Jump to content

Killer mentality and training


Recommended Posts

I was curious to hear how people train their killer mentality without actually taking it out on their training partners. I dont really subscribe to the barbarian/berserker mentality for my fighters as I feel it can make them sloppy and tend towards too much emotion in a fight. I do however put out the though of being more like what we imagine a serial killer to be like. Picture more Dexter vs Conan and youll get the idea. If you can get past the serial killer term, the idea is to be calm and collected while still maintaining that killer attitude. Why I think this works well is it becomes a dimmer switch in training, with my people being able to turn it up or down depending on what they are faced with. The hardest part is to figure how much or how little to apply in sparring. Even there though the attitude of being a serial killer still works and even allows for the person to scale it back. The part thats most important and the part even I still work on is the clinical detachment while maintaining the killer aspects. So how do you do it? 

makoto_horimatsu_20190606205819.png

  • Like 1
  • Respect 1
  • Gamma 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I 100% get what you're getting at with the Dexter vs. Conan example, but I chafe at the serial killer comparison because I believe you have to actually be quite empathetic to be a good fighter. You have to know what fear and pain and shame feel like to be able to impart them on your opponent - and to a softer degree your partner in training scenarios. But yes, definitely not the "beast mode" of the Conan approach.

I've found that for myself, a degree of insistence is what works the best for me in training. I'm slightly pissed off, but not in a way that's directed at anyone or anything. It's just that my version of slightly pissed allows me to let go of judgement, I think. There is a kind of Hannibal Lector quality to feeling the emotional and energy state of your partner and calmly guiding them toward the deep end. Like, "you look close to quitting, let me just nudge you a bit." I've personally had a hard time learning how to have that "killer instinct," or your version of a kind of sociopathic instinct, in aiding your partner's weaknesses because it feels shitty. For a very long time, if I knew that what I was doing was putting my partner in an emotionally difficult place, I'd back off. Even though in part of my mind I know that's no favor at all. There's a fighter at my gym who is the universal little brother. He's literally the little brother of one fighter, but he's the youngest (without being the 7-8 year olds, who are kind of their own set), and he's a butterball who gives up and hates being tired, so Kru Nu is always working to toughen him up. Like, if he can't finish the morning run in 1 hour, he has to run more. A few times, he's been running on the road, all of us in the van with the doors open just kind of crawling alongside him. It's punishment, for sure, but it's not just him. If Alex comes in behind so-and-so, he has to run extra or do pushups or whatever also, and he's kind of a "star" of the gym.

So, I struggle with this because I have a compassionate impulse to get out and run with the little brother. Just so he has a partner, a friend, something to make it less all-eyes-on-you. But I also know that a lesson is being taught and by jumping out and doing that, it comes off as "motherly," which I 1 million percent do not want to associate myself with in the gym. It's that same struggle when I feel my partners wanting to quit, or having a hard time, or hitting an emotional wall. I've been there. And I've had people ease up on me - so I know that just lets me stay exactly how I am. And I've had people not ease up, and I know that helps me grow. So, it's a weird version of "serial killer compassion," as it were. 

  • Like 4
  • Respect 2
  • Heart 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Coach James Poidog said:

I was curious to hear how people train their killer mentality without actually taking it out on their training partners

In my mind, I'm bashing your face in. People that know me, reckon they can tell, when I switch on the killer as you put it, James. They say they see it my eyes. I seem to flow better when I put it on. 

  • Like 1
  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jeremy Stewart said:

In my mind, I'm bashing your face in. People that know me, reckon they can tell, when I switch on the killer as you put it, James. They say they see it my eyes. I seem to flow better when I put it on. 

I think most people do. The "game face" as its called. I always wondered how deep people went though. In a fight, its pretty much kill mentality until the bell or your opponent is unconcious. How does one train that with control? What are the visual or auditory cues to get you to scale it back before you hurt a teammate? The reason I ask is because for everyone its different. Not the kill aspect but the control aspect. Also, we always hear about the different ways to condition our minds towards battle, but what about battle at the right time? 

