Jump to content

Simple question - what does ‘ feeder’ mean when practicing combinations


Recommended Posts

( new to Muay Thai)

in practice we were doing various combinations  where for example  person A throws a cross then person B parried that cross and throws a cross in return. ( and back and forth with that sort of thing)

 

In that example which person is the feeder? Since both people are throwing strikes I’m not sure. Thx 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are both technically "the feeder" (it alternates). Person A "feeds" Person B the cross so that it can be parried, then Person B is counter-striking using their cross but also "feeding" Person A so that Person A can parry. Its just a term for drilling I believe. 

Another example would be Person A "feeding" a teep to Person B so that Person B can parry the teep and then throw a cross. Then you both reset and do this 10 times before switching.

Hahaha I hope that's not too confusing... I think I confused myself a bit just writing it. So much Person A and Person B! 🤣

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tyler Byers said:

I think you are both technically "the feeder" (it alternates). Person A "feeds" Person B the cross so that it can be parried, then Person B is counter-striking using their cross but also "feeding" Person A so that Person A can parry. Its just a term for drilling I believe. 

Another example would be Person A "feeding" a teep to Person B so that Person B can parry the teep and then throw a cross. Then you both reset and do this 10 times before switching.

Hahaha I hope that's not too confusing... I think I confused myself a bit just writing it. So much Person A and Person B! 🤣

Let's make it easier and use names instead:
So Nick throws a cross and Mick parries.....

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Where does Trainer Dick step in to correct the two?

 

 

I kid you not, I once wrote a physics test where the professor had put in a part about lightspeed and time dilation and he had ACTUALLY called the 3 persons in his question "Mick", "Nick" and "Dick"... It put a whole highway-system of knots in my brain even though I was able to figure it out. The most difficult part was keeping track of who was who the whole time...

  • hahaha 2
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

    • Speculatively, it seems likely that the real "warfare roots" of ring Muay Thai goes back to all the downtime during siege encampment, (and peacetime) Ayutthaya's across the river outer quarters. One of the earliest historical accounts of Siamese ring fighting is of the "Tiger King" disguising himself and participating in plebeian ring fighting. This is not "warfare fighting" and goes back several hundred years. One can imagine that such fighting would share some fighting principles with what occurred on the battlefield, but as it was unarmed and likely a gambling driven sport it - at least to me - likely seems like it has had its very own lineage of development. Less was the case that people were bringing battlefield lessons into the ring, and more that gambled on fighting skills developed ring-to-ring. In such cases of course, developing balance and defensive prowess would be important.  Incidentally, any such Ayutthaya ring-to-ring developments hold the historical potential for lots of cross-pollination from other fighting arts, as Ayutthaya maintained huge mercenary forces, not only from Malaysia and the cusp of islands, but even an entire Japanese quarter, not to mention a strong commercially minded Chinese presence. These may have been years of truly "mixing" fighting arts in the gambling rings of the city (it is unknown just how separatist each culture was in this melting pot, perhaps each kept to their own in ring fighting).
    • For anyone who follows my writings I do not argue for any sense of a "pure" Muay Thai, or even Siamese fighting art history. Quite different than such I take one of Siam and Thai strengths is just how integrative they have been over centuries of development (while, importantly, preserving its core identity). For instance Western Boxing has had a powerful influence upon the form and development of Muay Thai for well over 100 years, and helped make it perhaps the premiere ring fighting art in the world, but Western Boxing itself was a very deep, complexly developed art which mapped quite well upon traditional Muay Thai in many areas, allowing it to flourish. This is quite different than the de-skilling that is happening in the sport right now, where instead the sport is being turned towards a less-skilled development, for really commercial reasons.  The story of whether the influx of attention, branding, not to mention the very important monetary investment that Entertainment Muay Thai has brought will actually help "save" traditional Muay Thai is yet to be written. It very well might, as the sport was reaching some important demographic and cultural dead-ends, and it needed an infusion. But, let's not have it be lost, what itself is being lost, which is the actual very high level of skill Thailand had produced...and how it had developed it. Let's keep our eye on the de-skilling.
    • One of the more slippery aspects of this change is that in its more extreme versions Entertainment Muay Thai was a redesign to actually produce Western (and other non-Thai) winners. It involved de-skilling the Thai sport simply because Thais were just too good at the more complex things. Yes, it was meant to appeal to International eyes, both in the crowd (tourist shows) and on streams, but the satisfying international element was actually Western (often White) winners of fights, and ultimately championship belts. The de-skilling of the sport and art was about tipping the playing field hard (involving also weigh-in changes that would favor larger bodied international fighters). Thais had to learn - and still have to learn - how to fight like the less skilled Westerners (and others). In some sense its a crazy, upside-down presentation of foreign "superiority", yes driven by hyper Capitalism and digital entertainment, but also one which harkens back to Colonialism where the Western power teaches the "native" "how its really done", and is assumed to just be superior in Nature. The point of fact is that Thais have been arguably the best combat sport fighters in the world over the last 50 years, and it is not without irony that the form of their skill degradation is sometimes framed as a return to Siam/Thai warfare roots. It's not. Its a simplification of ring fighting for the purpose of international appeal. 
  • The Latest From Open Topics Forum

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      1.4k
    • Total Posts
      11.6k
×
×
  • Create New...