Jump to content

Opinion on UFC - Aggression vs Muay Thai Composure


Recommended Posts

Hi Sylvie and Everyone Else!
I was curious to hear your (and everyone else's) thoughts on the UFC and other similar western fighting, apologies if you've answered this question before.
You've very clearly fell in love with fighting from the perspective of the non-aggressive, composed and unaffected Thai ethic that makes up Muay Thai and I wonder what your thoughts are on the predominant western and aggressive style that fights like the UFC play to. This might make for a really interesting topic on Muay Thai Bones!

Thank you for all of your time and effort!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to imply that ALL of Muay Thai is not aggressive. The point I try to make is that aggressiveness is not in and of itself a positive quality, but dominance always is. Sometimes that looks aggressive. Dieselnoi was aggressive; violent, even. I love him. Rotdang is fun to watch, he's very "aggressive," but also unaffected when he's hit back.

Kevin and I used to follow the UFC, we don't anymore. The fights just aren't as good, as far as my eyes go nowdays. That's fine, it's just not interesting to me anymore. Even when I was watching it pretty regularly, the problem with MMA in general to me was the caliber of knowledge from each fighter was pretty low. It's like being able to ask where the bathroom is in 5 different languages, but can't hold a conversation in any of them. But there are some fighters who had depth of knowledge in one martial art, like Lyoto Machida. He was interesting to watch. Rousey, before she tried to become more "well rounded" with shitty boxing, she was interesting to watch as  Judo player against very different skills.

  • Like 5
  • Super Slick 1
  • Heart 1
  • Gamma 1
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eyes change when you spend a ton of time looking at a particular fighting aesthetic. You see things you would never have before, and you ignore things that otherwise would have been interesting. I don't know what happened, but the UFC just got very, very boring to watch. A lot of it has to do with MMA spacing, which involves lots of circling out, some of it has to do with the relentless hyping of every fighter as the greatest, or the baddest, or whatever. Ugh. It's exhausting. And, then some of it is what Sylvie said. I know people have enthusiasm for hybrid rules, and a whole new fighting style, but in some ways it feels like someone made up a sport called "basket-baseball-foot" mashing together basketball, Baseball and football. Yeah, putting the skills of each into one sport definitely makes you have to compromise and modify, but what I really miss are acme performances seen in the reflected history of decades and decades of development. It also is a little disappointing that the UFC hasn't really see a single high level, elite Muay Thai fighter, ever. The picture most fans have of Muay Thai in the UFC is basically just versions of western kickboxing, which isn't Muay Thai at all. I wish I enjoyed it more. I miss the good ol' days of the WEC, when we were just falling in love with Muay Thai.

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

For me, it's especially all the show act surrounding the actual fighting that really pisses me off by now. I didn't ever closely follow the UFC but nowadays I hardly ever watch anything UFC.
I remember someone posting this press conference that happened before the Mc Greggor vs Nurmagomedov fight on a martial arts forum I sometimes visit and I just couldn't take it.... then I found a video of 3 hours of circus music on youtube and tried again with that playing in the background. Finally I was able to watch it... I think that kind of sums up my opinion on this topic and I didn't really say anything about the actual fights.

Watching Muay Thai (and also Kickboxing) has actually become much more interesting to me. That might have to do with actually having more insight from personal practice of course.

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

To all my American friends on here, I apologise fro what is about to come out of my fingers. The UFC and all it's hype and associated bullshit is just way too American for me. It reminds me of WWF, which was okay when I was ten. 

Plus, I honestly think it lacks a certain kind of purity. 

Edited by Jeremy Stewart
Additional comment
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Jeremy Stewart said:

To all my American friends on here, I apologise fro what is about to come out of my fingers. The UFC and all it's hype and associated bullshit is just way too American for me. It reminds me of WWF, which was okay when I was ten. 

Plus, I honestly think it lacks a certain kind of purity. 

That's actually an expression I have used myself as well, "too American". I'm not saying "American" is a bad thing in and off itself, its just this kind of.... totally overdone, over the top "Americanism" that I hate.

I do actually sometimes watch MMA on different promotions where for me it feels more like ... I don't know... more like a martial arts event instead of a circus show.

