I am getting confused again about this Muaythai scoring, I know that by sticking my neck out and asking the following questions that I am setting myself up for ridicule. But I am struggling with a few things, so at the risk of sounding stupid ......

We are constantly being told that boxing and low kicks do not score in muaythai and that if a fighter only does these techniques, he is not doing ‘real’ muaythai.

Well I think Anuwat is a bit of a legend, but he has won a lot of his fights with punches!

Anuwat has twice been voted as fighter of the year in Thailand, but....... if he punches a lot and that is not a ‘real’ muaythai technique, how or why was he voted fighter of the year twice??

I have just watched the Anuwat fight against Liam Harrison http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTAxNDQ1NDIw.html

(Great respects to Liam Harrison for all his fantastic achievements!)

It was a great fight but ...... Anuwat wasn’t using ‘real muaythai’ techniques!!!! He was ONLY boxing and low kicking, 2 techniques that we are being told do NOT score. Surely someone as experienced as Anuwat, a Thai who fights regularly in the Stadiums, would know this (if it’s true).

Why if low kicks and punches do not score, why would Anuwat use these two ‘non scoring’ techniques?? Seems a very strange tactic.

If the fight had not been stopped, would Anuwat have lost the fight, because he was only boxing and low kicking and these are not good Muay Thai techniques?

Of course if all eight techniques in the ‘science of eight limbs’ scored, then it would make sense to use his boxing and low kicks, if that is what he is good at and they are working. When you read the rules, they say that all techniques score and after watching someone like Anuwat use them so well I am once again confused about what is really true.

If they are effective, do low kicks and punches score? And if they don’t why did Anuwat use this tactic in this fight, why has he won so many fights with punches and why was he voted the best boxer in Thailand twice?

Steve

Could av done with you at the Tony Myers judging seminar yesterday,
Great points..
pete

Hi steve

I totally agree with!

How the f@ck can you NOT score a low kick or punches??

The Thai low kick is the most widely regarded and feared of all low point kicks?!!


!t was probably the very first kick most of us learnt - was for me in MT!

MT had a huge surge initially in the UK because MT guys were attaining great victories and huge success by using the MT low kick against the - then - top karateka, kung fu & tae kwondo guys who had no concept of how to defend this great kick!!

i knew boxing wasnt scored as highly as kicks / knees and elbows but to ignor it seems almost as daft as the ignore the 1st 2 rounds mallarky!!


but Im probably wrong and must go on a day long judging course to undersytand it i guess!


They should just allow text votes after each round like on x factor !!

its not that it doesnt score but on a like for like basis a body kick showing affect scores better than a low kick with affect..... as does a straight knee over a round knee..... nobody has said a fighter cant use them in a fight but if fighitng someone who will body kick the whole fight the chances are the body kicker will win........ as said best to do a seminar with tony to understand or raise any concerns you have at that time which will be answered fully by tony .... and in a more convincing way than i can lol

I will defer to Tony Myers, Liam Robinson, Richard Wain, Dean James, Darren Philips, etc. (all excellent judges as I've seen in person or on video or through personal communication). But perhaps I can help to anwser in part.

In theory, all weapons have the potential to score equally, but in practice, they often don't. The best scoring techniques are those that show the most effect. Meaning they not only hit the target cleanly, but cause the opponent to lose position, grimace, cover and not immediately fight back.

Therefore, punches do have the same potential to score as kicks/knees. For a punch to score it has to land on target and show a visual effect. Generally, clean kicks/knees to the body are considered to be more effective than a cleanly landed punch *unless* the punch shows real effect.

So in scoring more weight or more important factor for winning a round is the greater amount clean blows hitting the target with accuracy & power. That can be punches and low kicks. Case in point, Anuwat has incredibly hard punches that show effective, hit cleanly, cause loss of position, covering, shelling up and not countering. And his low kicks are often thrown when that opponent covers, hitting cleanly, accurately, powerfully and showing effect.

He also has an incredibly high knockout ratio therefore when he has lost from what I've seen, his losses have gone the distance and he is the less effective fighter, being kicked, or kneed and outscored. Watch his fight with Jomthong.

But I think it's a valid question you've raised Steve.

LOL, wainey. You sneeked one in.

