Jump to content

Differences in technique and method in Thailand vs western countries


Recommended Posts

One of Sylvie's posts about clinch got me thinking about the differences in technique and method in Thailand vs the west. It's interesting how some things may be effective in the West but are not at all effective in Thailand.

Part of this is due to relative inexperience in western countries, for both trainers, fighters, and officials.  I also think part of it has to do with the influence from MMA, at least in America. Often amateur and even pro fighters will compete against someone with an MMA background who is competing in Muay Thai for experience, though it isn't their primary sport. The judges and commissions often do not score according to Thai rules, so that changes the game significantly.

One big difference I have noticed is in cutting weight. You cannot safely do a water load/sodium cut the same way you could do in America. This is due to both the heat in Thailand and the likelihood that your trainer will want you to train until just a day or two prior to the fight. Granted, you don't really need to as it is so easy to sweat in the heat. It is still a major difference, no less. 

There are many differences from a  technique perspective, but one that sticks out is that your block has to be at a much more narrow angle in Thailand. Less experienced fighters tend to have more superfluous movement in their kick, so it tends not to be as direct. It seems this has caused fighters in the states to both use and instruct a wider and less condensed block. 

What are some major differences you have noticed?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ass-back is a huge western vs Thai difference that I think goes beyond any particular technique. The west has at least a few fighting styles that favor ass-back (or head forward) positions. The wrestler's hunch, and some styles of western boxing. This is a big difference, and it really plays out heavily in clinch where head-forward results in very easy throws or knees. I also feel like there are extra-circular reasons behind this. Culturally it is somewhat in the body image to pull the groin away in times of attack (for what seem like obvious reasons), but also that there is an element of modesty when in proximity. But hips-forward is a really important part or position in Muay Thai stances and Thai clinch, and there seems like there is a kind of "shyness" involved with the western body image/behavior that makes this much harder to access for western fighters.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ass-back is a huge western vs Thai difference that I think goes beyond any particular technique. The west has at least a few fighting styles that favor ass-back (or head forward) positions. The wrestler's hunch, and some styles of western boxing. This is a big difference, and it really plays out heavily in clinch where head-forward results in very easy throws or knees. I also feel like there are extra-circular reasons behind this. Culturally it is somewhat in the body image to pull the groin away in times of attack (for what seem like obvious reasons), but also that there is an element of modesty when in proximity. But hips-forward is a really important part or position in Muay Thai stances and Thai clinch, and there seems like there is a kind of "shyness" involved with the western body image/behavior that makes this much harder to access for western fighters.

Totally! It's a significant difference, and hard to let go of as many instructors teach ass-back as proper posture here. I suspect that in addition to the reasons you have mentioned above, it has to do with the fact that people have a very difficult time keeping their chin tucked with a tall posture.

In the west, there are many opponents with heavy punches but NOT many opponents who know how to knee effectively. There are even fewer who are clinch literate. Kicks may be fast but they aren't HEAVY, nor can you expect them to be without the hips properly engaged. It then becomes "more effective" to protect one's self from heavy punches rather than a skilled clinch and knee game *most* of the time.

This is further compounded by the fact that most commissions have the same people judging all sports. Very few commissions even differentiate between strikes on how they are scored, nor do they take factors like balance and composure into account. 

Since punches are not scored the same in Thailand, they become less of a focus and *typically* less of a threat. Obviously, there are still knockouts, but you don't see people losing on points to rabbit punches the way you do in the States. The kicks and knees, however, are incredibly dangerous and score higher. So, of course, taller posture is more effective. 