  • Like 1
  • Nak Muay 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sylvie von Duuglas-Ittu said:

I 100% get what you're getting at with the Dexter vs. Conan example, but I chafe at the serial killer comparison because I believe you have to actually be quite empathetic to be a good fighter. You have to know what fear and pain and shame feel like to be able to impart them on your opponent - and to a softer degree your partner in training scenarios. But yes, definitely not the "beast mode" of the Conan approach.

I've found that for myself, a degree of insistence is what works the best for me in training. I'm slightly pissed off, but not in a way that's directed at anyone or anything. It's just that my version of slightly pissed allows me to let go of judgement, I think. There is a kind of Hannibal Lector quality to feeling the emotional and energy state of your partner and calmly guiding them toward the deep end. Like, "you look close to quitting, let me just nudge you a bit." I've personally had a hard time learning how to have that "killer instinct," or your version of a kind of sociopathic instinct, in aiding your partner's weaknesses because it feels shitty. For a very long time, if I knew that what I was doing was putting my partner in an emotionally difficult place, I'd back off. Even though in part of my mind I know that's no favor at all. There's a fighter at my gym who is the universal little brother. He's literally the little brother of one fighter, but he's the youngest (without being the 7-8 year olds, who are kind of their own set), and he's a butterball who gives up and hates being tired, so Kru Nu is always working to toughen him up. Like, if he can't finish the morning run in 1 hour, he has to run more. A few times, he's been running on the road, all of us in the van with the doors open just kind of crawling alongside him. It's punishment, for sure, but it's not just him. If Alex comes in behind so-and-so, he has to run extra or do pushups or whatever also, and he's kind of a "star" of the gym.

So, I struggle with this because I have a compassionate impulse to get out and run with the little brother. Just so he has a partner, a friend, something to make it less all-eyes-on-you. But I also know that a lesson is being taught and by jumping out and doing that, it comes off as "motherly," which I 1 million percent do not want to associate myself with in the gym. It's that same struggle when I feel my partners wanting to quit, or having a hard time, or hitting an emotional wall. I've been there. And I've had people ease up on me - so I know that just lets me stay exactly how I am. And I've had people not ease up, and I know that helps me grow. So, it's a weird version of "serial killer compassion," as it were. 

Thanks Sylvie, thats exactly the kind of personal explanation I was looking for from people when I wrote this. Ive had the same issues in training as well as being a coach. Even coaches need to exhibit this kind of mentality with fighters or people that too easily give up. Slippery slope for me as a coach. It means I have to really know the person Im pushing, what are their goals, how are they built mentally, and can I break the chains theyve developed without breaking them in the process. 

  • Like 1
  • Respect 1
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Coach James Poidog said:

The reason I ask is because for everyone its different. Not the kill aspect but the control aspect. Also, we always hear about the different ways to condition our minds towards battle, but what about battle at the right time? 

A big variant is how Muay Thai teaches/trains domination, not aggression. You can use aggression to dominate, but only to a certain degree. You don't (often) get a "killer" mentality for this reason. It's all about controlling the other person, imposing yourself. This is really a different world than a lot of western thinking. But it's worth pointing out.

  • Like 3
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu said:

A big variant is how Muay Thai teaches/trains domination, not aggression. You can use aggression to dominate, but only to a certain degree. You don't (often) get a "killer" mentality for this reason. It's all about controlling the other person, imposing yourself. This is really a different world than a lot of western thinking. But it's worth pointing out.

Totally agree. I think also western mentality has a lot of mix with domination and aggression. So many cant have one without the other, and that just in regular day life. The teaching of domination without aggression is such a huge aspect of martial arts. 

  • Like 2
  • Nak Muay 1
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Coach James Poidog said:

The teaching of domination without aggression is such a huge aspect of martial arts. 

Maybe there's a way in like this. Most of aggression = domination comes from imposing pain, or the idea of that. But, there are so many other things. I'm not going to let you breathe (when you want to), going about taking away someone's breathing pattern. I'm not going to let you stand where you want to, moving them off their spot when you see them settle. I'm not going to let you rhythm when you want to, or on your tempo. Just three.