Pisand sums it up pretty well there and also there is a lot more to Anuwat's game than punches and lowkicks, he was won many fights on points using the other weapons also, but in this case he used what worked to win the fight and in the past it has proved very successful for him to use his hands and also lowkicks to get the win. I can't say I agree or like the statement about if you are just punching and lowkicking it's not real Muaythai. The sport is supposedly the art of 8 limbs, Mat, Tao, Khao, Sok or Punch, Kick, Knee, Elbow, there have been hard punchers in the sport in Thailand for years and the match-ups of puncher vs kicker, puncher vs Knee fighter can often draw in the biggest crowds to see if the puncher gets the k.o or not and IMO it is what makes the sport, the variety of different styles and the excitement generated when they clash. It isn't such a big deal in Thailand and strangely this whole argument about it not being real Muaythai comes more from outside Thailand, where there seems to be a bit of snobbery about who is more genuine in the sport

Well put Rob.

ALL TECHNIQUES SCORE EQUALLY*
*with the caveat that they are on target and show effect.

You (as a judge) need to see effect, whether through losing balance/composure or the fighter being kicked getting frustrated or consciuosly pulling away from a technique, as if they are scared or concerned about the power of the shot which is landing.
The reddening of a leg (or a lat) shows that the kicks have power, but if they do not move the kickee (rather than kicker) then it has minimal value.

OK..... a little test
If two fighters face each other (low-kicker v body kicker) and lets the other fighter just land a technique without blocking, who is going to be the first to give up.
If the low kicker is accurate then one on target will disable an opponent
If the body kicker is accurate then one on target will disable an opponent
For a low kick to be bang-on target and have that devastating effect, you are probably looking at a target area about 10cm in diameter on the side of the leg.
For the body kicker to be accurate, he has a target area about 40/50cms in diameter, so by this rationale the body is an easier target to hit. And I think this is why people are seeing it as "body kicks are best" because its an easier score (relatively).

If people are trained not to be scared of a technique then the criteria lies with balance, and how far people are moved by shots landed.

At the end of the day its a fight.
The stronger (more effective) guy wins.
Look at it like a street fight....if guy bashes guy B for 5-mins and then guy B comes back and leathers guy A in 2-mins, who wins? Guy B, cos he has weathered the storm. Guy A couldnt finish the job and burnt himself out, and guy B still had enough in the tank to step up and take the win. The only difference with muay thai scoring is that its in the ring, with a ref, over a specific time.....this is why timing a performance is vital and more emphasis is put on round 3 n 4 (money rounds).

As for Anuwat. I think it would be stupid/naive to think that he is a one-trick pony..... its just that he is renouned for his boxing. He has had a lot of KO's through punches, and we (in the west) tend to recognise the effectiveness, due to the heritage (Marquis of Queensbury). Anuwat also knew that Liam is a prolific puncher with a lot of KO's on his record.
Punchers need a base to land their shots, and if that base can be broken (low kicks) it takes the power away. If you body kick against a uncher, its a dangerous game as you may get caught halfway through a kick, and totally lose balance (which, as i was saying earlier is a big score), so Anuwat utilised his low kicks to break liams balance and sap his power.....therefore a big score.

This is IMHO.....
No one will think bad of you Steve for asking a question, as I dare say there are loads of other thinking the same thing..... this is just how I understand it anyways.

Steve,

Thats a good post,those of us that have been in the game for a long time and have used UK Muay Thai rules for so long are bound to find it a bit confusing when using the Thailand scoring system.

As I see it there are 3 types of fighters in Thailand..

Fighter 1) The puncher/low kicker this fighter usually has a good chin and can bang with his hands,he gets his opponent off balanc and or hurt to the legs and looks for the ko shot.

Fighter 2) the clincher,this fighter usually is very strong and looks for the clinch to off balance and wear down his opponent.

Fighter 3) the technical fighter,he may not have the power/strength of the other 2 fighters so will utilise all 8 weapons and use good ringcraft and tactics win his matches.

Fighter 1 the puncher can be beat by fighter 3 the technical fighter,

Fighter 3 the technical fighter can be beat by fighter 2 the clincher,he can be worn down by strenght.

Fighter 2 the clincher can be beat by fighter 1 the punche/low kicker,usually by being kept of balance and kod or hurt bad with hands/low kicks.

