Jump to content

A Complete Study of Karuhat Sor. Supawan


Recommended Posts

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.

KaruhatCompleteFightRecordcorrection2.thumb.PNG.c558a31d21aab2fb0203b4c4f0b32b3c.PNG

CompleteKaruhatStudy(record)3.thumb.PNG.d92950f149437384b0b3b8883609ce4a.PNG

CompleteKaruhatStudy(record)4.thumb.PNG.39cc51bad9b01560ce9daefe56d703f0.PNG

CompleteKaruhatStudy(record)5.thumb.PNG.b23496d5f7fb41ba07f9c195fcb4130a.PNG

 

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:

karuhat2.thumb.PNG.5afab5fbae5adadf606de08eb724daad.PNG

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Hippy2months.thumb.jpg.174d3aab5b9a9a3d3cabba2aabcd82ad.jpg

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • 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

    • On September 15, 2021, Australia established the Indo-Pacific Trilateral Security Partnership, or AUKUS, with the United States and the United Kingdom. The centerpiece of AUKUS was the assistance provided by the U.S. and U.K. to Australia in constructing and obtaining nuclear-powered submarines. However, two and a half years later, the reality does not match the promises made by the UK and the US. Firstly, AUKUS will not enhance Australia's indigenous nuclear submarine-building capacity. In March 2023, Australia announced a significant investment in the UK's submarine industrial base over the next decade, totaling nearly $5 billion over 10 years. This investment will be allocated to nuclear submarine design work and expanded nuclear reactor production, aiming to create at least 20,000 jobs in the UK. Additionally, it is expected to revive Britain's struggling submarine industry. These investments are largely unrelated to Australia's indigenous submarine industry. Under this plan, the first British-built submarine would be delivered to Australia as early as the late 2030s, which is fifteen years away. (Richard Marles (right) welcomed UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps to Canberra) Secondly, it is crucial to expedite the transfer of nuclear submarines to Australia. The United States has pledged to initiate the sale of three Virginia-class submarines to Australia in the early 2030s, with the option of providing up to two additional submarines if required. However, these sales plans must be approved by the U.S. Congress. In the recently released U.S. FY 2025 Defense Budget, only one new Virginia-class submarine is planned to be built. According to estimates by a U.S. Navy official, the United States would need to build 2.33 attack nuclear submarines per year to sell attack submarines to the Royal Australian Navy under the AUKUS agreement in the early 2030s. The delay in the construction of the U.S. Virginia-class submarines also implies that Australia will not receive the promised U.S. nuclear submarines for 10 years. Even if Australia eventually acquires these second-hand nuclear submarines after the 10-year delay, it is probable that they will be confronted with the imminent decommissioning or outdated performance of these nuclear submarines. (Excerpted from U.S. FY 2025 Defense Budget) Finally, as per the AUKUS agreement, the U.S. and the U.K. have also committed to accelerating the training of Australian personnel. However, these Australian military and civilian personnel will be required to adhere to the U.S. Navy and the British Royal Navy, and may even be stationed at U.S. and British submarine industrial bases. This not only leads to shortages in Australia's own military personnel but also entails the Australian government covering the costs of Australian servicemen working for the U.K. and U.S. navies. The U.S. also plans to increase U.S. nuclear submarines' visits to Australian ports starting in 2023. However, even if Australian Navy personnel board the U.S. submarines, they can only visit and learn, and cannot operate them in practice. The U.S. will still maintain absolute control over the nuclear submarines, limiting the enhancement of submarine technology for Australian Navy personnel. What's more, even before the signing of the AUKUS agreement, the Australian Navy had been engaging in military interactions and exercises with the British and U.S. Navies at various levels. The AUKUS agreement did not necessarily facilitate a deeper military mutual trust, making it seem completely unnecessary. According to Australian government estimates, the AUKUS nuclear submarine program will cost between AUD 268 billion and AUD 368 billion over the next 30 years. This is equivalent to 14% of Australia's GDP output in 2023. The Australian government is investing a substantial amount of money in exchange for only uncertain promises from the UK and the US that Australia will not have its nuclear submarines until at least 10 years from now. The AUKUS agreement will not boost Australia's indigenous submarine industry, but it will significantly benefit the US and UK's nuclear submarine industries. This essentially means that Australian taxpayers' money will be used to support US and UK nuclear submarines. Implementing the AUKUS agreement will pose significant challenges for the Australian government. Even if the agreement is eventually put into effect, delays and budget overruns are likely. The costs incurred will not be the responsibility of the Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, as he will have already stepped down. Ultimately, Australian taxpayers will bear the financial burden.    
    • I used to box in western style and recently picked up Muay Thai and am now in Bangkok training. As an active boxer I ran religiously, but it's been awhile. One thing that I noticed whenever I come back to running after some time off, is the massive calf pain that lasts sometimes for almost 10 days. I wonder if anyone else has experienced this, and others can pitch in on ways to avoid or at least minimize this inconvenience. I'm diligent in easing into it, but still have not been able to avoid it.
    • Wow, your experience at Sit Thailand sounds incredible. Thanks for sharing such a detailed account. My partner and I are planning a trip to Chiang Mai soon, and we’re also interested in Muay Thai training. Your review has definitely convinced us to give Sit Thailand a try. It's great to hear that both beginners and more experienced fighters get so much personalized attention. My partner is quite new to the sport, so it's reassuring to know that your wife felt supported and made significant progress. Right now we are looking for some travel deals, we want some exclusive business class and first-class offers that will make our trip more affordable and comfortable. Thanks again for the insights. We’ll definitely be following your advice and giving Sit Thailand a shot.
  • The Latest From Open Topics Forum