1. look for breathing.

2. look for standing in a spot

3. look for rhythm

Many people don't ever really LOOK for those things, they aren't trained to do so. But, if you get them to start to see it, then it can become a target, even a fun target. And then they can feel how it is domination.

If you made a mental exercise. Walk into a room with people you are familiar with (work, the gym, school), and have a conversation with someone you know. But decide in advance to move them physically, while you are talking. Come with me, put your hand on their back, as we talk. Stop here, while we talk. Move them back, gently, while we talk. You use the customary space of talking to move the person, position them. This is fighting. If anyone did this exercise they would immediately understand domination without any aggression. Purposely interrupt someone every time they start talking in a conversation. You can do it rudely, or aggressively. This is counterstriking. This is breaking rhythm. It doesn't have to be aggressive, in fact it could be fun to see just how gently you can do it.

Sylvie in the few times she's taught would show how if you stand too close to someone when you are talking to them, they will move back. You can use this to steer someone, without them really realizing it. It's just using energy and proximity. Aggression is like the crudest tool in the box. I know you know all this, but just some random thoughts.

  • Like 4
  • The Greatest 1
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Coach James Poidog said:

I think most people do. The "game face" as its called. I always wondered how deep people went though. In a fight, its pretty much kill mentality until the bell or your opponent is unconcious. How does one train that with control? What are the visual or auditory cues to get you to scale it back before you hurt a teammate? The reason I ask is because for everyone its different. Not the kill aspect but the control aspect. Also, we always hear about the different ways to condition our minds towards battle, but what about battle at the right time? 

I have always had the ability to switch it on and off, as well as the mental clarity in training not to go over board on my partner. I really don't train it, I guess because of the areas I have lived the majority of my life in, you have to have it and keep it honed. So for me it is definitely a subconscious thing, no special mental exercises or physical cue training. I would make the assumption one of the visual cues associated with sparring would be the look of fear your partner may express orva look of surprise, like Whoah, Dude and audio cue would definitely an exacerbated sound of pain. I'm a very controlled type of person and never engender these experiences in a sparring partner unless they're being complete dicks.

  • Nak Muay 1
  • Respect 1
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested to read this.  I always thought of the killer instinct as more of a buried quality that is either there or not (perhaps dependent on trauma or some combination of genetics and nurture).   Then the instinct should be trained for self-control, but there are examples of people who don't like fighting but who must for economic reasons (in Western boxing; I'm not familiar with how people talk about it in Thailand.  You can distinguish domination from aggression and that is elegant but it still takes a certain amount of aggression to want to push people around.  You typical submissive person does not try that).  I've definitely seen fighters at the gym quit fighting cause eh, they are not really fighters?  Too sweet?  Have you had athletes you could not bring this out in?  Is this why you ask the question, James?  

  • Like 2
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, threeoaks said:

You can distinguish domination from aggression and that is elegant but it still takes a certain amount of aggression to want to push people around.  You typical submissive person does not try that).

Hmmm. If you are responding to my thought experiment it really shouldn't involve pushing people around anywhere. The whole idea is to develop a sense of domination, which is really just control over your environment, submissive people are also trying to control their environment as well, they do it hrough submission. In my example this is done without aggression, which means you aren't pushing against anything. A good example I can take from my bartender years. I used to bar tend during some shifts in NY in a very small service bar (making drinks for waiters) where customers would come and kind of corner me, and talk to me. Ha, I'm not the talkative bartender type at all. One night I just decided to see if I could move the person in front of me who was jabbering away - it really was only maybe 4 feet across, the little bar space, I tried to move them to the left and to the right. I would talk to them and look off center, slightly to their left to move them slowly across the bartop, and then slightly to the right, and like a cat with a laser they would move to be in front of my gaze. I felt trapped, it was my degree of freedom. I wasn't really pushing them. I'm not sure that classifies as aggression. Maybe? But, I think it's something far below aggression. It's just the natural desire to control the environment, and there are many ways to do it. Not just aggressively.