There have been plenty of examples of all 3 types of fighters in Thailand over the years having great sucesses and winning Lumpinee and Rajadamnern titles.

Saenchai at the moment is a example of fighter 3,Anawut of fighter 1,and Wutidet Lukprabart a example of fighter 3

Obviously all above types of fighters have full knowledge of the whole range of techniques?tactics of Muay Thai and understand how to win by the rules,and then use their strengths as a fighter to win the match.

Steve keep asking the questions brother and then we will all grow in knowledge and understanding of the sport we all love and have put so much time into:).

I think it can be a lot more complex than that, the technical master with a strong punch also that gets k.o wins, the clinch fighter with dangerous elbows etc... and it's what makes the sport so enjoyable to me all the different combinations of styles and different match-ups. Wuttidet would be more an example of number two Paul right? He is different though than other clinch and knee fighters with a more rounded game than say Nopparat or Petchboonchu who tend to be a bit more one dimensional with big knees and strength with the clinch, but not so much with other weapons

Anuwat knocked tons of people out the years he won... I think it was more because of that he won. Basically in Thailand they seem to think of punches as 'ineffective' because knockouts rarely comes from them... much more they come from a knee, kick or elbow... therefore they are not scored that highly. Anuwat however obviously does damage with his fists and KO's people...

Quite a few people I spoke to in Thailand thought that unless Anuwat KO'd someone he'd lose on points but would always expect a KO... kind of like Hatton in his day... his style isn't pretty but he stops a lot of guys... Won Ring Magazines fighter of the year because of that.

I am no expert in proper muay thai scoring I am only going on what Iv been told by trainers and friends in Thaland. I have always been told that (in Thailand) its totally fine to low kick and punch but if you have thai judges you had pretty much better be able stop a fight with these techniques which Anuwat does very well!! cause if you dont they arent held in very high regard as good scoring techniques if the other fighter is throwin more body/head kicks and scoring with good knees and clinch.You could be absolutly knocking shit out of someone with punches but if they keep kicking you cleanly but with little power then the thai judges will still favour the kicking.Same with teeps, my thai trainers in the past have told me any fighter who uses even effective teeps that move you back will be looked at disfavourably by judges as it looks like you dont want to engage in the fight.Im not saying this is gospel just what my trainers have told when I asked them.

Anuwat used his low kicks and power punches to take Liams game away from him very well and scored because the techniques showed visible effect and kept Liam on the back foot. These techniques may score immediately by having effect or they may serve to soften the opponent up, cause damage or drain them for later on. Either way they are legitimate techniques and score just a s well as body kicks and knees. I hear too much emphasis nowadays on 'unanswered body kicks' and even 'unanswered teep' almost to the point where one kick accross the arm or a couple of teeps that stop the opponents attack and the round is won unless the opponent gets one back.

This is not the case - a body kick or knee that scores has no more value than a punch or low kick. I have never heard this claimed by anyone who knows anything about the sport or where this idea comes from.

Its a lot easier to punch someone or low kick than it is to score with a body kick or a knee. To score with knee or body kick tends to show a better skill level so that fighter is more likely to win the fight but if the figher is landing more scoring punches and low kicks they will win the round.

I honestly think all this can get a bit silly and over analysed.

Thanks for the replies. Some great points made.

I fully get the ''but on a like for like basis a body kick showing affect scores better than a low kick with affect..... as does a straight knee over a round knee''

What I am asking I suppose is does an effective low kick score better than a body kick with no effect and does a round knee with effect scor higher than a straight knee with no effect?

Are all techniques scored equally if they have effect?

I personaly like Anuwats style and I thought he had a brilliant game plan and tactics against Liam and it made complete sense to me to fight that way. But recently we seem to have been discouraged form using low kicks even when it makes sense as Rich cadden says ''Punchers need a base to land their shots, and if that base can be broken (low kicks) it takes the power away. If you body kick against a uncher, its a dangerous game as you may get caught halfway through a kick, and totally lose balance (which, as i was saying earlier is a big score), so Anuwat utilised his low kicks to break liams balance and sap his power.....therefore a big score.''

It seems stupid to me to try and match someones strongest weapon if you are weaker in that department, better to do something else, if A isn't working, try B. If someone is really strong in the clinch, why clinch with them, if you have better kicks?