Because it is so difficult to fight regularly in the US under Muay Thai rules alone, most people fight at least one other style (K1, boxing, MMA, etc). I bet if you ran the numbers, people who fight both  MMA and Muay Thai lose to a pure Nak Muay (in a Muay Thai fight) via knees a high percentage of the time. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big difference, which I think is less of a difference in camps where they are accustomed to and focused on training westerners, is how correction is given. There's a lot of correction to little kids as beginners - literally posing their bodies to the correct forms - but you wouldn't do that to an adult so you don't see that among newer students from the west. But then correction comes in long intervals after that and trainers tend to let a technique be wonky so long as balance is maintained, with the knowledge that the correct form will kind of hammer itself out or smooth out over the rushing water of the balance, so to speak. When Dejrat, who is real adamant about "correct technique' would show me something I was doing wrong, the issue was balance. In the west everybody is off-balance, so the focus is on a million tiny details which won't make any difference at all because the balance isn't there. Here it seems like it's balance first, technique second, power last. Reverse that for the west.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the west, there are many opponents with heavy punches but NOT many opponents who know how to knee effectively. There are even fewer who are clinch literate. Kicks may be fast but they aren't HEAVY, nor can you expect them to be without the hips properly engaged. It then becomes "more effective" to protect one's self from heavy punches rather than a skilled clinch and knee game *most* of the time.

 

This is an interesting point, and one I have to say that I haven't given enough weight. And from your description it sounds really accurate. The big bombs come more from above. But I remain convinced that there are real, substantive differences in how each culture views the body. Rabbit punches may win in the west, because anything to the head feels or looks damaging, in how the body is mapped. In Thailand it's the opposite. Sylvie has lost several fights to rapid rabbit knees, really quickly thrown knees in a row that might not even touch the body. They are almost symbolic strikes to the gut. Yes, they require some additional balance, and that is on display, but it's more than that. You'll see slow motion replays, for instance in a Channel 7 fight, of knees landing to the ribs. Not really something the west would select out from a round. I think the west sees the head as the center of the Self. It is not only its expressive self (the face), it holds the brain (what science tells us is our core self). Strikes are directed to the head, because the head is essentially us. In Thai body mapping - and this is my little theory - the essential Self is divided up. Yes, the symbolic self (face) is above, but the life force of the self is conceived to be more in the gut. Blows to the gut, or ribs, feel more directed to the opponent's life force. We still have this in our language, things like "gut check", or "gutting it out", or "that takes guts", but these are largely leftovers from a differing world view of the body and the Self. Ancient western cultures considered the spleen or liver as core centers of the life force of a person. I suspect that the big divide on how scoring is done, especially in how body kicks or knees are scored, has to do with this different sense of Self.

Now, if we say this is correct, then it makes sense that the Thais would also become more proficient at designing techniques to attack (and protect) that core Self, and a martial art meant to do so. The west is filled with head-hunting because the head is seen as the essential life force of a person culturally.

...I do find your notes really interesting though. How though would you explain the difficulty westerners have in putting their hips in during clinch? Sylvie's been doing this full time for a long time now, and even though she's gotten to a place of very balanced hips in clinch, driving the hips in is still very difficult for her to do, even though she knows that is an essential "safe" place in clinching. There has to be something going on there. Of course it's not just Sylvie, we've seen it over and over again, with trained and untrained westerners alike.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big difference, which I think is less of a difference in camps where they are accustomed to and focused on training westerners, is how correction is given. There's a lot of correction to little kids as beginners - literally posing their bodies to the correct forms - but you wouldn't do that to an adult so you don't see that among newer students from the west. But then correction comes in long intervals after that and trainers tend to let a technique be wonky so long as balance is maintained, with the knowledge that the correct form will kind of hammer itself out or smooth out over the rushing water of the balance, so to speak. When Dejrat, who is real adamant about "correct technique' would show me something I was doing wrong, the issue was balance. In the west everybody is off-balance, so the focus is on a million tiny details which won't make any difference at all because the balance isn't there. Here it seems like it's balance first, technique second, power last. Reverse that for the west.

I think part of this is due to Muay Thai in the west being centered around recreational business, as opposed to raising professional fighters. They need to keep people engaged. Make it fun! Most people looking for a fun recreational activity are not going to spend hours and hours perfecting their structure as a hobby. 

This is why you see schools in the States teaching a spinning back elbow to students who can't yet block a kick without falling over. Hammering on proper balance and structure to the degree that one must to create an effective fighter is NOT going to create a large student body, which is what supports a gym as a business here.