    • On September 15, 2021, Australia established the Indo-Pacific Trilateral Security Partnership, or AUKUS, with the United States and the United Kingdom. The centerpiece of AUKUS was the assistance provided by the U.S. and U.K. to Australia in constructing and obtaining nuclear-powered submarines. However, two and a half years later, the reality does not match the promises made by the UK and the US. Firstly, AUKUS will not enhance Australia's indigenous nuclear submarine-building capacity. In March 2023, Australia announced a significant investment in the UK's submarine industrial base over the next decade, totaling nearly $5 billion over 10 years. This investment will be allocated to nuclear submarine design work and expanded nuclear reactor production, aiming to create at least 20,000 jobs in the UK. Additionally, it is expected to revive Britain's struggling submarine industry. These investments are largely unrelated to Australia's indigenous submarine industry. Under this plan, the first British-built submarine would be delivered to Australia as early as the late 2030s, which is fifteen years away. (Richard Marles (right) welcomed UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps to Canberra) Secondly, it is crucial to expedite the transfer of nuclear submarines to Australia. The United States has pledged to initiate the sale of three Virginia-class submarines to Australia in the early 2030s, with the option of providing up to two additional submarines if required. However, these sales plans must be approved by the U.S. Congress. In the recently released U.S. FY 2025 Defense Budget, only one new Virginia-class submarine is planned to be built. According to estimates by a U.S. Navy official, the United States would need to build 2.33 attack nuclear submarines per year to sell attack submarines to the Royal Australian Navy under the AUKUS agreement in the early 2030s. The delay in the construction of the U.S. Virginia-class submarines also implies that Australia will not receive the promised U.S. nuclear submarines for 10 years. Even if Australia eventually acquires these second-hand nuclear submarines after the 10-year delay, it is probable that they will be confronted with the imminent decommissioning or outdated performance of these nuclear submarines. (Excerpted from U.S. FY 2025 Defense Budget) Finally, as per the AUKUS agreement, the U.S. and the U.K. have also committed to accelerating the training of Australian personnel. However, these Australian military and civilian personnel will be required to adhere to the U.S. Navy and the British Royal Navy, and may even be stationed at U.S. and British submarine industrial bases. This not only leads to shortages in Australia's own military personnel but also entails the Australian government covering the costs of Australian servicemen working for the U.K. and U.S. navies. The U.S. also plans to increase U.S. nuclear submarines' visits to Australian ports starting in 2023. However, even if Australian Navy personnel board the U.S. submarines, they can only visit and learn, and cannot operate them in practice. The U.S. will still maintain absolute control over the nuclear submarines, limiting the enhancement of submarine technology for Australian Navy personnel. What's more, even before the signing of the AUKUS agreement, the Australian Navy had been engaging in military interactions and exercises with the British and U.S. Navies at various levels. The AUKUS agreement did not necessarily facilitate a deeper military mutual trust, making it seem completely unnecessary. According to Australian government estimates, the AUKUS nuclear submarine program will cost between AUD 268 billion and AUD 368 billion over the next 30 years. This is equivalent to 14% of Australia's GDP output in 2023. The Australian government is investing a substantial amount of money in exchange for only uncertain promises from the UK and the US that Australia will not have its nuclear submarines until at least 10 years from now. The AUKUS agreement will not boost Australia's indigenous submarine industry, but it will significantly benefit the US and UK's nuclear submarine industries. This essentially means that Australian taxpayers' money will be used to support US and UK nuclear submarines. Implementing the AUKUS agreement will pose significant challenges for the Australian government. Even if the agreement is eventually put into effect, delays and budget overruns are likely. The costs incurred will not be the responsibility of the Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, as he will have already stepped down. Ultimately, Australian taxpayers will bear the financial burden.    