I just need to clarify (for myself) that ALL effective techniques score. because someone Anuwat was using them, I am asuming that in Thailand they do, otherwise, he wouldn't use them?

Mr Smith, we must have been writing at the same time lol
I agree with you on that.

a body kick landed clean on the body, does not need to move the fighter to score.... if the kick lands on the arms of the opponent and is unanswered it scores just as good..... a low kick needs to show physical movement of the fighter or physical pain in the fighters expression to score in the same sense.... a low kick for instance that took a fighter off his feet would score more imo than a clean bodykick as off balancing your opponent is the key goal.... the same with the round knee and the straight knee.... a clean shot and delivered on balance is what your looking for so if the round knee delivers better and makes the fighter feel some discomfort from it and they show it where as the straight knee just hits the target then yes the round knee will score better as it shows more affect...
hope that answers your question steve.. ;)

I dont really get all this talking about individual techniques scoring more than others its all too academic - its not done like semi contact adding up points. I dont think talking about it like this helps understanding. Its not a paper excercise.

Its a fight and needs to be looked at overall. The fighter that controlls the action and lands the most effective shots wins the fight and its usually obvious who's won the fight. If a fighter lands 2 or 3 'unanswered' body kicks and stops their opponents attacks with a few teeps in a round but gets bullied all over the ring, pinned in the corner and unloaded on they arent going to win. Unfortunately its not usually this obvious but it cant be broken down as much either.

IMO The techique that shows the most effect will score better,
Like a good leg kick will score better than a body kick with no effect,
But like for like the body kick will score better than the low kick,a punch showing effect will also score but not as high as a kick, How clean a techique lands also makes a big difference.

richard spot on here. all techniques score equally well. Body kicks and knees are assumed to score but save for that simple ruling all techniques score evenly provided they show effect. And a fight ought to be scored by viewing it wholistically not applying points to techniques and using a numerical scale.

Steve,i come from pretty much the same era and background as you do (although not wrestling ;) )
can i try to see it from your view?
We learned low kicks not for effective score..but because it hurt
learned knees and kicks ...because it hurt opponent
same with punches and elbows.
in all of my fights (to my detrement) i never tried to "effectivly outscore " anyone,i tried to knock them out,each and everytime...that is what i was taught the "game" was...it was a fight in which you tried to k.o. your opponent pure and simple....
as i say maybe this is where you are comming from?
I dont know of any fighter back in the day who was going for a stadium style points win?

Wainey , you wrote
"a body kick landed clean on the body, does not need to move the fighter to score.... if the kick lands on the arms of the opponent and is unanswered it scores just as good..... a low kick needs to show physical movement of the fighter or physical pain in the fighters expression to score in the same sense....

"WHY?? ......why does 1 kick need to show movement and 1 not or indeed cause pain, whether it causes pain or not its a clean shot ?.

Also just because someone marks up real easy it not necessarily causing pain to any great degree loads of lads mark real easy and others dont , how can we always tell whether it has had effect just because it lands cleanly.

In the west we look at detail too much, and i think this is detrimental to the progress of the sport.

One of the chats I have had with Tony, he told me about showing the same picture to a westerner and to someone from the Far-East.
The westerner said "Its a picture of a TIGER in a Jungle"
The Far-Easterner said "Its a picture of a JUNGLE that also has a TIGER in it"
A very subtle difference, but a great example of how we are over analysing and looking for a bit too much detail.

If you take a step back and view judging with a higher level of abstraction then its easy to grasp.
- The person who hits harder wins
- The person that off-balances the other wins

Take it another level of abstraction, the person who has more effect wins.

It is up to coaches/cornermen to tell you the best way to cause the most effect.

Bovy doesnt seem that technical, but he walks through a lot of shots and has great balance, so has developed in to the name he is.
Its OK to be one-dimensional if you are good at what you do, whether its the three styles above or any combination (as Rob n Paul Pearson discuss above)

russ mate ill leave that one open to debate im just going on what i know and how it scores and thats what i use in practice....

Rob,

Yeah I agree it is more complex than I put on my post,thats just a starting point really eh!.

Also I meant Wutidet as a example of number 2(thanks Rob) and I agree Wutidet is very clever and waits his time using the teep etc before going to the clinch.

Good thread this Im learning loads.