Most people will never fight but still like to have a goal to work toward and measurable progress. This leads to the development of independent belt ranking systems based on not the "doing" but the "practicing" of Muay Thai. And now we have entered the murky waters of "Can what is being taught still be considered Muay Thai?".  

In Thailand, the kiss of death for a gym would be ineffective fighters - regardless of how much they are enjoying training. Though at many gyms in tourist-heavy areas, you might see a similar focus to that of the west as you had mentioned above. 

To your point about the balance>technique>power chain, I think you are spot on. Interestingly, BJJ in the US is taught more similarly to MT in Thailand in that the focus is always position over submission. Get good position first, then worry about your technique and finishing a submission (or striking on the ground if it's MMA). It is also one of the only martial arts where even the recreational students participate in live rounds regularly. The ratio of people actually "doing"Jiu Jitsu is much higher than the ratio of people actually "doing", rather than simply practicing, Muay Thai in the US. /tangent

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 How though would you explain the difficulty westerners have in putting their hips in during clinch? Sylvie's been doing this full time for a long time now, and even though she's gotten to a place of very balanced hips in clinch, driving the hips in is still very difficult for her to do, even though she knows that is an essential "safe" place in clinching. There has to be something going on there. Of course it's not just Sylvie, we've seen it over and over again, with trained and untrained westerners alike.

I've got nothin'! Even wrestling may be "ass back" prior to a shot, but employs a "hips in" strategy as a defense. Maybe there is a hip inflexibility piece to the puzzle? It's less comfortable to have the hip joint hyperextended as we westerners are notoriously tight and inflexible? Total shot in the dark. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got nothin'! Even wrestling may be "ass back" prior to a shot, but employs a "hips in" strategy as a defense. Maybe there is a hip inflexibility piece to the puzzle? It's less comfortable to have the hip joint hyperextended as we westerners are notoriously tight and inflexible? Total shot in the dark. 

 

Well, here is a theory I entertained a while ago. The squat toilet since childhood, and squatting in general as many Thais do/did to just relax and wait around, produces a lot of flexibility, and possibly a lot of technique that grew out of it. I wonder, as the western toilet spreads throughout Thailand if hip flexibility will just generally be reduced, and Thai technique may be changed. This has less to do with hips in, but your mention of the hips made me recall this chain of thought.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To your point about the balance>technique>power chain, I think you are spot on. Interestingly, BJJ in the US is taught more similarly to MT in Thailand in that the focus is always position over submission. Get good position first, then worry about your technique and finishing a submission (or striking on the ground if it's MMA). It is also one of the only martial arts where even the recreational students participate in live rounds regularly. The ratio of people actually "doing"Jiu Jitsu is much higher than the ratio of people actually "doing", rather than simply practicing, Muay Thai in the US. /tangent

 

This is just such an interesting point about BJJ. You are much closer to the world of MMA than I'll ever be, but it does seem to me that BJJ passion, and all the detailed "educated fan" knowledge was one of the things that really grounded the commercial expansion of MMA. While it was sold as brutal and ass-kicking, the BJJ fan made the whole thing science-y. You had to understand positions in order to really be a real fan. The attitudes toward BJJ seem to mirror the "real" love of Muay Thai. They are in some respects parallel. But because Thai Muay Thai is thought to be just "striking", it just devolved into kickboxing with a few "cool" techniques.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many differences from a  technique perspective, but one that sticks out is that your block has to be at a much more narrow angle in Thailand. Less experienced fighters tend to have more superfluous movement in their kick, so it tends not to be as direct. It seems this has caused fighters in the states to both use and instruct a wider and less condensed block.

 

Sylvie has been criticized by Thais for not opening her block up more, so this is a little ironic. But here is a short clip of Sifu Mcginnes, who happens to be a sometimes coach of Sylvie (he's a Karate guy), making fun of westerners for having such a wide block, something he attributes to westerners imagining that shin has to directly meet shin:

He and Dekkers take the conversation in a different direction, but it came to mind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just such an interesting point about BJJ. You are much closer to the world of MMA than I'll ever be, but it does seem to me that BJJ passion, and all the detailed "educated fan" knowledge was one of the things that really grounded the commercial expansion of MMA. While it was sold as brutal and ass-kicking, the BJJ fan made the whole thing science-y. You had to understand positions in order to really be a real fan. The attitudes toward BJJ seem to mirror the "real" love of Muay Thai. They are in some respects parallel. But because Thai Muay Thai is thought to be just "striking", it just devolved into kickboxing with a few "cool" techniques.