When a fighter like Samart is just drifting backwards, teep juggling his opponent over and over, looking bored, leading them quietly around the ring like a dog on a leash, is this aggression? There are moments of aggression in his style to be sure, but the domination he exhibits is the same as me looking to the right, and to the left. I think the confusion is the idea that as a fighter you need to tap into some fundamental, probably repressed aggression, and then stay in this aggro state for long stretches, in order to fight. No, not really. Not in Thai style at least. You have to learn how to control the space, control your opponent, and control yourself. Yes, you can use aggression. Yes, you can tap into repressed energies, as a tool, but it isn't fundamentally that. I think there is a lot of misleading about aggression in fighting, it necessity, etc. Is there fighting with absolutely ZERO aggression, probably not. But if you watch some of Somrak's fights you seem almost none. Dieselnoi when asked about Somrak said: He's a tall person who refuses to fight you!!! And basically implied, he's a nightmare for that reason.

This stuff goes way, way back for Thailand. The oldest recorded fight between a farang and a Thai is from the 18th century when a French Man challenged a royal champion. The Thai champion just retreated (and probably teeped and whatnot) the French boxer became totally enraged. It was so humiliating that the Frenchman's brother then apparently hopped into the ring to simultaneously attack the Thai. I wonder who was dominating whom?

  • Like 4
  • Respect 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu said:

Hmmm. If you are responding to my thought experiment it really shouldn't involve pushing people around anywhere. The whole idea is to develop a sense of domination, which is really just control over your environment, submissive people are also trying to control their environment as well, they do it hrough submission. In my example this is done without aggression, which means you aren't pushing against anything. A good example I can take from my bartender years. I used to bar tend during some shifts in NY in a very small service bar (making drinks for waiters) where customers would come and kind of corner me, and talk to me. Ha, I'm not the talkative bartender type at all. One night I just decided to see if I could move the person in front of me who was jabbering away - it really was only maybe 4 feet across, the little bar space, I tried to move them to the left and to the right. I would talk to them and look off center, slightly to their left to move them slowly across the bartop, and then slightly to the right, and like a cat with a laser they would move to be in front of my gaze. I felt trapped, it was my degree of freedom. I wasn't really pushing them. I'm not sure that classifies as aggression. Maybe? But, I think it's something far below aggression. It's just the natural desire to control the environment, and there are many ways to do it. Not just aggressively.

When a fighter like Samart is just drifting backwards, teep juggling his opponent over and over, looking bored, leading them quietly around the ring like a dog on a leash, is this aggression? There are moments of aggression in his style to be sure, but the domination he exhibits is the same as me looking to the right, and to the left. I think the confusion is the idea that as a fighter you need to tap into some fundamental, probably repressed aggression, and then stay in this aggro state for long stretches, in order to fight. No, not really. Not in Thai style at least. You have to learn how to control the space, control your opponent, and control yourself. Yes, you can use aggression. Yes, you can tap into repressed energies, as a tool, but it isn't fundamentally that. I think there is a lot of misleading about aggression in fighting, it necessity, etc. Is there fighting with absolutely ZERO aggression, probably not. But if you watch some of Somrak's fights you seem almost none. Dieselnoi when asked about Somrak said: He's a tall person who refuses to fight you!!! And basically implied, he's a nightmare for that reason.

This stuff goes way, way back for Thailand. The oldest recorded fight between a farang and a Thai is from the 18th century when a French Man challenged a royal champion. The Thai champion just retreated (and probably teeped and whatnot) the French boxer became totally enraged. It was so humiliating that the Frenchman's brother then apparently hopped into the ring to simultaneously attack the Thai. I wonder who was dominating whom?

