Why Thai Boxers Feel Like They're Superior?

I wasn't necessarily talking about 'acting tough', more the recycled notions of too deadly to spar, kick to the kneecap, the deadly eye gouge, etc. All sorts of misinformation that despite coming from different systems hone in on the same malarkey excuses.

 

Well according to wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_tai

"As previously stated, martial arts were only allowed for performance purposes until 1979. But in March of that year, the Zhejiang Provincial Sports Training Center, Beijing Physical Education University (former Beijing Physical Education Institute), and Wuhan Physical Education College were convened by the government-appointed China National Sport Committee (CNSC) to transform Sanshou into a competitive sport. By October, the first three Sanshou teams were created from fighters chosen from the aforementioned wushu colleges. Even more teams were gathered in May 1980."

We are not talking about the national tournaments of the 1920s and 1930s in China. We are talking about a competitive combat sport developed in the 1980s.

 

But they are the same thing in most respects, practically nothing changed from the Guoshu I and Guoshu II and modern Guoshu and SanShou except the addition of gloves and other safety equipment and official ruling party sanction of what was long a 'national art' of pre-Communist China. When they say 'first Sanshou teams' they really mean first mainland Sanshou teams since before the Cultural Revolution. San Shou as it exists today was not developed in the 1980's at all, it was merely reintroduced into mainland Chinese culture after being oppressed for about a decade during the Cultural Revolution in fact the paragraph just before your quote states Guoshu as it was originally in the 20's and 30's was alive and well in Taiwan in 1950's through the 1970's, and was being oppressed within Communist China as a subversive activity during that time. The competitive combat sport you are speaking of is more or less just the 'official' Communist state re-acceptance and sanction of that Guoshu ('national art') with gloves and a modern ruleset. It's no coincidence in my opinion brother that this coincided with the defrosting of the Cold War in the 80's. But generally I guess my point is that Guoshu and San Shou are generally about 80-90 years old. San Shou is really just the modern name given to a (slightly) older system of Sanda combat sport largely developed before WWII, from even older systems (some of which are British as well as Chinese kung fu! )

 

Muay thai is a sport I should know, I did it for years, it is excellent training but besides it is not self defense focused, I like it but I have taken many round kicks to the leg but in a self defense situation a side kick to the knee can disable someone, while when sparing in Mt we were not trying to take the knee out, it's great but its focus is ring focused, you can use it ,but how you train is how you will fight

 

Martial means military

 

a Mt leg check will work on a side kick and I could not beat a MT fighter from Thailand, I don't train 6+ hours per day but I also don't think its the be all end all in martial arts

 

Which instantly disqualifies 90 percent of arts

 

Thanks mate! I really needed a good laugh. "Monkey Steals the Peach" = priceless. The image in my head :cry: I mean, "Monkey Steals the Peach" xD

No disrespect to any martial arts style/martial artist intended

 

the OP is ridiculous and I can't believe people are arguing over it.

How about I say "why are Brazilians all such stuck up people, there's 2 at my gym and they always say how much better they are than the UK" haha

Basically my friend you just met a few idiots. They are everywhere!

 

Some things warrant disrespect and this is certainly one of them.

There is an equally if not even even more ridiculous application in the lau Gar set of some Hung Kuen schools which involves a double monkey steals the peach executed by squaring and bending down beneath two punches coming from a forward and rear assailent and arching your arms up to the genitalia... It's risible and should be laughed at.

There should be no sacred cows in martial arts IMO.

 

The guy was referring to animal hands.

You know of no legit CMAs that imitate animals?Like N.Mantis,Hop Gar/Bak Hok,Fu Jow P'ai,Pa Kua?

Well,some systems,or aspects of same,such as those I mentioned above,are based in whole or part on imitation and/or inspiration of/from animals.

???? I don't see the southern standards like Hung or CLF being anything like MT.

What was special?Well,if everyone that answers your challenge goes down it says quite a bit about the shortcomings of those training methods and systems.It was a wake up call years before the modern MMA comps.

There's a site a Chinese guy had on the net a few years ago about the history & records of Chinese vs. Thais in MT. While over the years the Chinese were winning sometimes it was still only against 3rd or 2nd tier MT guys.

Depends on the kick-side & front kicks can certainly be parried or attacked w/a single limb.

I guess it's not impossible,as it's a matter of record.

Or people who had not spent enough time freestyling,esp w/practitioners of other systems.

I'm not saying there aren't any,but I know of no "trad" southern systems which strike me as anything like MT in appearance or tech mechanics.

No,it's not just a cultural name for punches and kicks,it's a name for a specific culture's method for a specific delivery system for punches and kicks which also entails specific methods of footwork and defense.

Certainly the Japanese Karate systems ALL disentertained the notion in the 1960s-except for Oyama's boys.Wonder why?

Well,as Shaolin monks after the 1920s or so were pretty much non existent that's not surprising.I don't see any reason that they would have done any better than anyone else,tho'.If you wish you can believe in fairy tales of Shaolin monks being especially better than the other CMA practitioners of their time-for which there is NO evidence,just fiction.

