Author Topic: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?  (Read 8379 times)

Gearsighted

  • Guest
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #20 on: April 11, 2007, 01:18:44 PM »
Hmmm...so if Parkour is in the training, or the journey, is lifting weights Parkour if it's training me to be a better traceur? Working on rings? Discussing on the internet? Where is the line that we can draw where we say; "this is Parkour even though it's training and developing, this isn't Parkour, even though it's training and developing?" Faelcind, what is the criteria that you are using to determine this?

« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 01:20:30 PM by gear »

Offline Andy Animus Tran

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
  • Karma: +146/-44
  • The Invisible Man
    • View Profile
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #21 on: April 11, 2007, 02:15:43 PM »
This is where you're overinterpreting.  The act is not Parkour, the movements are not Parkour, and the individual acts of training are not Parkour.  The overall training is.  Parkour is the discipline of the act, the movement, and the training.  Flips are not Parkour.  Weight-lifting is not Parkour.  Kong vaults and wall runs are not Parkour.  The training is.  The mindset of training to move efficiently and to be useful.  If you train a movement to be efficient and useful, then it is Parkour.

A kong vault is not Parkour until you train it with diligence so as to become more efficient when performing it, more proficient at it, and it becomes a part of the set of skills that are useful to you and to others.  A flip is not Parkour and only when trained and utilized in an efficient and useful manner can it become Parkour.  In the vast majority of cases, it is supplemental at best... something that helps you become more efficient/proficient in OTHER techniques.  Weight-lifting is the same idea.  The ability to lift a weight is not necessarily a means of efficient movement to surpass obstacles and reach a destination, and the training of such is only a means to aid the progression to being able to  move efficiently.  The mindset of training a movement for efficient, the mindset of training efficiency as a whole, that is what Parkour is.
Andy Tran, C.S.C.S.
Lead Parkour Instructor
Urban Evolution
Parkour Virginia

Gearsighted

  • Guest
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #22 on: April 11, 2007, 02:29:27 PM »
Once again, that's arbitrary, and opens up the whole "parkour is everything that I do, because I do everything with the mindset..." idea. This is why I draw a line between training and Parkour, because a clean and concise line makes more sense and is better for training overall in my opinion. Is there anything that you do where you aren't utilizing some bit of the mindset Parkour has developed in you? Does that mean that this thread, for you, is Parkour? Once again, where do we draw the line?

Steez

  • Guest
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2007, 03:10:58 PM »
animus,
to your last question to me:

i would say parkour is still a discipline under my framework because you need to logically apply what you have learned/enabled yourself to do through training in an effective manner to achieve a defined goal.  this goal just happens to be wherever you want to be/not be, whoever you're trying to catch/get away from, etc. 

Offline Andy Animus Tran

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
  • Karma: +146/-44
  • The Invisible Man
    • View Profile
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2007, 03:24:19 PM »
gear, my point is that the components of the training need not be classified as Parkour/not Parkour, but the training as a whole.  The mindset versus the action.  The traceur lives Parkour and all else is components of his lifestyle, whether training or learning, neither inherently Parkour nor not Parkour.  But this is becoming too abstract and becomes my interpretation of the "core of Parkour," as Hebertiste put it.  The core remains the same, and that core appears to be different for APK than the rest of the world, strange as it may be.  That's fine.  I'm just trying to expand my understanding, and I believe that I have that.  I understand your point of view.  I simply disagree.  But it's been enlightening.  Thank you.

Steez, if it's still a discipline because you need to logically apply yourself through training, then is it not the training that defines the discipline, not necessarily the goal?
Andy Tran, C.S.C.S.
Lead Parkour Instructor
Urban Evolution
Parkour Virginia

Offline Ryan Ford

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 2423
  • Karma: +3/-1
    • View Profile
    • APEX Movement
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2007, 03:53:28 PM »
To me its all so arbitrary and conceptual. It comes down to personal opinion and interpretation. It results from the lack of a rock solid definition of parkour by the founder.

Honestly, I don't even see why it matters if parkour is the act or the training. Whatever parkour personally is to any individual, its essentially the same general concept to us all.

As a matter of opinion, all this discussion won't resolve anything. The only person who can is David Belle. If he ever does, we will go from there.

This discussion made me better understand why Andi made his statement: http://www.le-parkour.at/statement.html. I think things like this are directly similar/related to some of his own reasons on why he decided to go in a new direction.

Faelcind - The David Belle Olympics statement is in the New Yorker article.

Offline Andy Animus Tran

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
  • Karma: +146/-44
  • The Invisible Man
    • View Profile
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2007, 04:06:48 PM »
For one, it's conversations like these, philosophical by nature, that the public had asked Mark to incorporate into the forum discussions more.  He said it was up to us.  I see a topic like this as helping the community, not hurting it.

You've been very helpful.  Thank you.
Andy Tran, C.S.C.S.
Lead Parkour Instructor
Urban Evolution
Parkour Virginia

Steez

  • Guest
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2007, 04:26:10 PM »
Steez, if it's still a discipline because you need to logically apply yourself through training, then is it not the training that defines the discipline, not necessarily the goal?

your training will define how you move when you actually need to.  if a fireman knows nothing about parkour; he hasn't even heard of it, and he moves in the most effective manner possible to save a life, is he practicing parkour?  i would say yes, despite the fact that he has never engaged in any dedicated parkour training.  under your interpretation, this fireman is not practicing parkour, because he is not an adherent to the discipline.  (this is what i'm seeing...correct me if i misunderstood your stance)

to the folks who would like to see this discussion stop, please just allow it to happen.  so far i've seen mainly constructive input, and i'm interested in what there is to be said.