This "style" of presentation seems to be wanted by the powers that be in the UFC, people like Connor play into this kinda thing very well of course and Dana White seems to totally be in support of stuff like that so I don't see it changing anytime soon. Like in this press conference I mentioned, Dana wasn't even TRYING to look unbiased or serious but instead totally played into and supported Connor's clowning around.

I mean it's ok to still be a funny guy even if you're in charge of some kind of event. Like my boss ( a few levels up, not direct boss) at work who will sometimes crack a joke when asked something during a presentation before he gets back to serious and actually answers but that kinda stuff happening in the UFC I just can't stand and can't take seriously.

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

1 hour ago, Xestaro said:

That's actually an expression I have used myself as well, "too American". I'm not saying "American" is a bad thing in and off itself, its just this kind of.... totally overdone, over the top "Americanism" that I hate.

I do actually sometimes watch MMA on different promotions where for me it feels more like ... I don't know... more like a martial arts event instead of a circus show.

This "style" of presentation seems to be wanted by the powers that be in the UFC, people like Connor play into this kinda thing very well of course and Dana White seems to totally be in support of stuff like that so I don't see it changing anytime soon. Like in this press conference I mentioned, Dana wasn't even TRYING to look unbiased or serious but instead totally played into and supported Connor's clowning around.

I mean it's ok to still be a funny guy even if you're in charge of some kind of event. Like my boss ( a few levels up, not direct boss) at work who will sometimes crack a joke when asked something during a presentation before he gets back to serious and actually answers but that kinda stuff happening in the UFC I just can't stand and can't take seriously.

The grandiosity of the spectacle gets to me. The real or imagined animosity between fighters gets to me. The lack of humbleness some of the fighter have about them gets to me. Basically everything about it gets to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UFC has just gone to shit lol. There is no debating it. They are going the boxing route now and it's gonna end poorly. It is funny to see how bad some of their "muay thai" strikers are. ONE is the only promotion to have legit strikers on their roster in MMA. Ever since the "WME" era the UFC has been going steadily downhill. No one ever believed their fighters were the best in the world in any on particular aspect, but the idea was who could nullify or outperform different aspects of the complete game. Now it's just all show and flash. Competition has gone out the window. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many fighters signed and so many fight cards through the year, means the good fights are way more spaced out now than ever before. So you'll get a good headlining match up and the rest you could take it or leave it. Back in the day there weren't as many cards so their business model was to stack the deck so the whole main event and even prelims were solid, and the thing would sell. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Hanna,

I think it is important to point out that the UFC is essentially a company, and its goal is to generate revenue. I've been a UFC fan for years but nowadays, it is all about money and promotion. The only fighter I follow is Francis Ngannou for his story. 

Now, to get more into detail about your question on agressivness and style: Muay Thai, in my opinion, is agressive but in the dominant sense. It is a way to put pressure on your opponent and also get the narrative of the fight in your favour.

However, in the UFC or MMA in general, fighters usually are much more agressive as the point system is totally different. Judges usually favour the one with more hits or more initiative. 

I also think the UFC is much less respectfull than traditionnal Muay Thai fights, and all that may make it look like it is more violent. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Personally I have always disliked when judges score aggression > dominance. Not just in the UFC, but competing in PKB's here in America! A Muay Femur can definitely dominate moving backwards by taking advantage of their opponent's aggression and using it against them.

Edited by Kwanzama
  • Like 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

    • Some notes on the predividual (from Simondon), from a side conversation I've been having, specifically about how Philosophies of Immanence, because they tend to flatten causation, have lost the sense of debt or respect to that which has made you. One of the interesting questions in the ethical dimension, once we move away from representationalist thinking, is our relationship to causation.   In Spinoza there is a certain implicit reverence for that to which you are immanent to. That which gave "birth" to you and your individuation. The "crystal" would be reverent to the superstaturated solution and the germ (and I guess, the beaker). This is an ancient thought.   Once we introduce concepts of novelness, and its valorization, along with notions of various breaks and revolutions, this sense of reverence is diminished, if not outright eliminated. "I" (or whatever superject of what I am doing) am novel, I break from from that which I come from. Every "new" thing is a revolution, of a kind. No longer is a new thing an expression of its preindividual, in the ethical/moral sense.   Sometimes there are turns, like in DnG, where there is a sort of vitalism of a sacred. I'm not an expression of a particular preindividual, but rather an expression of Becoming..a becoming that is forever being held back by what has already become. And perhaps there is some value in this spiritualization. It's in Hegel for sure. But, what is missing, I believe, is the respect for one's actual preindividual, the very things that materially and historically made "you" (however qualified)...   I think this is where Spinoza's concept of immanent cause and its ethical traction is really interesting. Yes, he forever seems to be reaching beyond his moment in history into an Eternity, but because we are always coming out of something, expressing something, we have a certain debt to that. Concepts of revolution or valorized novelty really undercut this notion of debt, which is a very old human concept which probably has animated much of human culture.   And, you can see this notion of immanent debt in Ecological thought. It still is there.   The ecosystem is what gave birth to you, you have debt to it. Of course we have this sense with children and parents, echo'd there.   But...as Deleuze (and maybe Simondon?) flatten out causation, the crystal just comes out of metastable soup. It is standing there sui generis. It is forever in folds of becoming and assemblages, to be sure, but I think the sense of hierarchy and debt becomes obscured. We are "progressing" from the "primitive".   This may be a good thing, but I suspect that its not.   I do appreciate how you focus on that you cannot just presume the "individual", and that this points to the preindividual. Yes...but is there not a hierarchy of the preindividual that has been effaced, the loss of an ethos.   I think we get something of this in the notion of the mute and the dumb preindividual, which culminates in the human, thinking, speaking, acting individuation. A certain teleology that is somehow complicit, even in non-teleological pictures.   I think this all can boil down to one question: Do we have debt to what we come from?   ...and, if so, what is the nature of that debt?   I think Philosophies of Immanence kind of struggle with this question, because they have reframed.   ...and some of this is the Cult of the New. 3:01 PM Today at 4:56 AM   Hmmmm yeah. Important to be in the middle ground here I suspect. Enabled by the past, not determined by it. Of course inheritance is rather a big deal in evolutionary thought - the bequest of the lineage, as I often put it. This can be overdone, just as a sense of Progress in evolution can be overdone - sometimes we need to escape our past, sometimes we need to recover it, revere it, re-present it. As always, things must be nuanced, the middle ground must be occupied. 4:56 AM   Yes...but I think there is a sense of debt, or possibly reverence, that is missing. You can have a sense of debt or reverence and NOT be reactive, and bring change. Just as a Native American Indian can have reverence for a deer he kills, a debt. You can kill your past, what you have come from, what you are an expression of...but, in a deep way.   Instead "progress" is seen as breaking from, erasing, denying. Radical departure.   The very concept of "the new" holds this.   this sense of rupture.   And pictures of "Becoming" are often pictures of constant rupture.   new, new, new, new, new, new...   ...with obvious parallels in commodification, iterations of the iphone, etc.   In my view, this means that the debt to the preindividual should be substantive. And the art of creating individuation means the art of creating preindividuals. DnG get some of this with their concept of the BwOs.   They are creating a preindividual.   But the sense of debt is really missing from almost all Immanence Philosophy.   The preindividual becomes something like "soup" or intensities, or molecular bouncings.   Nothing really that you would have debt to. 12:54 PM   Fantasies of rupture and "new" are exactly what bring the shadow in its various avatars with you, unconsciously.     This lack of respect or debt to the preindividual also has vast consequences for some of Simondon's own imaginations. He pictures "trade" or "craft" knowledge as that of a childhood of a kind, and is quite good in this. And...he imagines that it can become synthesized with his abstracted "encyclopedic" knowledge (Hegel, again)...but this would only work, he adds, if the child is added back in...because the child (and childhood apprenticeships) were core to the original craft knowledge. But...you can't just "add children" to the new synthesis, because what made craft knowledge so deep and intense was the very predindividual that created it (the entire social matrix, of Smithing, or hunting, or shepherding)...if you have altered that social matrix, that "preindividual" for knowledge, you have radically altered what can even be known...even though you have supplemented with abstract encyclopedic knowledge. This is something that Muay Thai faces today. The "preindividual" has been lost, and no amount of abstraction, and no about of "teaching children" (without the original preindividual) will result in the same capacities. In short, there is no "progressive" escalation of knowledge. Now, not everything more many things are like a fighting art, Muay Thai...but, the absence of the respect and debt to preindividuality still shows itself across knowledge. There are trends of course trying to harness creativity, many of which amount to kind of trying to workshop preindividuality, horizontal buisness plan and build structures, ways of setting up desks or lounge chairs, its endless. But...you can't really "engineer" knowledge in this way...at least not in the way that you are intending to. The preindividual comes out of the culture in an organic way, when we are attending to the kinds of deeper knowledge efficacies we sometimes reach for.
    • "He who does not know how to read only sees the differences. For him who knows how to read, it all comes to the same thing, since the sentence is identical. Whoever has finished his apprenticeship recognizes things and events, everywhere and always, as vibrations of the same divine and infinitel sweet word. This does not mean that he will not suffer Pain is the color of certain events. When a man who can and a man who cannot read look at a sentence written in red ink, they both see the same red color, but this color is not so important for the one as for the other."   A beautiful analogy by Simone Weil (Waiting for God), which especially in the last sentence communicates how hard it is to discuss Muay Thai with those who don't know how to "read" its sentences. Yes, I see the effort. Yes, I see the power. Yes, I even see the "technique"...but this is like talking about the color of sentences written out at times.
    • from Reddit discussing shin pain and toughening of the shins: There are several factors, and people create theories on this based on pictures of Muay Thai, but honestly from my wife's direct experience they go some what numb and hard from lots of kicking bags and pads, and fighting (in Thailand some bags could get quite hard, almost cement like in places). Within a year in Thailand Sylvie was fighting every 10 or 12 days and it really was not a problem, seldom feeling much pain, especially if you treat them properly after damage, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztzTmHfae-k and then more advanced, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcWtd00U7oQ And they keep getting harder. After a few years or so Sylvie felt like she would win any shin clash in any fight, they just became incredible hard. In this video she is talking about 2 years in about how and why she thought her shins had gotten so hard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFXCmZVXeGE she shows in the vid how her shins became kind of permanently serrated, with divots and dings. As she discusses only 2 years in (now she's 13 years of fighting in) very experienced Thais have incredibly hard shins, like iron. Yes, there are ideas about fighting hard or not, but that really isn't the determining factor from our experience with Sylvie coming up on 300 fights and being around a lot of old fighters. They just can get incredibly tough. The cycles of damage and repair just really change the shin (people in the internet like to talk about microfractures and whatnot). Over time Sylvie eventually didn't really need the heat treatment anymore after fights, now she seldom uses it. She's even has several times in the last couple of years split her skin open on checks without even feeling much contact. Just looked down and there was blood.  
  • The Latest From Open Topics Forum

