring itself -- and this is the rub -- the lack of control actually makes you a less effective (and skilled) fighter. Fighting becomes a kind of "reality principle" in the struggle of ideologies. This of course does not prove one ideology right or wrong, each surely is seeded with great flaws. What it takes to successful win fights may not be what it takes to successfully live life, or organize lives. But it does go to the ways in which combat fighting meaningfully speaks to us, critiques our own lives, and expresses our (unconscious and often inculcated) values. This binocular vision, to chase or not to chase, plays out in the incomprehensibility of the 5th round dance off (to many). Within Thai traditional culture this is just understanding the chess match. When very behind its like a chess player conceding when they comprehend a positional surety. They see the mate, or see the material/positional situation and acknowledge that there is no win. They demonstrate their awareness by conceding. To the Westerner, guided by ideologies of "you can strike it rich!", it makes no sense. You can ALWAYS win. There are two ways of viewing this. Either the Capitalist chasing subject is relatively blind to his own checkmate, deluded by a sense of control and rage-yness, or the traditional subject is made blind to his own agency, and he really COULD knockout the opponent, but instead gives up. One can see how the affects of "chasing" and the social valuation of chasing (it is undignified vs it is freedom & vital) is played out differently for Western vs (traditional) Thai eyes.

Re-linking this thread which is a reading list of citations building out the picture of the Kingdom of Ayutthaya as cosmopolitan center of trade and mercenary forces. The Kingdom of Ayutthaya, as is presented here, was actually a Maritime Empire (despite its inland location). This thread draws out the possible influences from the South through trade, and the international presences around the city and court of Ayutthaya: