Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu

Rennesson appears a little bit rushed to conclude his article, as near the end he drops very quickly into theoretical/philosophical frameworks that outrace his previous descriptions. But, they are powerful thoughts. What he wants to embrace about Beetle Fighting is its in-determinant, stochastic nature of inter-species communication. Its the very unpredictable, but still customary and communication-rich nature of the practice of fighting, which he finds also characterizes an ecological way forward. In things that a Western mind might find repugnant in combat sport - indeterminacy, vagueness of outcome, external influence, ambiguity of cause - Rennesson sees self-organizing cybernetic loops, which circle around insect, player, gambler, and the created (performed) social form. The very stochastic nature of the fight provokes emergent properties, folding human handler and insect combatant into sensory communication, and which stimulates a social form of negotiation, interpretation and charismatic achievement. All the things we would remove from a combat event, from an idealized, Law-governed, modernist perspective, in fact thrive in the Beetle Fight...because they cannot be removed. We cannot say how much or why a beetle won its own fight. If we search for it we fall into a well of projections and speculations.

The Social Form of Thai Combat Sports One of the most difficult things to read, deeply, is the role of gambling in Muay Thai. It is far more than just entertainment. It is connected to displays of social power (capital), concepts of karma and merit, and an entire network of relations. One of the things that beetle fighting does is bring out the dimensions of combat entertainment that go against many of our Western expectations. In Beetle fighting whether a beetle even wins or loses is up for negotiation and social contest. This is quite far from Western ideals of fixed rules and transparent, impartial judgement. Instead the entire Kwaang battle is social and political, and in some cases it remains (necessarily) unclear why one beetle beat another, or even if they did. I remember having a very hard time understanding the advantages & goals of beetle fighting when we attended, but it seems that this ambiguity is somewhat baked in, and in another sense is part of a living lore of community perception. Westerners are sometimes surprised to discover that there is no actual rule book for National Stadium Muay, and that the rules are largely enacted through a "you'll know it when you see it" mutuality of knowledge. Beetle Fighting seems to take this to an extreme, and draws out this important thread of difference from other conceptions of sport. It has been very common to complain that gamblers have too big of an influence on Thailand's Muay Thai, and there is a very powerful case to be made that gambling has had a deleterious effect. Our sense of fairness, of excellence is challenged. But, its also worthy to note that in its stripped-down parallel, the winner of Kwaang Beetle Fighting tournaments it is the beetle who inspires the most confidence from gamblers that wins! Empowered gambling interests in fact define the very social form of beetle victory. This is not to say that Muay Thai is Beetle fighting, but it is to say that they are very deep and meaningful braids within Thai (and Siamese) culture which make of combat entertainment a far more complex, social battle than just which participant is better under a predefined rule-set.

What Produces A Winner? Types of Fighters (Femeu vs Muay Khao) Rennesson speaks of a kind of Ontology of Outcome, much of it perhaps in the understanding of anthropomorphistic projections, the kind of which can characterize animism. It is a braid of causal effects, some of which come from the player, some from the beetle, and some from their collaboration or mutuality. If you are familiar with the dichotomies of Muay Thai its hard not to see the basic split between Muay Khao and Muay Femeu (with all the attendant ideological and ethnic projections) upon the two types of beetles...those that are more sensate and need to be urged and controlled (for instance, there is the pejorative stereotype of the low-IQ, provincial, merely strong Muay Khao fighter who in negative caricature is "dumb like a Buffalo", the animal which pulls the plow), and the slimmer, more artful beetle, who has higher awareness and can be let to fight more freely on the log (body types do play into stereotypes of Thai masculinity and fighting styles). There is in Rennesson's report a kind of hierarchy within beetle fighting types that mirrors some of what if found, ideologically, in Thailand's Muay Thai. The Muay Femeu vs Muay Khao dichotomy, including its ideological/sociological component, is found in Rennesson's discussion of how physiogamy plays into how a fighter's fighting style is assigned (one of the best passages on Muay Thai in all of academia), in his article "Thai Boxing: Network of Polymorphous Clinch": It is conceivable that Rennesson is reading his studied observations of Thailand's Muay Thai back onto Beetle fighting, creating a correspondence, but it seems more likely that his familiarity with the culture allows him to pick up on these important thematic divisions.

We, in the West, like to see the fight ring as ONLY between two combatants. The result of a match ideally is determined by their character and the firm application of well-defined rules. This is part of our inherited metaphysics which regards the material world as (relatively) inert, organized by physical laws, and animated by wills (which are ethically judged). It's our Cartesianism. Metaphysically, I would say, the Western sport fight ideal is quite different from the Thai, gambled fight. Instead, as Beetle Fighting brings out, it is the very "ambiguity of control" which sews all participants together, including the gamblers in the audience, and the beetles themselves. It is a looped energy of communication which goes well beyond the fight stage. The patterns of convergence emerge from an event, they are co-created.

External Influence I have written about the historical aspect of Thai/Siamese gambling and the role of betting on other minds (the article dropped in just below). This is part of a larger sense, I believe, of what is happening within a gambled event is expressive of forces outside of the ring. There are many levels on which to read this influence. It's a bit of a detour from what we're discussing now, but those thoughts are here. They point to a differing sense of competition and the social form of combat rite, Thai to Western: We find this idea of external influence embodied in the vibrational encouragement by both of the beetle players, and in their deft techniques of turning of the log. They are literally trying to influence their beetle, somewhere between the psychological and the physiological realms. They are stimulating them, but also in a sense, orchestrating them, guiding them, in an inter-species communication. But, as Rennesson points out, there is no real sense that the vibrational communication is only defined by its reception by one's own beetle. The whole log is vibrating. So the participatory agonistic, knowledgeable influence also has a communal aspect. It is spread throughout and part of the performance form. There is a saying in Thai that "animals 'chon' (merely clash), but humans have 'muay' (an art of fighting)". It is indeed the external influence, the cultivation of action, the participatory collaboration between player and beetle that speaks to a certain elevation of the fight in to a spectacle. If using this as a prime cultural sketch of some of the dynamics of Muay Thai, we see how a fighter is not only a lone combatant, but is a social expression of his kru, his camp, and the gamblers who have bet on him (including influence moments of bonus "injection"). The proposed intersubjectivity of the player and the beetle brings this up in the thinnest, but still distinct, of ways. **sidebar note: The relationship between Buddhism and gambling is complex. At one level it is plain. Gambling is considered a vice, and the government laws restricting it, and sweeping political acts against it are seen as moral reform. (The anti-gambling laws of HM King Vajiravudh between 1915-1926 are prime examples.) This is especially so when gambling carries images of compulsion and corruption. On the other hand many of the local, gambling-driven festival fights occur on Wat (Temple) grounds, and are under the provenance of Wats which are powerful social and political centers in community. And there is a sense in which having the good fortune (& power) of winning bets and fights is in keeping with a fundamental Buddhist logic of karma and merit, and works toward the production of charisma (social capital) aligned with outward indications of spiritual potency. In the milieu of gambling, a Buddhistic/Animistic spiritual principle of charm is operating. More on that here: Toward a Theory of the Spirituality of Thailand's Muay Thai. So, its fair to say that there is a kind of double level to Buddhism and Muay Thai: a principled, moralistic objection, and also a Buddhistic/animistic infused one. Both are important to this discussion of a possible ecology through Right Living in Muay Thai.

Next the rules and the basics of engagement are laid out. One can see elements of correspondence between Muay Thai (Muay Thai clinch) and Beetle fighting. You have the stimulation through favorably vibrations (beetles) and the playing of the traditional music (Muay Thai), which drives the conflict. Non-Thais are often confused or even annoyed by the presence of traditional music, but this likely is the foundation of it. It, like an interactive movie score, will dictate fight tempo and intensity. There are also rules of loss which typifying the sub art of clinch, when an opponent distinctly appears not willing to engage (in Muay Thai this is put in tension with retreating, more femeu styles). And, like with Muay Thai clinch one has distinct moments of extended clinch, defined by locks & grips (which for beetles make up rounds). Notably, as both are gambling-driven sports, the ambiguity of the rules is part of the actual form of the contest. The negotiation of interpretation perhaps can be compared to cultural haggling. In the West, we want fix prices, just as we want fixed rule definitions. Instead, the push and pull of negotiation may be woven into the actual social practice. A feature, not a bug.