Yeah I guess I see passive aggression as aggression flat out.  My point of view comes from being annoyed at American white females for using the tool of victim behavior as a powerful weapon.  I love passive aggression in, like you say, the Samart backing up, the Thai Champion enraging the French boxer, and you as a bartender. I do it myself.  I just think on a meta level there is a habit of princessy victimhood in my own culture (and i don't exempt myself) that can be remedied by experience of harnessing direct aggression (hence my posing martial arts for women).  You can expand the phenomenon of aligning with the powerful, acting submissive to do it and throwing other to the winds (aka cultural passive aggression) in early U.S. voting rights (black women didn't get the vote - who did that?  White women), current states overturning abortion laws (all white women doing it, disproportionately affects women of color).  But I am going far afield from James' question.   Sorry James. My final thought is one has to be able to use all kinds of concealed and overt aggression in life and in fighting, and not rely on just one.

  • Like 2
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, threeoaks said:

I am interested to read this.  I always thought of the killer instinct as more of a buried quality that is either there or not (perhaps dependent on trauma or some combination of genetics and nurture).   Then the instinct should be trained for self-control, but there are examples of people who don't like fighting but who must for economic reasons (in Western boxing; I'm not familiar with how people talk about it in Thailand.  You can distinguish domination from aggression and that is elegant but it still takes a certain amount of aggression to want to push people around.  You typical submissive person does not try that).  I've definitely seen fighters at the gym quit fighting cause eh, they are not really fighters?  Too sweet?  Have you had athletes you could not bring this out in?  Is this why you ask the question, James?  

I've always thought the same. You either have it buried somewhere inside you or you don't.  Some people fake it but they come undone especially when things don't go there way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu said:

This stuff goes way, way back for Thailand. The oldest recorded fight between a farang and a Thai is from the 18th century when a French Man challenged a royal champion. The Thai champion just retreated (and probably teeped and whatnot) the French boxer became totally enraged. It was so humiliating that the Frenchman's brother then

That really exemplifies the western idea of domination.  It's really a macho thing. I myself like the I will get you to do what I want with out you even realising it was my idea and not your own. To me that is real domination and control of your environment.  However when it comes to physical confrontation I am the total opposite,  I like to impose my will and assert my dominance in a quick and timely fashion, there is very little subtlety involved.

  • Like 2
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2019 at 5:41 PM, Coach James Poidog said:

I was curious to hear how people train their killer mentality without actually taking it out on their training partners. I dont really subscribe to the barbarian/berserker mentality for my fighters as I feel it can make them sloppy and tend towards too much emotion in a fight. I do however put out the though of being more like what we imagine a serial killer to be like. Picture more Dexter vs Conan and youll get the idea. If you can get past the serial killer term, the idea is to be calm and collected while still maintaining that killer attitude. Why I think this works well is it becomes a dimmer switch in training, with my people being able to turn it up or down depending on what they are faced with. The hardest part is to figure how much or how little to apply in sparring. Even there though the attitude of being a serial killer still works and even allows for the person to scale it back. The part thats most important and the part even I still work on is the clinical detachment while maintaining the killer aspects. So how do you do it? 

makoto_horimatsu_20190606205819.png

I am interested to read you understand this as a trainable quality rather than something you have innately or not.  I would love to read your experience with bringing it out in people (though I know you are asking for others’ point of view).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu said:

Maybe there's a way in like this. Most of aggression = domination comes from imposing pain, or the idea of that. But, there are so many other things. I'm not going to let you breathe (when you want to), going about taking away someone's breathing pattern. I'm not going to let you stand where you want to, moving them off their spot when you see them settle. I'm not going to let you rhythm when you want to, or on your tempo. Just three.

1. look for breathing.

2. look for standing in a spot

3. look for rhythm

Many people don't ever really LOOK for those things, they aren't trained to do so. But, if you get them to start to see it, then it can become a target, even a fun target. And then they can feel how it is domination.

I know you know all this, but just some random thoughts.

Real good thoughts, and no I dont necessarily know this either or maybe I do but its not foremost in my brain at the moment, so its great to see it written out. Its just excellent tactical training. Maybe thats it too, tactical is domination without necessarily having aggression.   

  • Like 1
  • Respect 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, threeoaks said:

 Have you had athletes you could not bring this out in?  Is this why you ask the question, James?  

