Jump to content

Where to look when sparring/fighting?


Recommended Posts

Personally, I am not a very eye-contact heavy person and when sparring I accordingly have a defocussed look which goes through my partner's midsection and with which I try to take everything in at the same time.

Would you rather generally recommend 1) this defocussed look or 2) looking your partner/opponent in the eye and why? Personally, I would still need to force myself to do the latter and should be doing it to experience the differences.

Furthermore, when do you recommend to deviate from either your 1) or 2) standard? For instance when looking at incoming attacks for optimal blocks? Do you switch from defocussed to eyes or vice versa when sparring/fighting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I am not a very eye-contact heavy person and when sparring I accordingly have a defocussed look which goes through my partner's midsection and with which I try to take everything in at the same time.

Would you rather generally recommend 1) this defocussed look or 2) looking your partner/opponent in the eye and why? Personally, I would still need to force myself to do the latter and should be doing it to experience the differences.

Furthermore, when do you recommend to deviate from either your 1) or 2) standard? For instance when looking at incoming attacks for optimal blocks? Do you switch from defocussed to eyes or vice versa when sparring/fighting?

 

Sylvie's definitely a no-eye contact person, so this is a thing that she's wrestled with as well. Hopefully she's hop on and talk about it. But til then I'll just note that last week Chartchai, former WBC World Champion boxer, and former Muay Thai fighter told a friend of ours that best is to look right below the chin, maybe the throat or collarbone area. He said that a lot of fighters look at the eyes and end up with their punches floating up, missing high. If you look here though they land right on target. Believe me, he said.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my old gym, I was always taught to look directly in my opponent's eyes, so I got pretty used to that. It's weird to me now, though. In any case, I'm constantly trying not to look where I'm about to strike, so I don't tell them what I'm about to do. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sylvie's definitely a no-eye contact person, so this is a thing that she's wrestled with as well. Hopefully she's hop on and talk about it. But til then I'll just note that last week Chartchai, former WBC World Champion boxer, and former Muay Thai fighter told a friend of ours that best is to look right below the chin, maybe the throat or collarbone area. He said that a lot of fighters look at the eyes and end up with their punches floating up, missing high. If you look here though they land right on target. Believe me, he said.

Very unusual and unexpected advice. Thanks for that input, I will (attempt to) give it a try. On a related note: During a drill in my last session where we were supposed to reply to a standard mid-kick with a punch, I noticed that my standard mid-section look was too low as I did not have good vision of where my partner was moving his head. The Chartchai tip, which would mean looking up for me, might indeed fix this. On the other hand it might worsen my aim for mid- and low-kicks? Gotta experiment with this.

 

In my old gym, I was always taught to look directly in my opponent's eyes, so I got pretty used to that. It's weird to me now, though. In any case, I'm constantly trying not to look where I'm about to strike, so I don't tell them what I'm about to do. 

Yeah, if your partner/opponent telegraphs where he/she is attacking with his/her eyes - something which I noticed in an exercise with one partner - then that would be an overwhelming reason for (often) looking into the eyes. I don't think I am giving away where I am attacking but I could be wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played soccer as a kid and learned to watch the hips because you can't move anywhere or anything without telegraphing there a little bit. So I look at kind of the hip/torso area. Sudsakorn told me to watch this area as well, although I've also been told to look at the chin and upper chest (like a rectangle that includes both those areas) because you can see everywhere from there. Namkabuan wanted me to look right in his eyes but I can't do it. With my own trainer I will occasionally look right in his eyes after a good shot or as a kind of moment of recognition when he or I get something good on each other, but that's based on years of becoming very familiar and playful with each other. I don't do that with anyone else.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played soccer as a kid and learned to watch the hips because you can't move anywhere or anything without telegraphing there a little bit. So I look at kind of the hip/torso area. Sudsakorn told me to watch this area as well, although I've also been told to look at the chin and upper chest (like a rectangle that includes both those areas) because you can see everywhere from there. Namkabuan wanted me to look right in his eyes but I can't do it. With my own trainer I will occasionally look right in his eyes after a good shot or as a kind of moment of recognition when he or I get something good on each other, but that's based on years of becoming very familiar and playful with each other. I don't do that with anyone else.

 

The momentary conclusion, in other words, seems to be that there is no concensus on where to look even among professional fighters and legends. Rather interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When working pads I try to keep my gaze on the centre of the upper chest, just below where the clavicles meet.

When sparring, I stare into my trainer's eyes. However I am blind as a bat without glasses so it doesn't feel 'awkward' to be staring directly like that because I can't actually see his eyes beyond being blobs anyway! :wink:

  • 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

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

  • Forum Statistics

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