He then turns to the concrete, physical conditions of combat itself. He wants to think of animal inputs and communication loops between insects and handlers: We filmed this ourselves back in 2017:

Rennesson then sets out the basic intellectual (Philosophical) framework from which he'll attempt to discuss the substantiveness of a care-giver-and-insect assemblage, one that is not polluted by anthromorphisms of varying kinds, and one that does not rob the beetle of ALL sense of subjectivity and world. This positioning is most relevant because taken to this extreme, the arguments for an ecological collaboration become stripped of a lot of cultural assumptions. It becomes a kind of test case from the edges of the spectrum. He will read this, especially in the act of fighting itself, within a fundamentally receptivity of the beetle to communications from his handler, and ultimately a creative feedback loop between these two, insect and human. This forms the basis of a theory of ecology, a world of co-created mutuality.

Here Rennesson dives right down into descriptions which clearly reflect his experiences and writing on the Thai kaimuay (Muay Thai camp). Implicitly the beetles and the fighters find themselves in a similar social position, the assessment of their value and development in a group. Fighting Beetles are essentially "clinch fighters" of Muay Thai, and the care given them can be insightfully compared. This is where, I would argue, we encounter the concept of a wicha (a knowledge, an art). Even at the "low" level of insect intelligence and thymos (energetic spirit), there is some sense of knowledge and art on the part of the developing player (in Muay Thai the kru), and the fighter/beetle. The performance of the combatant will express the wicha of the player/kru insofar as he/she embodies it. Rennesson wants to argue that even at the "low", divergent phylogenetic level of the insect in the social form of Thai beetle fighting ultimately the beetle is seen as a co-author of the fight and his fighting style. As I've argued, wicha is the medium between animality and divinity in Thai culture, their synthesis. Even between beetle and handler there is wicha, a wicha of care but even of technical performance, a transmitted wicha. Wicha is an art & knowledge that draws on, in a developing way, the Thammachat (natural order of things), such that the raw (magical) power of the wild, the forest, is shaped. It is not just urges. This has a strong Buddhistic element to it. If we allow the rough Nakmuay vs Beetle analogy, you may find a very strong young fighter/beetle in "the wild" (not in the urban, modern, culturally degenerating centers), but they must be cared for and developed in the wicha of the art. The vitality may be regarded as coming "from the soil", but the rite of contest requires some (Buddhistic) control over urges and found states which cannot succeed alone. In the West many of these stereotypes map onto our notion of the Primitive. The primitive can be regarded as both undeveloped, but also as raw, Natural and powerful. In terms of connotation, the wicha of combat rites, and Buddhism itself can be considered practices of developing the primitive without diminishing its power. In the ideologies of fighting in the West we carry pictures of the Primative in racisms and ethnicities. The "country strong" or "naturally tough" fighter or athlete (Bo Jackson was described this way as a football player, Big Country in MMA, just to name a diverse imagistic few of 1,000s and 1,000s). This can be racially applied, or applied by class. The working poor fighter, is a classic image in American boxing. This is something comparable to how the provincial, agrarian fighter can be read in the dominant ideology & hierarchy.

Below is a wonderful passage with many touch points to the framework of Muay Thai symbology and past sociological arguments I've thought on: The pursuit of baaramii (บารมี, prestige, righteous power, virtue, charisma) , I've argued is essential to the values & aesthetics of Thailand's Muay Thai. In this essay-thread I lay it out in speculative fashion: Toward a Theory of the Spirituality of Thailand's Muay Thai. There are other significant Muay Thai connections to spiritual pursuit in the form of hypermasculinity, as Peter Vail argued in his dissertation: Thai Masculinity: Postioning Nak Muay Between Monkhood and Nak Leng – Peter Vail, laid out briefly on the left hand side of this graphic I think Rennesson is right on target with his note on baaramii (บารมี). It is a characteristic of these dramaticized rites of battle, and the investments of the players. Also telling is how the farmed, science-aided beetles are thought to be mere beauty contest winners, lacking the raw "power" of a natural soil development. One can think of the rise of weight lifting and other western training regimes (the West historically considered a foreign wisdom of modernity), modern Thai fighters in International, Global markets that look impossibly swole (however it is achieved through Science), and even the exhaustive marketing of these fighters as commodities of idealized male beauty. Ong-Bak and Science You encounter these same themes of Science vs Natural Powers in the contrast between the hero fighter of the village Ting, and the super human End Guy in Ong-Bak (2003), itself a film about the true path (and efficacy) of the temple-taught Baan Fighter from the provinces, and the corrupting, degenerate Bangkok environment, something toned down for international audiences (in the Thai edit of Ong-Bak Muay's sister dies of a drug overdose). There is a positioning of Urban artificial development and the "natural" (thammachat) fighter of the Provinces that corresponds to urban Beetle farming and the Beetle of the Wild, if only at the level of symbolism. Here is the end-guy villain taking a massive needle injection straight into his heart to make himself impervious: The film's province vs city ideology is really something that needs to be brought out to fully enjoy what is being said in this classic action packed film, as it relates to Muay Thai itself. The Old Ways are presented as not only more potent, but importantly significantly of higher moral composition than the "fight club" International, anything goes fighting of Bangkok. And it is not without significance that the film Ong Bak opens with what will become an ecological-moral crisis, which Ting is sent with his temple Muay Thai to resolve. The holy Buddha head has been stolen to be sold for profit, the village will be been caught in a drought as a result of the loss of this loss of moral anchorage (It's not without complication that King Rama IX and his dynasty claimed power over the elements of water and the rains, and was also progressive in the use of technologies of land cultivation). It's enough to say that even in this martial arts classic the strong bond between traditional Muay Thai, Buddhism and ecological flourishing, a sense of thammachat (order and disorder), come forward as dominant themes. above, the drought that happens with the loss of Ong-Bak. above, a cameo of Master Yodtong, the famed Arjan of the Sityodtong gym, the greatest of the Golden Age of the sport, known for his preservatation of old, traditional techniques, here as a lowly, urban cigarette vendor, taking note of a Boran fight move by Ting, something he has not seen in years.