I think the muay thai low kick is one of our most powerful & effective techniques and punching causes most knockouts in muay thai & mma.

I personaly feel that these are the things that work and fighters shouldn't be encouraged to favour kicking their opponents arms to score points.

Anuwat goes out to finish fights, using the techniques he knows are effective. If Anuwat had been body kicking instead of low kicking I don't think he would have stopped Liam.

I honestly don't know why body kicks are regarded so highly in the scoring system. I mean how many fights have you seen ended due to body kicks? I hardly ever see body kicks ending fights, compare this to Boxing with ends fights all the time.

My god! Muay Thai scoring is getting complicated! Worst thing is, the public (who buy tickets & fund the shows we fight on) don't understand it!

Its not complicated if you stay focussed on the criteria above:-

If you view judging with a higher level of abstraction then its easy to grasp.
- The person who hits harder wins
- The person that off-balances the other wins

Take it another level of abstraction, the person who has more effect wins.

SIMPLE.....

Sounds simple enough Rich but you see it time and time again, a fighter landing good box/low kick combos through the whole fight, maybe even wobbles his opponent but still loses cause he took too many kicks on the arms

raj have you ever watched panikos yusef ??? he ends fights with body kicks

I'm sure he does mate, I'm not saying that they can't end fights, I'm saying that a hell of a lot more stoppages come from punching

Raj Singh writes:

I think the muay thai low kick is one of our most powerful & effective techniques and punching causes most knockouts in muay thai & mma.

We're not talking about mma though we are talking about Muay Thai.

well mma is pretty much muay thai when the fighters are on their feet, i mentioned mma to highlight the effectivness of punching

mma is pretty much muay thai ?????????????? no its not

I said when they are on their feet! Come on! Is it really that big a deal that I mentioned mma in a post? Or are you just trying to pick a fight?

Trying to pick a fight ??? grow up for fuck sake and get a grip.

Whatever Brain, you have nothing constructive to put towards the thread so your trying to pick up on little things that I have said, blow them out of proportion and make a big deal of them. I don't wish to argue with you any further so lets get back to the topic at hand.

not seen too may fights stopped with bodykicks, though Saenchai vs Jaroenchai springs to mind, but have seen plenty of fighters run out of steam due to accumulation of hard knees or kicks to the body, also seen more than a few hurt by them Sam-A has won of the strongest left kicks you will see now, he has had Petchboonchu almost unable to lift his arm up after a barrage of his kicks done the same to Detnarong, both of who are very strong fighters, Jomthong Chuwattana did the same to Chok Eminent air not long ago, to say that those type of kicks shouldn't count compared with boxing lowkick combo's is also wrong, you may see a fighter staggered a bit by punches, but more often or not the fighter will still keep coming after, those cases I mentioned the fighter on the receiving end of the kicks had no fight left in them, Samkor another fighter that you wouldn't want to take many bodykicks off. Going back to Anuwat, watch his fight against Attachai, Attachai kick high constantly in that fight, big, fast left kicks almost to Anuwat's shoulder level, Anuwat was never in the fight and wary to let his hard right hand go for fear of getting a shin across the neck, a good . You stated that people shouldn't be encouraged to kick high, but just focus on techniques that get the most k.o's, well that would make it another version of k-1 and not what the sport is as it stands now and has it has been for many a year

If it hurts em do it,some fighters are open to leg kicks others are good at bloking or missing them.Every fite is different,be versatile as long as you hurt them.

Nice post Rob,and you beat me to what I was going to say about kicking the arms which was that if your opponent has a heavy punch then kicking his arms can be a effective tactic in stopping him punching you(to much!)also if the opponent does punch as your kicking to the arm the kick can land on the body or as Rob said the neck.

I like the body kick as a counter to the punch,if timed correctly it is hard to counter by catching or lifting the leg to block.

As part of a general overall strategy the kick to the arm has its place as does the punch and low kick and all other weapons techniques and tactics of Muay Thai.

I think one of the reasons why we see more box&low-kicking in europe as westerners appear to be less flexible, so its easier to just box and throw in lowkicks to the thigh. If flexibility is an issue, then i would recommend just doing more high kicks and stretching.....EVERYDAY.

Raj: Theres less body kicks in mma due to leaving yourself vulnerable to takedowns. Theres plenty of contraversial decisions in MMA and boxing too, so I dont think this is just in muay thai. Its fighting sports in general....but this is veering off the topic.