    • Hi all, Does anyone know of any suppliers for blanks (Plain items to design and print a logo on) that are a good quality? Or put me in the right direction? thanks all  
    • The first fight between Poot Lorlek and Posai Sittiboonlert was recently uploaded to youtube. Posai is one of the earliest great Muay Khao fighters and influential to Dieselnoi, but there's very little footage of him. Poot is one of the GOATs and one of Posai's best wins, it's really cool to see how Posai's style looked against another elite fighter.
    • Yeah, this is certainly possible. Thanks! I just like the idea of a training camp pre-fight because of focus and getting more "locked in".. Do you know of any high level gyms in europe you would recommend? 
    • You could just pick a high-level gym in a European city, just live and train there for however long you want (a month?). Lots of gyms have morning and evening classes.
    • Hi, i have a general question concerning Muay-Thai training camps, are there any serious ones in Europe at all? I know there are some for kickboxing in the Netherlands, but that's not interesting to me or what i aim for. I have found some regarding Muay-Thai in google searches, but what iv'e found seem to be only "retreats" with Muay-Thai on a level compareable to fitness-boxing, yoga or mindfullness.. So what i look for, but can't seem to find anywhere, are camps similar to those in Thailand. Grueling, high-intensity workouts with trainers who have actually fought and don't just do this as a hobby/fitness regime. A place where you can actually grow, improve technique and build strength and gas-tank with high intensity, not a vacation... No hate whatsoever to those who do fitness-boxing and attend retreats like these, i just find it VERY ODD that there ain't any training camps like those in Thailand out there, or perhaps i haven't looked good enough?..  Appericiate all responses, thank you! 
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      1.4k
    • Total Posts
      11.5k
×
×
  • Create New...