I've long reasoned that the best ethical argument for the preservation of Thailand's Muay Thai (its art, practice, culture, sophistication, knowledge) is an ecological one. In a certain sense the last 100 years of Thailand Muay Thai (and perhaps the 500 years of Siamese Muay Thai before that) present a kind of Amazon Rainforest of human cultural fight knowledge, and much like rain forests, we don't even fully know the cultural value of all the complexity that has developed in this. We do not want to just monocrop this subculture and its traditions, and we bend towards globalizing, effacing markets. So, there is a natural ecological standpoint here, between the Beetle and Muay Thai. Here Rennesson positions the ecological within the Thai notion of thammachat (a concept that Sylvie has pointed out as very important in Thailand's Muay Thai). Thammachat is a helpful bridge concept, "the order of things", when speaking ecologically about Thailand and its practices. Importantly, he positions Thai Culture not in contrast with Nature, but as an attempted finding-of-one's-feet within the order of things, something that includes what we characterize as Nature.

This read will cover several topics in a cross section: Buddhism, Northern Beetle Fighting, the film Ong-Bak, Cybernetics, Animism, Ecology, Thai Clinch, Thai urban vs rural tension, Anthropology & Gambling What follows are just some notes I've taken in reading Stéphane Rennesson's article, which discusses the Fighting Beetles of Northern Thailand. Its a great piece on a form of Thai gambled fighting that few know much about in detail. Not only does it break down the rather obscure essentials, the concepts and practices of Beetle fighting, it also positions them within larger themes that help us have insight into Thai agonism, something which ultimately sheds light on unique aspects of Thailand's Muay Thai and gambling. In some senses, Thailand's Muay Thai has more meaning in common with Beetle Fighting than it does with let's say a combat sport tournament happening in the West. The article allows us to come at Muay Thai from an angle and catch aspects that we may have missed when we just assume correspondence with Western (or Global) practices of combat sports. The way that I've done this is basically passage by passage. Most of the article ends up being quoted (but its best to read it through of course). You can also jump around into any particular post as they read as their own segmented thought or focus. Wrestling Beetles and Ecological Wisdom: How Insects Contribute to the Cosmopolitics of Northern Thailand* < read it here Stéphane Rennesson Sylvie and I have strongly noted the cultural homologies, the arguable connection and insight, between Northern Beetle Fighting and Muay Thai. Both are gambling driven rites of play and contest where the "fighter" symbolizes the vitality and knowledge of the player/kru, which is dramatized in/on the ring/log. Sylvie and I spontaneously recorded and wrote about these as we encountered Beetle fighting back in 2014, in these two posts. If you read these you'll get the sense of how it simply dawned on us just how much there is to understand about Muay Thai in Beetle fighting, when a kru from Sylvie's gym took us to see and participate in it. It was an underground fighting and gambling scene. You can read those two posts here, if you want background on our experiences: Muay Thai Clinch is Not Boring - Gwang Chon - Battle Beetles of Thailand - Part 1 Underground Gambling, Beetle Fights, Heart and the Clinch of Muay Thai – Part 2 At the time the strongest connection was for us the obvious two similarities. Sylvie was developing into a high level clinch fighters, and the Beetles essentially fight in clinch. And the gambling crowd sounded like and acted in a way that seemed identical to in a local Muay Thai fight. There are a great deal of correspondences and observations to make between the two, but below I'm just sketching out meaningful light-shedding from Rennesson's writing. He has also studied and written on Muay Thai in Thailand, as an anthropologist, but in he does not explicitly connect the two in this article. The connection here is mine, and speculative, but it also seems clear that he himself is making the connection as an observer. In a very broad brush I'm thinking about the basic dichotomy of urban center and forest wilds, in the symbolism of Thai culture. Urban centers, especially the capital, are seen as locus of high arts, cultivation, political authority, and sophistication. As one moves away from the urban