I think it's helpful to look at MMA and BJJ when trying to build Muay Thai in the States because they have done so well here. I don't think copying the MMA model completely would work, but there are some things that have we can take from it. Obviously, it is much more popular and the US has many of the top competitors. Neither BJJ or Thai boxing is "ours" though, so why have we cultivated higher level of Jiu Jitsu than we have Thai boxing?

On more than one occasion, I've heard a grappler express the idea that they like Jiu Jitsu better because your game keeps evolving. You can always learn and develop more. In striking, they said, you can only get stronger and/or faster at the moves you already know. That basic idea seems to be very prevalent here in the west. It's laughable, but it also kind of makes sense that they have that perception.

In BJJ, it's not really acceptable to open a school unless you are a black belt or maybe a very experienced brown belt. Because Jiu Jitsu practitioners must actually do Jiu Jitsu to advance and it takes roughly a decade or more, a black belt is going to be very proficient.

There is no such standard for Muay Thai or striking in general. Anyone can open a gym and call themselves a Muay Thai/boxing coach and nobody bats an eye. The likelihood that an average person who has practiced striking (of any kind, really) trained under someone advanced enough to set them up, make them feel like nothing works, and kick their ass in slow motion without hurting them as a BJJ black belt does, is quite slim. So, the perception is that striking ability is based on some technique, but primarily athletic attributes.

In Jiu Jitsu, almost everyone gets to see and experience what advanced looks like first hand - whether they end up making it that far themselves or not. Just as a BJJ black belt can sweep a beginning/intermediate student at will (without injuring them), an advanced Thai boxing trainer might sweep someone off of their feet during rounds. In Thailand, this happens frequently, but in the US many trainers simply do not have the timing or control to do these things. 

I don't mean to paint every trainer in the US with the same brush, as there are some very good instructors. The point is that there is no requirement to be at any level before putting one's self in a position of authority. If BJJ was primarily taught by purple and blue belts in the US, the perception of that art would be quite different as well. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's helpful to look at MMA and BJJ when trying to build Muay Thai in the States because they have done so well here. I don't think copying the MMA model completely would work, but there are some things that have we can take from it. Obviously, it is much more popular and the US has many of the top competitors. Neither BJJ or Thai boxing is "ours" though, so why have we cultivated higher level of Jiu Jitsu than we have Thai boxing?

 

I've tried to point this out to people, but fans of Muay Thai are caught in a kind of bubble and they don't realize that the popularity of the sport may be actually decreasing in the big picture. People in gyms don't realize it because they are surrounded by other enthusiasts.

Check this out. This is the popularity of the search term subjects BJJ (blue) vs Muay Thai (red) in the United States:

Muay-Thai-Interest-Over-Time-e1494419360

As you can see, both (probably) rode the wave of MMA and the UFC, but while BJJ has maintained its popularity Muay Thai has been in the decline in the US for a while now. This same curve is reflected in many other countries as well. There is a kind of crisis in the potential of Muay Thai in the west, and people just aren't aware of how deep it is. I think all your observations about BJJ are huge and important elements. We really should be thinking about how BJJ and Muay Thai both played out in the aftermath of the wave of MMA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Check this out. This is the popularity of the search term subjects BJJ (blue) vs Muay Thai (red) in the United States:

Muay-Thai-Interest-Over-Time-e1494419360

As you can see, both (probably) rode the wave of MMA and the UFC, but while BJJ has maintained its popularity Muay Thai has been in the decline in the US for a while now. This same curve is reflected in many other countries as well. There is a kind of crisis in the potential of Muay Thai in the west, and people just aren't aware of how deep it is. I think all your observations about BJJ are huge and important elements. We really should be thinking about how BJJ and Muay Thai both played out in the aftermath of the wave of MMA.

