Kirves

'Ti' is Okinawan (uchinanguchi) for 'te', still meaning "hand". The same syllable as the 'di' in Toudi.

It is good to know that the term bunkai was actually taken to use in the west and not that long ago. On Okinawa, the original word used for the kata application analysis is ti-chi-ki, "the possibilities of the hand". So, on Okinawa you study "the way of the empty hand" (karate-do), which was earlier known as "the Chinese hand" (toudi a.k.a. tode) and the application of the kata is studied as "the possibilities of the hand" (ti-chi-ki).

The choreographer is a famous Hong Kong action film fight choreographer, so it is natural for the action to look Chinese.

I like Loren W. Christensen's book "Fighter's Body". Simple yet smart advice without any of the fads, gimmicks or weird systems.

There are no better books than: 1. BJJ Master Text ( http://www.jiu-jitsu.net/handbook.shtml ) for pure BJJ 2. Fighter's Notebook ( http://www.fightersnotebook.com/ ) for MMA Way better than any of the books by Gracie/Machado people, IMHO. See the review section at http://www.bjj.org/ .

Taijutsu as a generic term refers to body skills, and was often used as synonym to jujutsu and other similar terms, referring to the unarmed methods of several styles (including aikido!). Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is a modern style of grandmaster Masaaki Hatsumi, who founded it on nine traditional fighting systems of Japan. Most of these systems are "just" samurai arts, similar to other traditional jujutsu systems. Some of the styles also included shinobijutsu - the methods of the ninja. Hence much was made about the ninjutsu aspect of Bujinkan in the early years of 70's and 80's for advertising purposes. Later the name was changed from ninjutsu to taijutsu, because that is more accurate as per what the curriculum is composed of. If you study Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, the average class is quite identical to any traditional (not modern!) jujutsu systems. You'll have to study years until you even hear of the first ninjutsu type techniques, which quite frankly aren't that applicable in basic self defence scenarios. The ninjutsu methods include ways of scaling medieval castle walls, picking ancient locks, etc. Although one can easily assume that the old ninja tactics have a lot to offer in terms of ideas as per how to defende oneself more effectively in the modern world too. Fact is, many people who claim to teach "ninjutsu" have actually very little knowledge of actual ninjutsu, and they are just teaching the jujutsu tactics.

Check this out: https://www.balisong.net

It is true that most recognized arts can be effective if trained well. It is also a fact that quite often a set of training methods follow a given art/style and as such some arts are "better" or "worse" than other arts with similar, or exactly same techniques, if the training methods that are "attached" to the style differ significantly. For example, there are styles that only do point sparring, and styles that do contact sparring. There are differences in sparring rules and so on. Some do predetermined drills, while others semi-free and free drills. All this can mean that two arts with quite similar technique-base can produce very differently skilled fighters.

My sentiments exactly!

Ummm... I still don't think bowler is the best example of a protective stance against a violent encounter, but hey, I am not an expert on bowling so maybe I just don't have a clue.

In a local arnis school where I live, the first belt rank (there are ten ranks until black belt, the instructor's rank) requires sparring, and basic punches, blocks and kicks. So I'd say that at least their style goes to empty hand stuff right from the start.

It is because their strong hand is also the side that is more accurate and skilled. When you need to do something with fine skill, you naturally use the strong side. A bowler has no need to train both sides equally, nor does he need to think about how vulnerable he is with his other hand and differing foot positions. He can do whatever he wants with the rest of his body to make the one arm do it's job the best it can. This is quite a difference compared to fighting where everything counts, not just a part of your body or limb.

It is the primary weapon. The other (empty) hand is the secondary weapon, as are the feet etc. This is the philosophy of all such arts which use the weapon only as an extension of the body, instead of treating the weapons system as a separate animal from the empty hand system (such arts exist too!). For example, in eskrima, you do basically the same techniques, defences and offences, whether you are equipped with one stick, two sticks, one knife, two knives, a stick and a knife, or just two hands. The techniques basically remain the same. There are some disctinct features of course (a knife cuts even farther from the tip of the weapon, stick does not, etc) but these are minor changes to the overall techniques and movement. For example the stick is still held like a sword. You don't hit with it just any way around, but you hit keeping the knuckles forward, in effect you hit with "the front of the stick". This is to keep you from developing bad habits when you use a blade instead. Now I regress... The point is that the systems that usually feel it natural to keep the weak side forward all use a certain kind of "dogma". And that dogma is different from those who feel (because of their differing dogma) that strong side lead is "natural". Good examples were the baseball hitters for the other, and fencers for the other dogma. Both would feel awkward the other way round. If a baseball player tried to keep the bat in the lead side, he wouldn't do that well. On the other hand, if a fencer kept his foil in the rear, he would lose every match he entered. Now this is the whole point of my article: if you try the other approach, you will lose unless you also switch to the dogma and strategy where the reverse system is natural! If you only try the same one-step-techniques "with the left hand" and don't change the actual strategy, you aren't getting the full benefit of the experiment.

Jackie Chan was trained in the Chinese styles which usually don't use belt ranking systems (some do, though), so it is easy to understand why he has no coloured belt ranks.

One thing I must make sure people got was that the main point of this topic (the different defenc/offence dogma between the leads) is reversed for left-handed people. I.e. the whole point is about switching between strong hand lead and weak hand lead, not between right/left lead. If you are left handed, then it is natural to use the "weak hand defends in the front, strong hand counters from the rear" dogma while fighting "southpaw". The paradigm switch explained in my article only applies to the idea of having the usual weak hand lead switched to the more rare strong hand lead. The dogma difference exists between those and is irrelevant to wether you are left or right handed.