I ask outve general curiosity because Ive actually had so many different people exhibit different responses to this. Yes, Ive definitely had people that couldnt (or maybe wouldnt) tap into this and Ive had some that tapped into it too much lol. I was the latter and more conan but had to learn to be more dexter. Im definitely someone that can scale back my aggression and domination depending on the person's needs in front of me. And thats how I see it too. From a coach's perspective, its about the needs of my students. Thats also part of why I ask these things, to be able to use what I find here for them. Currently, I have one fighter that has as close to a perfect mentality when it comes to this as Ive ever encountered. He is just that way as a human. Rarely gets overtly emotional, but can show as needed. Hes easily able to be dominant with clinical detachment. He keeps that detachment even when its not going his way. In his last fight he got his nose broken during the second round. It wasnt until the end after finishing his opponent that he then asked me "Hey coach, can you look at my nose? Is it crooked?". He knew something was wrong but just put it aside til the job was done. I find all of that, all of this psychology fascinating. 

  • Like 2
  • Respect 1
  • Heart 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, threeoaks said:

But I am going far afield from James' question.   Sorry James. My final thought is one has to be able to use all kinds of concealed and overt aggression in life and in fighting, and not rely on just one.

No, thats the point of these actually. Just let it spill out lol. Its like round table discussions. The idea is to pose something and see what comes out. Thanks for being such a good interactive person. I for one appreciate it. 

  • Like 2
  • Cool 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, threeoaks said:

I am interested to read you understand this as a trainable quality rather than something you have innately or not.  I would love to read your experience with bringing it out in people (though I know you are asking for others’ point of view).

This is ongoing for me. Ive had success and failure with this, which is why I pose the question to fish and see if theres anything I can use to be more succesful with it. Kevin gave gold in what he said above which will definitely help me with people that dont necessarily like the agression aspects of fighting (negative connotations to their past, etc). Being able to teach them how to be dominant (positive) without the aggression (negative) is an excellent skill set I can develop further because of the things you guys have said. 

  • Like 2
  • Heart 1
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Coach James Poidog said:

Kevin gave gold in what he said above which will definitely help me with people that dont necessarily like the aggression aspects of fighting (negative connotations to their past, etc). Being able to teach them how to be dominant (positive) without the aggression (negative) is an excellent skill set I can develop further because of the things you guys have said. 

My spinoff thoughts on this!

 

