Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Recently there have been talks about how to deal with fighters "dancing" too much and not engaging in fights, resulting in both fighters being dismissed from the ring after 2 warnings by the referee. Usually this is in the 5th round, although the announcements havw differed between promoters about how they will enforce the rule. Channel 7, for example (Giatpetch) has said this will only apply to rounds 1-4. On 2 promotions so far, including Petchyindee, fighters were dismissed by the referee (1 warning, 2nd warning is a deduction of a point from each fighter, after that they're dismissed) in round 5 of the Main Event. In both cases so far the public consensus is that it was warranted. 

I'm not certain how this affects the fighters' pay. I read on one post that their purse is cut in half, but have not seen that written anywhere officially. 

In this announcement Sia Moo, the head of Omnoi, says for his stadium fighters will be warned as in the previous suggestions, but after 2 warnings they will not be thrown out of the ring. He says this will only lead to new forms of cheating. (I totally see this. If you have no way to win, this cancels all bets.) Instead, fighters' purses will be docked as a result of too much non-engagement. He doesn't say by how much.

Screenshot_20211209-132932_Facebook.thumb.jpg.77b6220dd7ad857fc5c19001b8dd5e49.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Sylvie von Duuglas-Ittu said:

(I totally see this. If you have no way to win, this cancels all bets.)

I'm not sure how those cheering on the "throw them out" rule don't see that the rule actually can create even LESS engagement. Maybe there is a missing piece of information, but if I'm a fighter going into the 5th round and down big in the odds, there is almost every incentive not to engage and purposively try to get the fight called off, especially if there is sizeable money bet on me. Everyone who bet on me, including my own gym, would keep their money. The losing fighter wins when a fight is called off.

This puts the fighter with a big lead in a very difficult position as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to understand, by 

On 12/9/2021 at 1:39 AM, Sylvie von Duuglas-Ittu said:

Recently there have been talks about how to deal with fighters "dancing" too much and not engaging in fights, resulting in both fighters being dismissed from the ring after 2 warnings by the referee.

So, it was ruled a no contest? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2021 at 3:18 PM, Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu said:

I'm not sure how those cheering on the "throw them out" rule don't see that the rule actually can create even LESS engagement. Maybe there is a missing piece of information, but if I'm a fighter going into the 5th round and down big in the odds, there is almost every incentive not to engage and purposively try to get the fight called off, especially if there is sizeable money bet on me. Everyone who bet on me, including my own gym, would keep their money. The losing fighter wins when a fight is called off.

This puts the fighter with a big lead in a very difficult position as well.

Well wouldn't the idea be that if you get thrown out you don't get your purse? Figure getting paid should be enough incentive, yeah? Or is not-losing worth more than their potential purse for losing? Maybe gamblers giving the fighter some of the money they bet on him for saving their bet?

 

Quote

I'm not certain how this affects the fighters' pay. I read on one post that their purse is cut in half, but have not seen that written anywhere officially.

I do see Sylvie mentioned it's not entirely known how it affects their pay... I just assume the reason most of these guys are fighting in the first place is because they're getting paid. If getting thrown out = less pay, that defeats the entire point of fighting. Is saving the gambler's money that important to the fighters (could be. genuine question, I don't know enough about the gambling)?

If they're still getting paid even after being thrown out, I believe that would be the main problem. You shouldn't be rewarded for that and it entirely incentivizes the losing fighter to actively try to get it thrown out, like you said. Because in that case getting thrown out isn't even a punishment, it's just ending the fight early and not putting it on the record lol.

So based on what I can see Omnoi's solution makes a lot of sense. The main incentive to fight is their pay, not their record. If I get docked purse money for non-engagement, AND still lose the fight then gambler money is still moving and I'm getting paid less. So the people that bet on me still lose their money, and I lose my own money on top of that. Lose lose all around, definitely makes me want to engage more. The only thing that doesn't make a lot of sense is if the winning fighter, being the winning fighter, is playing the keepaway game and gets penalized for it. The losing fighter could entice the winning fighter to come forward at HIM or else he risks being docked his winning purse. This is the part that is going to need diligence from the referees imo. It's up to the losing fighter to chase down the winner, not vice versa, but if the refs deem the winner to be 'running away' or participating in 'non-engagement' he could be penalized for simply backward fighting which is a massive issue, at least to me. It's up to the referee's discretion, which isn't great in itself. Hopefully the stadiums recognize the backward fighting as an integral part of the sport and don't penalize winners for it.

Edited by Tyler from Florida
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tyler from Florida said:

If they're still getting paid even after being thrown out, I believe that would be the main problem.

The problem is, much more money is (potentially) made through gambling, than through fighter pay. Not only is there a social obligation to those who gamble on you, which is more important than a fight purse, the money involved is also greater. And, your gym itself is likely gambling. You fight for your gym, not for individual gain. If a fighter is dancing off it's because their gym has signaled for them to do so. It isn't an individual decision. For instance we were told that a recent kid fight resulted in 100,000 baht tip out for the win.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu said:

The problem is, much more money is (potentially) made through gambling, than through fighter pay. Not only is there a social obligation to those who gamble on you, which is more important than a fight purse, the money involved is also greater. And, your gym itself is likely gambling. You fight for your gym, not for individual gain. If a fighter is dancing off it's because their gym has signaled for them to do so. It isn't an individual decision. For instance we were told that a recent kid fight resulted in 100,000 baht tip out for the win.

Right, so not-losing and saving the gamblers is as important or more important than just their fight purse. Hard to reconcile that then. What's your take on the Omnoi stadium solution in that case? In the case they get docked but don't get thrown out, they'd still be losing their gambler's money too right? I would hope the purse-docking only applies to the fighter who refuses to chase his opponent and not the fighter who fights backwards, but it would probably apply to both if the idea is a westernization and to incentivize a clashing of heads, which would be massively unfortunate.

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...