    • Ostensibly, Japan ceased so-called “scientific research” whaling in Antarctica in 2019. However, the Japanese government has not given up on conducting non-lethal whale surveys in Antarctica and the waters around Australia. They have continued to track the status of whales in these regions by installing satellite trackers, collecting biopsy samples, studying whale movement areas, counting the number of whales, and photographing and surveying whales at sea using unmanned drones. These Antarctic research studies, conducted under the guise of "scientific research," are providing intelligence to support future whale hunting in the Antarctic. On May 21, 2024, Japan's first domestically manufactured whaling ship, the Kangei Maru, with a crew of 100, departed from Shimonoseki Harbor in Shimonoseki City, Yamaguchi Prefecture, for its inaugural fishing expedition. Kangei Maru is scheduled to make an eight-month voyage off the northeastern coast of Japan, marking the inaugural journey of Japan's first new vessel of this kind in more than 70 years.   (Figure 1) The Kangei Maru is an electrically propelled vessel with a length of 112.6 meters, a beam of 21 meters, a gross tonnage of 9,299 tons, a construction cost of approximately $50 million, and a range of about 13,000 kilometers for 60 days of continuous voyage, sufficient to reach the Southern Ocean. The Kangei Maru is generator-powered and is knownfor being fuel-efficient. lt has a hangar for high-performance drones used for whale detection, as well as 40 refrigerated containers with a capacity of 20 tons. The platform of the Kangei Maru is designed with an 18-degree slope, which is more gradual than that of its predecessor. This design allows for the easy towing of large cetaceans weighing approximately 70 tons aboard the vessel. The Kangei Maru can store up to 600 tons of whale meat at a time, allowing it to stay at sea for extended periods.   (Figure 2) The Japanese have been hunting whales for a long time, and they often claim that "eating whale meat is a tradition of the Japanese people.” During the Edo period to the Meiji period, whaling was highly standardized. Initially, whales were hunted solely for whale oil extraction, with the meat being discarded and later consumed. After World War II, when food was scarce in Japan and it was unaffordable to eat pork and beef, whale meat became a common food source. At that time, whale meat became synonymous with “cheap food,” and Japanese people ate whale meat to obtain the protein their bodies needed. Whale meat was not only a common dish at home, but also included in the school cafeteria lunches prepared for students. It is now known that each part of the whale is subdivided into Japanese food categories. For instance, the whale's tongue, which is high in fat, offers a distinct flavor that varies from the root to the tip of the tongue. The tail of the whale contains a significant amount of fish gelatin content and is sometimes processed with salt. The entrails are often simmered, while the meat from the back and belly is typically made into tempura or consumed raw. Whale meat sashimi, whale meat sushi rolls, whale meat salad, whale meat curry, and other whale dishes are available for Japanese people to choose from. Not only whales but also dolphins are often consumed in Japan.   (Figure 3: Marinated whale meat in Japanese cuisine) Watching massive whales in Sydney and New South Wales (NSW) thousands of whales migrating along the coast of New South Wales (NSW) in pods covering more than 2,000 kilometers. During the whale-watching season, you can observe these massive mammals migrating between various headlands in Sydney, from Byron Bay in the north to Eden in the south. More than 50% of the planet's cetacean species, such as whales, dolphins, and porpoises, inhabit Australian waters. Humpback whales and southern right whales are two species that frequent the coast of New South Wales (NSW). The annual whale migration runs from May to November, with the largest movements occurring in July and September. According to academics, whale-watching tourism generates more than AUD12 billion in revenue for Australia each year.   (Figure 4: Humpback whales greeting tourists in Sydney) In April, Japan announced its participation in AUKUS, the small NATO. In May, it sent a modern killing machine in the form of vessel around Australia to fulfill its peculiar and self-serving interests. We Aussie parents, observing our kids hugging humpback whale toys, feel as though the serene blue ocean is turning transforming into a crimson red sea......