That's really interesting. Do you happen to know what caused the spikes in 2006/7 and 2008? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be that the 2008 summer spike was related to an MMA fight between Kaitlin Young and a certain future actress who did not make weight for that fight. The Google Trends data does not exactly match itself in differing views. It's hard to tell.

Ha! That would be funny if that's what it was...I don't remember how much Muay Thai was emphasized in the promotion of that bout. Cyborg was fighting for Elite XC as well. Actually, almost all of the females signed to Elite XC at the time had a Muay Thai background, and the cards were on CBS during prime hours. I doubt Kimbo was the cause of anyone looking up MT, so you might be right :laugh:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha! That would be funny if that's what it was...I don't remember how much Muay Thai was emphasized in the promotion of that bout. Cyborg was fighting for Elite XC as well. Actually, almost all of the females signed to Elite XC at the time had a Muay Thai background, and the cards were on CBS during prime hours. I doubt Kimbo was the cause of anyone looking up MT, so you might be right :laugh:

 

I'll say this, if very early female MMA fights were the cause of major spikes in Muay Thai searches in the United States, apparently some of the highest (proportional) spikes ever, people may have underestimated how powerful female MMA is, especially in regard to triggering new interest. At least in that time period. Anecdotal across thin data, but interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another difference I've noticed is the perception of wins and losses.(I say this cautiously, as Sylvie or someone else who can understand Thai knows what is being said about a person rather than only to them.) In the west, fighters are sort of regarded as "only as good as their last fight".

Ability is almost seen as static, rather than ever changing. If someone has a fight, or heaven forbid a streak, when they don't look the best people will make assertions that they "just aren't a fighter" or they "aren't mean enough to fight". If someone loses three fights people will start asking them about retirement, even if they are good fights. 

It seems that in Thailand, taking a loss is just viewed as a part of the process. Fighting without heart seems to draw far more criticism than in the west, but the outcome of each bout is not directly tied to a fighters worth and perceived ability. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have another idea why punch defence is considered more important in the West than in Thailand. Distribution of weight classes. The most competitive weight classes in Thailand would be at lower weights than in the West. Heavier weight class - higher probability of punch knockout. If most fighters you train are middleweights and above a single punch knockout is something that happens regularly. If a majority of your fighters are around featherweight - not so much.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll say this, if very early female MMA fights were the cause of major spikes in Muay Thai searches in the United States, apparently some of the highest (proportional) spikes ever, people may have underestimated how powerful female MMA is, especially in regard to triggering new interest. At least in that time period. Anecdotal across thin data, but interesting.

It seems to me that female fighting in general has been continuously underestimated. MMA may be the only professional sport where female athletes make a comparable salary to the men, especially when we take # of fights into account. This is for good reason.

The Tucker Center for Girls and Women in Sport came out with an interesting study a few years ago about how marketing to females is most successful when the character in the add is relatable. Males tend to be more affected by a character they admire - someone considered elite. The theory is that women prefer a character like them, and men prefer one they can aspire to be like. 

Top female fighters are certainly elite, but in MMA they have had the opportunity to market themselves as individuals (see Michelle Waterson bringing her daughter to open workouts, etc.). It is basically a requirement to be heavily involved in social media, and therefore closer to the fans. Fans see what female fighters are having for dinner, their cousin's wedding pics, and so on. Compared to other athletes, it is easier for women to see the similarities between themselves and female MMA fighters. 

During the last Olympics, P&G came out with a series of commercials featuring the mothers of Olympic athletes. It was a clever and successful attempt at using the more relatable role of mother, rather than the less relatable role of Olympic athlete, to market to consumers. This is something advertising agencies have been privy to for a very long time. Only recently did fight promotions begin employing the same strategy, and many still don't.

While women only make 77 cents on the dollar here, they are still responsible for 80% of household spending. Tap into that market with sports (as many others have been unable to do) and you have NEW customers, without even having to compete for current fans. How many UFC ppvs have been purchased because the woman of the house now wants to see the fights? 