  • Like 2
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Most Recent Topics

  • Latest Comments

    • Just very briefly I want to take up one of the most interesting aspects of the fighting art of Thailand's traditional Muay Thai, an aspect that really cues for me how I watch fights and weigh the skills of fighters. Managing distance. Many people watch "strikes" and look for "points", but there is an under-fabric to strikes, a kind of landscape of them, no less than how a topography will influence how a battle is fought between armies. Even the most practiced strikes rise and fall to opportunity, and in Muay Thai a significant determination of opportunity is distance. Above is a quick edit of Sylvie's last fight up in Buriram, bringing out all the significant moments of engagement, telling the story in about a minute. (The full fight should be up in a few weeks with Sylvie's commentary, as usual.) I'm going to start with Entertainment Muay Thai as presenting an negative can often be the best way to bring out a positive. Entertainment Muay Thai (and there are many versions of it, so we have to be very broad here), is largely principled by eliminating the importance of distance. What is sought, again being very broad, is a more or less continuous trading in the pocket. The quest is for an easy to follow, by the casual eye, "action". Everything is about the distance of the pocket. Setting up outside of the pocket can be regarded as anti-action (so, if you do, you should regularly charge into the pocket...and trade). And fighting through the pocket, to clinch range, is also devalued by very quick clinch breaks, scoring biases (changing traditional aesthetics). Clinch, which historically is featured in some of the most technical fighting of the sport, in Entertainment Muay Thai is more and more understood as a stall of the main goal. Pocket trading. Much of the art of Muay Thai is actually organized around all those distances that border "the pocket", controlling distance through length, or through grappling. In this fight Sylvie is giving up between 8-10 kgs (perhaps more than 20% of her body weight). Now, imagine it being fought under Entertainment aesthetics. What would it be if she just stood in the pocket, bit down, and just traded over and over with Phetnamwan? Would there be any point of such a fight? Yet, as the Golden Age legend Hippy Singmanee once said when criticizing hyper-aggressive, pocket-trading Entertainment Muay Thai, "Muay Thai is the art where small can beat big." Hippy was one of the most renown undersized fighters of the Golden Era. He knows of what he speaks. This fight, in the broad brush, illustrates some of that. More and more we've come to realize that as traditional Muay Thai evaporates slowly from the urban stadia, the only traditional Muay Thai still being regularly fought is in the provinces of the country. It is there that fights are scored in keeping with the art, and fighters retain the all around, multi-distance skills that make that art happen. Clinch is allowed to unfold. Narrative fight arcs are told as principle to scoring. Ryan, a knowledgeable commenter on Twitter and a very good writer on the sport, right away noticed how the ref let clinch flow. You can see some of our discussion there. I recall a conversation I overheard when attending the funeral of the legend Namkabuan in Nongki. It was the passing of one of the greatest who ever fought. During the day-before cremation a casual conversation arose between other legends of the sport, and very experienced news reporters, people who had been a part of it for decades. One of them insisted, Muay Thai no longer existed in Thailand. Others knowingly nodded their heads. But a Muay Siam reporter objected. "No...it still lives in the provinces." And the others agreed. It still was there. We in the English speaking world tend to think the substance of something is what has been presented to us. The Muay Thai of Bangkok is the real Muay Thai of Thailand because that is what we see...and, historically, many decades ago, it did represent the highest skills of the country. But what largely remains unseen is that more and more of the sport is being designed for our eyes. It is less and less for Thais, and more and more for "us", so we can become quite disconnected from what is real and authentic in a cultural, and even efficacy sense. There rhythms and values of provincial Muay Thai, as it is fought, coached and reffed, are part of the rich authenticity of the sport which falls into the shadows when we just look at what is being shown to "us". This fight, how it is fought, shows "the art of where small can beat big", and it shows why. It's through the control of distance. If you are small you just cannot stand at range. You either have to explore the bubble outside of the pocket, too far, or at its edges, and fight your way in to score...or, you collapse the pocket, smother the strikes, and possess the skill to control a much larger bodied opponent. Clinch, historically, is kryptonite to the striker. Muay Maat vs Muay Khao battles are legendary in the sport.  Classic. Who is going to impose the distance which is best for them? It's a battle of distances. And, for this reason, Muay Maat fighters of the past were not experts in trading in the pocket. They were experts in managing clinch fighters, or even high level clinch fighters themselves...and they were experts at hunting down evasive femeu counterfighters as well. Muay Maat fighters were strong. They had to have so many tools in their tool box. In versions of the sport where both fighters are forced to "stand and bang" repeatedly, we have been taken quite far from the glories of Thailand's Muay Thai fighters, and that is because Muay Thai is an art of distance control. This goes to a deeper point about the sport. It isn't really a "sport" in the International, rationalist idea of a sport. Muay Thai is culture. It is Thai culture. Thousands and thousands of fights occur on temple grounds, far from Western eyes. It has grown up within the culture, but also expressive of that culture. And it is a culture unto itself. The more we try to extract from this rich fabric some kind of abstract "rule set" and "collection of techniques" that can be used in other cultures, expressing their values, favoring their fighters, the more we lose the complex art of what Muay Thai is...and in the bigger sense move away from the value it has to the entire world. It's value is that it has a very highly developed perspective on distance management and on aggression. It has lessons upon lessons to teach in techniques of control and fight winning, woven into the DNA of its traditional aesthetics. And these techniques embody the values of the culture. It's all of one cloth. Sylvie has chosen the path less traveled. She's fought like no other Westerner in history (a record 271 times as a pro), and she has devoted herself to the lessor style, the art of Muay Khao and clinch fighting. There are very, very few women, even Thai women, who have seriously developed this branch of the art in the way that she has. And she's done it as a 100 lb fighter, taking on great size disparities as she fights. Because Muay Thai is "the art where small can beat big" there is a long tradition of great, dominant fighters fighting top fighters well above their weight, and developing their in style the capacity to beat them. Fighting up is Muay Thai. Sylvie's entire quest has been to value what may not even be commercially valued at this time, the aspects of the art which point to its greater meaning & capacity. The narrative of scoring, the control of distance, the management of striking through clinch, in the heritage of what it has been. I'm not saying that this is the only way to fight, or that Entertainment Muay Thai has no value for the art and sport. It's not, and it does. But, we should also be mindful of the completeness and complexity of Muay Thai, and the ways that those qualities can be put at risk, as the desire to internationalize it and foreign values become more and more part of its purpose. If we love what we discover when we come to Thailand, we should fight to preserve and embrace the roots of Muay Thai, and the honored aspects of the culture/s which produced it. photos: Khaendong, Buriram, Thailand (temple grounds)    
    • Hi, this might be out of the normal topic, but I thought you all might be interested in a book-- Children of the Neon Bamboo-- that has a really cool Martial Arts instructor character who set up an early Muy Thai gym south of Miami in the 1980s. He's a really cool character who drives the plot, and there historically accurate allusions to 1980s martial arts culture. However, the main thrust is more about nostalgia and friendships.    Can we do links? Childrenoftheneonbamboo.com Children of the Neon Bamboo: B. Glynn Kimmey: 9798988054115: Amazon.com: Movies & TV      
    • I really appreciate your wave patterns analogy; it applies to a lot of interactions. 
  • The Latest From Open Topics Forum