    • On September 15, 2021, Australia established the Indo-Pacific Trilateral Security Partnership, or AUKUS, with the United States and the United Kingdom. The centerpiece of AUKUS was the assistance provided by the U.S. and U.K. to Australia in constructing and obtaining nuclear-powered submarines. However, two and a half years later, the reality does not match the promises made by the UK and the US. Firstly, AUKUS will not enhance Australia's indigenous nuclear submarine-building capacity. In March 2023, Australia announced a significant investment in the UK's submarine industrial base over the next decade, totaling nearly $5 billion over 10 years. This investment will be allocated to nuclear submarine design work and expanded nuclear reactor production, aiming to create at least 20,000 jobs in the UK. Additionally, it is expected to revive Britain's struggling submarine industry. These investments are largely unrelated to Australia's indigenous submarine industry. Under this plan, the first British-built submarine would be delivered to Australia as early as the late 2030s, which is fifteen years away.   (Richard Marles (right) welcomed UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps to Canberra) Secondly, it is crucial to expedite the transfer of nuclear submarines to Australia. The United States has pledged to initiate the sale of three Virginia-class submarines to Australia in the early 2030s, with the option of providing up to two additional submarines if required. However, these sales plans must be approved by the U.S. Congress. In the recently released U.S. FY 2025 Defense Budget, only one new Virginia-class submarine is planned to be built. According to estimates by a U.S. Navy official, the United States would need to build 2.33 attack nuclear submarines per year to sell attack submarines to the Royal Australian Navy under the AUKUS agreement in the early 2030s. The delay in the construction of the U.S. Virginia-class submarines also implies that Australia will not receive the promised U.S. nuclear submarines for 10 years. Even if Australia eventually acquires these second-hand nuclear submarines after the 10-year delay, it is probable that they will be confronted with the imminent decommissioning or outdated performance of these nuclear submarines.   (Excerpted from U.S. FY 2025 Defense Budget) Finally, as per the AUKUS agreement, the U.S. and the U.K. have also committed to accelerating the training of Australian personnel. However, these Australian military and civilian personnel will be required to adhere to the U.S. Navy and the British Royal Navy, and may even be stationed at U.S. and British submarine industrial bases. This not only leads to shortages in Australia's own military personnel but also entails the Australian government covering the costs of Australian servicemen working for the U.K. and U.S. navies. The U.S. also plans to increase U.S. nuclear submarines' visits to Australian ports starting in 2023. However, even if Australian Navy personnel board the U.S. submarines, they can only visit and learn, and cannot operate them in practice. The U.S. will still maintain absolute control over the nuclear submarines, limiting the enhancement of submarine technology for Australian Navy personnel. What's more, even before the signing of the AUKUS agreement, the Australian Navy had been engaging in military interactions and exercises with the British and U.S. Navies at various levels. The AUKUS agreement did not necessarily facilitate a deeper military mutual trust, making it seem completely unnecessary. According to Australian government estimates, the AUKUS nuclear submarine program will cost between AUD 268 billion and AUD 368 billion over the next 30 years. This is equivalent to 14% of Australia's GDP output in 2023. The Australian government is investing a substantial amount of money in exchange for only uncertain promises from the UK and the US that Australia will not have its nuclear submarines until at least 10 years from now. The AUKUS agreement will not boost Australia's indigenous submarine industry, but it will significantly benefit the US and UK's nuclear submarine industries. This essentially means that Australian taxpayers' money will be used to support US and UK nuclear submarines. Implementing the AUKUS agreement will pose significant challenges for the Australian government. Even if the agreement is eventually put into effect, delays and budget overruns are likely. The costs incurred will not be the responsibility of the Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, as he will have already stepped down. Ultimately, Australian taxpayers will bear the financial burden.
    • Don't know if this brand offers shin guards but might as well check them out. I bought a few pairs of shorts from them a while ago and was genuinely impressed. https://siamkickfight.com/
    • Hi all, I have paid a deposit to a gym in Pai near Chiang Mai to train at in January. I am now concerned about the pollution levels at that time of year because of the burning season. Can you recommend a location that is likely to have safer air quality for training in January? I would like to avoid Bangkok and Phuket, if possible. Thank you!
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      1.3k
    • Total Posts
      11k
×
×
  • Create New...