Discussion in 'Muay Thai and Kickboxing' started by Leg Kick, Jan 12, 2015.
You know, would you call it great ? How is it compared with the golden era in the 90s ?
People tend to romanticize the past, but many golden era "stars" genuinely look like they did put more exciting fights to me. Kaensak, Boonlai, Samson, Kongtoranee the Muangsurin guys and more... These guys are responsible for some wars.
I like the era of the early 2000's too.
From what I've seen, I don't think the talent is far off.
Overall the fights were better in the 80's and 90's and that makes that time more appealing.
That's certainly seems true to me! I just watched some Karuhat recently, fucking guy was a beast, I don't think we have that quantity of greats today.
Probably not the best but quite large.
They call it the Golden Era for a reason.
I'd say their are guys today with really high skill level for sure they just don't bring the violence like the 90's did.
And Karuhat was pretty economical/slower paced compared to some other guys...
Karuhat had some vicious elbows. Did some rounds of light sparring with him when he visited Sitjaopho. He has an awesome skillset and is very good at explaining patterns, pretty difficult to explain if english is not your native language but those two days taught me a lot about finding the right rhythm when fighting.
The golden age had better "MuayThai" fighters but now days I think a lot of the fighters are more "complete" fighters because of how international the sport has become and all the outside influences. I don't know if that means their better or not.
A good golden age fighter wouldn't do as well in the ring against certain westerners of today as someone like Saenchai or Buakaw would because they are more complete to various styles and have evolved & adapted. I think the only thing that makes today's Thai stadium fighters not as good as back then is the lack of competition.
There is no denying that the fights back then were way more exciting. I think fighters and styles like Yodvicha are ruining the sport thou with all that clinching but apart from that I don't think there is as much of a difference as people make out.
I don't agree with that at all. Matter of fact id argue that the fighters back then were more capable of dealing with a westerner's style than today. Most guys today fight to win decisions and the gambling influence has affected the scoring criteria that has made fighters fight differently.
Outside influences have been there well long before the 90's, let alone the modern era.
They also had more incentive back in the day to but on a good fight as they were actually paid decent at one point in time. Guys in the golden age could make 200k baht or more vs only 100k now a fight. that was around 8-10k US back then in thailand would go along way and could buy them a local house in their home provence in one fight
Somrak said in an interveiw that the scoring has changed because of gambling so it affects the way they fight...
Changed how ?? From the 90s to now it changed too much in what aspect ?
This is a topic I always find interesting, specifically performance of past generations compared to today. I am usually of the opinion that skill improves from generation to generation unless there is some drastic influencing factor. Someone mentioned that gambling may have influenced scoring and strategy in he last couple decades. But what about skill? Are the fighters more skilled today , but fight more conservatively? I personally believe that today beats yesterday in a straight up fight.
If I can nerd out for a minute, the tendency to believe past generations were better in some way is not a new phenomenon. Even in the Iliad, the characters talk about how the past generations were superior.
The fight flow and riding out decisions. More weight on clinch/knee styles.
The skill to me is about the same. The gambling or some other issues do make the fights generally more conservative today.
Satharnmuanglek could compete with Hippy
Wanchalong could compete with Langsuan
Prajantchai could compete with Chamuekpet
Sam-A could compete with Karuhat
Kongsak could compete with Namkabuan
Singdam could compete with Sangtiennoi
If those fights happened a 3-3 tie wouldn't surprise me at all.
The clinch/knee style was common back then, it was just they fought much more to beat each other up with knees, whereas today it's more about control, turns and dumps.
The raw talent at the top may be comparable but fighting the way the top Thais did back then must have had an effect on both overall skill level and ability to fight at range.
two random fights from each era:
2013: Wanchalong Sitzornong vs. Superlek Wor.Songprapai
mid-90s: Superlek vs Nuathoranee
Similar style matchups but quite a difference in terms of intensity.
Whitesport, could you elaborate a bit more on your time training/sparring with Karuhat and the information he taught/shared with you?
I'm a huge fan of his, one of my favorite fighters ever. A very complete, skilled fighter and some of the guys who are connected to him I can see his style resonate in them such as Attachai Por Samranchai/Fairtex and the Sitjaopho brothers.
Sherdog now has been flooded with guys who say that all Muay Thai fighters, now and in the Golden Era, are inferior athletes relative to MMA fighters and way inferior to boxers. I have seen Sherdoggers who think that because Muay Thai fighters are so inferior to MMA fighters and boxers as athletes than MMA guys and boxers could easily crush the best Muay Thia fighters and kickboxers and win their titles even if they fought in a kickboxing/Muay Thai fight. And apparently it is because MMA fighters and boxers are just really good athletes and Muay Thai fighters are substandard athletes. Some of them think they could dominate and win kickboxing titles if they wanted to.
Separate names with a comma.