 

Hi Medico sorry I'll try to respond to as much as possible. I think I agree with most of what you said but I do see some things differently and can support it, I think. I don't know your own background so it's hard to know how much of what you said is opinion versus a fact. But I'd like to discuss it see if we can't come to a mutual understanding.

Imitate no brother but inspire sure I can buy that. There is a big difference in my opinion, one suggests the thinking that the best way to fight is to pretend you are a tiger bear pig and so forth. Inspire sure because in Hung gar for instance you're not trying to be a tiger or crane, you're trying to learn something about fighting in nature and humans certainly have various animal 'aspects' they can draw upon. We use those same aspects in similes 'like a tiger', like a 'snake' and so on. I don't believe any of the styles you listed actually teach 'imitation' do they?

That's odd brother because I've gotten a completely different take on that by listening to both Hung gar and Muay Thai fellows, many who mix both seem to believe they are practically one and the same when inside the sparring or fighting zones. Punch kick locking and throw is not that different between Hung gar and Muay Thai. The training might be different or it might be very similar. San Shou training (which is effectively what effective Hung gar sparring looks like) is similar to Muay Thai even though I think some of the focus is very different (for instance Muay Thai don't worry about throws). I can't help but wonder if a Muay Thai fighter wanted to learn throws for some reason, they'd probably seek out a San Shou-like art anyway (and would find it with a number of southern systems, no?). This idea that Southern Chinese systems are totally unlike the kickboxing of Muay Thai is kind of a foreign concept to me, I've never encounter that sort of perspective. But I'm willing to listen

But respectfully I don't believe we've identified exactly which training methods and systems were actually present and accounted for. A lot of it is anecdotal, which systems were defeated by which systems in such and such a formal contest. I don't think anyone can claim none of the fighting styles in China at the turn of the century were any less vicious or rigorous in training as Muay Thai. It just wouldn't make sense. So those Muay Thai boxers probably did indeed defeat certain boxers outside Thailand, but I wouldn't go so far as to think that it meant there were no Southern Chinese styles as one example that couldn't 'hang'. By 1930 the Chinese nationalists had essentially everything that would become San Shou (they had Guoshu and that was already a very Muay-Thai like martial art complete with ring 'platform' etc). How is Guoshu any different really from Muay Thai when we get down to punches kicks locking et cetera...not much!

But then where is the record with the details of the styles? To be clear 'matter of record' is something that must be indepedently verfied, but we're still largely talking about unverified things aren't we? What I am trying to say is that there's a lot of claims of Muay Thai defeating various other fighters from other locales over centuries, but that's common to all martial styles, really. To suggest that means that Muay Thai is in general more developed or 'tougher' and so on, I don't think that's true. It's not rocket science if anything it shares a huge overlap with more orthodox boxing styles nowhere near Thailand doesn't it? Thai boxing is certainly a style of champions don't get me wrong, but I think it's a huge leap to assume it means that all the styles they challenged were somehow inferior. WE don't say those types of things about arts like Savate, it's also very similar to Muay Thai. I guess my point is why would anyone believe the art from Thailand was 'special' when we have similar kickboxing styles literally developing all over the world (Europe, China, Southeast Asia all did it).

China (and Vietnam and Korea and) were mixing pots of multiple styles that did engage (quite violently at times) with other systems. I think the insular context you're referring to is more or less a modern phenomenon of gentrification (and certainly has drawbacks with developing any art for oneself...how could you really advance without mixing it up?) The Communists seemed fine with the gentrification of Chinese arts for obvious reasons..but just across the pond in Taiwan, Guoshu was as violent and popular as it had been for centuries.

That's right but let's face it it's extremely similar to many other forms of boxing, and in the ring it looks practically identical to the layperson as 'kickboxing'. It's actually quite difficult for many people to tell the difference until they learn to recognize certain stylistic trademarks (hand positions and feet and so forth) but still, those stylistic trademarks aren't what make Muay Thai famous or more destructive, it's the powerful kicks and punches and clinch (things common to many, many arts). So while I agree Muay Thai again is a 'king of the ring', I don't see it as very different from a lot of similar styles (not just Chinese but wholly foreign arts as well). I think UFC re-popularized Thai boxing but it also re-popularized other forms of kickboxing (e.g. Savate) because they are so similar and maintain the strong training regimen and so on.

If you read Meir Shahar, I think you'd find it's not completely fictional. It's actually quite rare for any religious figures including monks to have been given martial honorifics by the various dynastic Imperial ruling powers in China, but in the case of Shaolin Si, you find quite a few 'Shaolin heroes' who are not just the products of wu xia, but actually have engravings and writings bearing witness including in the journals of famed military commanders. It's true some of that 'overlaps' with Chinese fiction (in fact, some famous real life generals also find their way into Chinese fiction! So no one is safe from the exploits of wuxia But speaking 'matter of record', Shaolin monks became recognized both unit leadership abilities and especially with their skill in blunt and bladed weapons. You can argue these could have been fabricated, but for the most part they are considered part of the temple's verified archaeological canon and of course, for centuries military generals of all types in China were impressed with the monks who were trained in weapons (not necessarily empty handed training, which was held in disdain by many generals for being basically unnecessary for battlefield combat).