center one travels toward the forest, which in Thai (and Buddhist/Indian) mythology/imagination can occupy a place of wild, untamed, magical powers. You can see some of that structural forest imagination in this tweeted graphic of the Thai Village social organization, the animal series structurally mirroring aspects of marriage, the ways of relating to the foreign: In any case, the figure of the forest monk, who retreats to the wild to develop special spiritual and magical powers is a well known one in Thailand. Thai Forest Tradition. This is only to say that the provincial villages, to some degree, in some of social imagination exist in the penumbra of the forest. There is a dialectical tension between the civilization of the capital and the wild of the forest, with provincial Thailand existing in-between. I argue that this dichotomy also characterizes the values and potencies of Thailand's Muay Thai. above, the example of Ajahn Sao Kantasīlo of the forest tradition. There are many holy men in Thailand who are seen as connected to the spirituality & tests of the forest. The legend of the Himavanta forest, a home of magical entities, important to Buddhist cosmology, likely plays into the aura of the forest as wondrous, fearsome and powerful. Rennesson interestingly traces how the figure of the fighting Beetle in Northern Thailand becomes emblematic, a "sentinel" of the quality of Thai soil, in an ecological sense. Due to pesticides, and perhaps many other "civilizing", progressive factors, strong beetles can no longer be found around human dwellings. He writes of a nostalgia for when you could just find a great fighting beetle in your yard. One remembers a time when living in a more robust connection to the potency of Nature and the environment, a potency that is expressed in the quality of beetle fighters. Today fight beetle scouts and collectors have to travel to the forests and National parks to find the good soil, and the good beetles. I'm not making a strong connection here, but I am drawing a parallel. It is well known that for decades, if not 100 years, Bangkok Muay Thai has relied on constant importation of strong fighters from the provinces, what Rennesson describes in his writing on Muay Thai as a "strong labor force". There have always been developed networks into the provinces, and now as Muay Thai's talent pool is dramatically shrinking, the scouting of the provinces is more required than ever. In some sociological sense Muay Thai is looking harder and harder for young Thai talent from "the good soil" so to speak. And, it is not without note, there is in urban Muay Thai a sense that young fighters do not develop now as they once did, due to a modernized culture of increased opportunity, social mobility, mobile phone culture, and to some degree a disaffected or bored youth. There may be a kind of social nostalgia that you used to just be able to find a strong fighter in your backyard, now much less so. increased affluence, a flexibility in social bonds and globalizing culture is changing the soil, so to speak. What is noteworthy is that there is an ecological argument underpinning the Beetle identity in the North. Modernity is poisoning the Beetle and its Soil. Here are two relevant passages: AND It is not too far of a stretch of the imagination to also draw parallels between the attempted urban breeding farms, given the shortage of quality local fighting beetles, and various urban kaimuay, on differing scales. The tension between a Science of the Beetle, and the Naturalism of the Beetle I think also exists in the symbolism of fighters, and urban fighter development.

You can see our interview of Dieselnoi going through the entire book and talking about each fighter. What he remembers, what he thinks about them. It's a precious bit of history. (Turn on English subtitles.) (

I'll just add this in here. I'm not sure I'll be doing this edit style of a fight much more, but I was experimenting with various ways to present and study the action of a fight. The edit in the post above consists of turning, scoring moments and various ways of making them more visible, showing patterns or details. This is the same edit, but slowed down, and put into a grid of six. The idea is that on rewatch the fight can be read somewhat synchronistically. You can see patterns and shapes show across different moments in the fight. For me things like Karuhat's shuffle (proto-Saenchai) and stutters come out, and the dynamic plows. And of course the whipping kicks of Hippy.

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.