    • Hi, this might be out of the normal topic, but I thought you all might be interested in a book-- Children of the Neon Bamboo-- that has a really cool Martial Arts instructor character who set up an early Muy Thai gym south of Miami in the 1980s. He's a really cool character who drives the plot, and there historically accurate allusions to 1980s martial arts culture. However, the main thrust is more about nostalgia and friendships.    Can we do links? Childrenoftheneonbamboo.com Children of the Neon Bamboo: B. Glynn Kimmey: 9798988054115: Amazon.com: Movies & TV      
    • Davince Resolve is a great place to start. 
    • I see that this thread is from three years ago, and I hope your journey with Muay Thai and mental health has evolved positively during this time. It's fascinating to revisit these discussions and reflect on how our understanding of such topics can grow. The connection between training and mental health is intricate, as you've pointed out. Finding the right balance between pushing yourself and self-care is a continuous learning process. If you've been exploring various avenues for managing mood-related issues over these years, you might want to revisit the topic of mental health resources. One such resource is The UK Medical Cannabis Card, which can provide insights into alternative treatments.
    • Phetjeeja fought Anissa Meksen for a ONE FC interim atomweight kickboxing title 12/22/2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu92S6-V5y0&ab_channel=ONEChampionship Fight starts at 45:08 Phetjeeja won on points. Not being able to clinch really handicapped her. I was afraid the ref was going to start deducting points for clinch fouls.   
    • Earlier this year I wrote a couple of sociology essays that dealt directly with Muay Thai, drawing on Sylvie's journalism and discussions on the podcast to do so. I thought I'd put them up here in case they were of any interest, rather than locking them away with the intention to perfectly rewrite them 'some day'. There's not really many novel insights of my own, rather it's more just pulling together existing literature with some of the von Duuglus-Ittu's work, which I think is criminally underutilised in academic discussions of MT. The first, 'Some meanings of muay' was written for an ideology/sosciology of knowledge paper, and is an overly long, somewhat grindy attempt to give a combined historical, institutional, and situated study of major cultural meanings of Muay Thai as a form of strength. The second paper, 'the fighter's heart' was written for a qualitative analysis course, and makes extensive use of interviews and podcast discussions to talk about some ways in which the gendered/sexed body is described/deployed within Muay Thai. There's plenty of issues with both, and they're not what I'd write today, and I'm learning to realise that's fine! some meanings of muay.docx The fighter's heart.docx
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      1.3k
    • Total Posts
      10.9k
×
×
  • Create New...