Fully agree there Noi,the low kick is easy to throw because of our general poor flexibility,its also easy to learn(in its basic form) and develop power so new people can gain confidence in their training quickly,same thing goes for a right hand generally.

As you say stretching is a way to develop the higher kicks as is spending plenty of time kicking high!.

Guys I love my head kicks and body kicks as much anyone, and I love mixing it up. I agree with NMT if it works do it. I just don't think that a kick on the arms should score higher than a punch in the face, thats just my opinion. I know thats our sport and you can't please everyone and yes its not just muay thai, plenty of contreversy in MMA & Boxing too.

Rob I never meant fighters should not be encouraged to kick high, just not discouraged to kick low. Think I worded it wrong :)

Raj - a punch in the face that shows effect can score higher than a kick in the arms.

cool, its just that sometimes I get the impression that it dosn't :)

I remember Andy Howson fighting Kantopong at Wolverhampton, and Kantopong just kept kicking, and I mean really kicking, Andys arm.

Kantopong won this on points, although at the time I thought Andy had won, but I think this must have been due to the effect those kicks were having, so although they werent to the body per se, they still did enough to effect Andys performance.

Phill just said per se!

that is worth a body kick!

I actually slightly hesitated before I wrote that as well!

Must have been my inner being telling me it was wrong and ever so slightly twattish.

I feel all weapons should be judged equally, if they hit and hurt the opponent, then it should score wherever it hits.
Punches and low kicks are devastating weapons.
Getting back to the analogy of a street fight, you certainly would not body kick or teep, that is for sure. You would be using the punches, low kicks, knees and elbows.
Also the Thai warriors of old on the Battlefield, if they dropped their weapons, or were disarmed, i cannot see them relying on body kick or teep.

One of the biggest reasons Thai fighters in this modern era are encouraged to body kick is for the gamlers,the fight can go the distance more times with body kicks and knees than if the guys went all out to destroy the legs and chin,ive got footage from the 1950s and the 1960s when the fights were really fast paced from round 1,no warming up or feeling out just straight down to buisness.

Like it or not the gamblers play a big part in keeping Muay Thai alive in BKK and the boxers play the stadium game very well,does it make Muay Thai any less effective than before is open to debate,personally I think its great as the boxers are so well skilled and conditioned if not quite so well rounded as other eras.

i remember watching Thongchai beat manasak by only low kicking dont recall him throwing one body kick in that fight...manasak was throwing lots of left body kick and thongchai was leting it hit him then smashing his leg after.

Totally agree with Sean's post above. Bang on!

Punch and low kick are easy to throw and land and require less skill. They are still very effective and can win a fight of course - Seans analogy of a street fight shows that if you were in a street fight you would use the more damaging simpler techniques that leave you less exposed.

But a Muay Thai fight isnt a street fight, the fighters are very highly conditioned and the fighters are looking to SCORE. They are not always looking to inflict damage with every technique or score a KO they are looking to unsettle, unbalance, set up, soften up, wear down as well. Often fighters that go out looking for a KO will fall behind on points as the judges will also score good defensive skills and the fighter will be open to the counter it they just go forward all the time. Kicks and knees to the body require good timing and are much harder to land.

Good post Richard.

The body kick has more counters ie catch, block, intercept, evade, etc than the low or high kick,so if boxer can land it cleanly without getting countered,get it in and out and back to base without loosing his balance I think he is showing a great level of skill(given a opponent of equal skill level of course).

I actually feel That there is a chance boxing and low kick are more likely to score in the UK than they are in Thailand, mainly due to the fact that we don't work enough over here on correct positioning and stance! Low kicks are easier to block with the shin than body kicks if you are stood in a correct stance. It is easier to stop somone from boxing using body kick and knee, again if you are stood correctly in the right place.

Add that to the fact that these techinques were tremendously succesful when Thai boxing first came over here, in particular the low kick, because even fewer people stood correctly or had any idea how to block them then. Gyms had great success using these and some are now reluctant to change their primary attacking techniques!

On point, Mr. Smith! And dazzatthethai brings up a good point about reluctance to move forward and evolve in terms of training, and that includes learning the scoring system that is correct and not how it once was.