A lot of this is just theory, and I'm making some generalizations, but I would love to see the numbers on increased interest in MMA from female consumers since women have entered the UFC. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have another idea why punch defence is considered more important in the West than in Thailand. Distribution of weight classes. The most competitive weight classes in Thailand would be at lower weights than in the West. Heavier weight class - higher probability of punch knockout. If most fighters you train are middleweights and above a single punch knockout is something that happens regularly. If a majority of your fighters are around featherweight - not so much.

Excellent point. It may be part of why westerners prefer to rely so heavily on boxing as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another technique difference, and this probably goes across the board for other strikes, but there is great variety in knees in Thailand. This variety doesn't seem to make it to gyms in the west. It's really the case that there are tons of styles and tons of different technical differences within Thailand (or even within a single gym).

Sylvie's video on knee variety demonstrated this:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Top female fighters are certainly elite, but in MMA they have had the opportunity to market themselves as individuals (see Michelle Waterson bringing her daughter to open workouts, etc.). It is basically a requirement to be heavily involved in social media, and therefore closer to the fans. Fans see what female fighters are having for dinner, their cousin's wedding pics, and so on. Compared to other athletes, it is easier for women to see the similarities between themselves and female MMA fighters.

 

This is an enormous factor. And it's been terribly disappointing to see so many women in fighting swept up in the male promotional system. This isn't just what promoters are doing in terms of ads, or photoshoots, it's the entire "I'm going to manage you" ethos of male-oriented, male-owned and run gyms, generally inherited from western boxing. When Sylvie started really communicating directly about her process, her weaknesses, her humanness all the other female fighters in the area were just locked away in their gyms, safeguarded. And it produced a lot of resentment in the local scene I suspect, a kind of "who does she think she is, putting up videos, she's no good?!" Sylvie just did it because she didn't have a gym, she had no male manager energy to follow. And she felt isolated living up where we did, about 60 minutes from NYC. She started building a community out of necessity. Along the way manager/coach types did try to take control a little: "You should be fighting easy fights to build your confidence, you should stop fighting big opponents." Everything was from the perspective of building a product, or a certain kind of "talent".

This is the thing though, what we discovered. The biggest power female fighters could have would be to just connect directly to other women. Sylvie's message was, and still is, I'm not special. I just have a passion. She's become kind of special, but only out of the accident of her passion. All female fighters should really throw off the male-oriented, or male-proven bullshit and just start communicating directly with other women. It's a big fucking deal. Stop trying to portray yourself as essentially badass, or so damn hot, or whatever. Just share what you are feeling, your ups and downs. Because the fight game is nothing other than a magnification of things that people feel everyday.

The gift of social media is just the gift of direct communication. The chance to be real. To slip outside of, beyond management. Yeah, I understand, there is an entire male marketplace that needs to be catered to in MMA. It's huge. But I think failing to create true female community first, or at least along the way, is a mistake.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have another idea why punch defence is considered more important in the West than in Thailand. Distribution of weight classes. The most competitive weight classes in Thailand would be at lower weights than in the West. Heavier weight class - higher probability of punch knockout. If most fighters you train are middleweights and above a single punch knockout is something that happens regularly. If a majority of your fighters are around featherweight - not so much.

 

That's a big point, I would think. But also keep in mind, most elite Thai fighters already have fought a great deal before a westerner has put on gloves. Most of the time years of it, sometimes over 100 fights. That is, they have learned the art of fighting in real fights at even a lower weight. If western Muay Thai fighters had 50 fights by the time they were 13 I'm not sure how much their eventual body size in adulthood would factor in. Westerners start fighting already at KO size, and then grow bigger.

I still don't think that Thais would have become predominantly headhunters if they were physically bigger...for instance Japanese fighters are known for being very heavy with the hands and I'm not sure that they are all that much larger than Thais. Even small Japanese Muay Thai and Kickboxing female fighters tend to be very hands heavy when compared to Thai females. That seems to be something in the culture, how violence is viewed and celebrated.

  • 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
×
×
  • Create New...