Offline Andy Animus Tran

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
  • Karma: +146/-44
  • The Invisible Man
    • View Profile
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #28 on: April 11, 2007, 05:15:52 PM »
No, Steez, you've understood me correctly.  A traceur must train to be a traceur.
Andy Tran, C.S.C.S.
Lead Parkour Instructor
Urban Evolution
Parkour Virginia

Offline Adrian Mark Cleverly Vigil

  • Oryctolagus Cuniculus
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #29 on: April 11, 2007, 05:48:37 PM »
I agree with animus. I believe that in the end, you may be trying to perfect a certain part in your kong vault, or adding distance to a speed vault, practicing a lazy vault, but this is getting you to point B. Even though you focus most of your thoughts on where you place your hands, or how your form is, you still have to think about the landing, about the movements following. You start from point A, not with the intention to have perfect form, but with the intention of bettering a certain part or movement to finalize this "journey" and reach point B. You still end up from point A to point B.

Offline Mark Toorock

  • M2
  • Administrator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 3087
  • Karma: +302/-72
    • View Profile
    • American Parkour
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #30 on: April 11, 2007, 06:12:49 PM »
I have to say that I really don't see this as a philosophical discussion. I see no reason to stop this discussion, but there really isn't anything philosophical about it.

From what I can see, Gear gets to the heart of the matter - where you draw the line between training and conditioning becomes a "problem" if you want to follow Animus' line of reasoning.

Animus, when you make this statement:

Quote
my point is that the components of the training need not be classified as Parkour/not Parkour, but the training as a whole.  The mindset versus the action.

you can't them tell me that box jumps aren't training for parkour, and if I do them with the mindset that they are increasing my jump, which is directly related to increasing a capability which is integral to parkour, then Box jumps are training for Parkour, and if I do that with the mindset that it will make my parkour better, then with your statement, boxjumps are parkour.

Please realize that I am not in support of this argument, merely playing out one of the possibilities.

I can further say that deadlifts increas my glute/ham strength and explosive power which directly affects not only sprint speed but also jump distance and height, so if I deadlift with the intention and mindset that it will make me faster, more capable of overcoming obstacles, then this too must be Parkour training, and therefore Parkour.

Again, playing out a scenario to illustrate a point.


Personally, I agree with Demon, that I "train for" Parkour 99% of the time, and I "do" parkour 1% of the time, when I go for a run with no intetion other than getting over whatever comes my way, no set routine, no training in mind, not out to "do better" just out to "get there", that to me is "doing" parkour. If my intention (at any given time) is to get better at parkour, then I say it is training.

I must say, as I frequently hold views that oppose even my own :) (argue that logic!) that in Martial Arts I see it the opposite, I feel that "Training" martial arts is "doing" martial arts. This to me is because the benefit of training in martial arts comes through the training, how many people would only consider it "doing" martial arts if someone was actually defneding themselves from an attacker? In that case, only .005% of people who "take martial arts classes" would ever "do martial arts".

Of course, if I turn this back on the Parkour issue at hand, I can say that the value and benefit clearly comes from Training parkour and not doing it, because how many people will ever actually be in an emergency situation where the fastest, most effective way to get somewhere to help someone will be "on foot"? I'd say that in this modern day and age it is an unlikely circumstance, so the benefit of Parkour then could be said to be in the training, not in the doing.

Anyway, I've clearly argued against myself and back again, which is fun, and a great excercise for your mind. :)
Be Useful.
If I don't try to make the world a better place, who will?
Every person has a choice - live by your fears or live by your dreams

Offline Andy Animus Tran

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
  • Karma: +146/-44
  • The Invisible Man
    • View Profile
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #31 on: April 11, 2007, 06:41:58 PM »
M2, I'm arguing that an action can't be Parkour by nature.  Box jumps trained for the intent of improving your efficiency at Parkour isn't Parkour inherently.  It's you.  You are practicing Parkour when you train box jumps for the purposes of efficiency, but the box jumps are not Parkour.  It is what defines you as a traceur, your intention, your motives, not your actions.  There is no, "This is Parkour" and "This is not Parkour."  Not individuated into actions, techniques, and movements, anyhow.  It has to do with the person, the dedication, the intention.  I've said this a number of times, now, and I keep seeing it brought back to "Well, then that makes THIS move Parkour."  No, it doesn't.  It makes the person DOING that move a traceur, but it does not make that particular movement, technique, or action any more Parkour than any other movement, technique, or action.

And by debating what it means to be a traceur, and what Parkour is, I think it very much is a philosophical discussion.  But maybe that's splitting hairs.
Andy Tran, C.S.C.S.
Lead Parkour Instructor
Urban Evolution
Parkour Virginia

Offline Mark Toorock

  • M2
  • Administrator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 3087
  • Karma: +302/-72
    • View Profile
    • American Parkour
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #32 on: April 11, 2007, 06:53:45 PM »
Well, I have to say I think that's an unfair "argument" as you are then explicitly and implicitly correct no matter what you say.

I agree, no "move" is or isn't parkour, but then how can you argue that demon can't "train" for Parkour separately from "doing" parko9ur, based on HIS intention?

If you say "It's you" as an argument, it really opens a can of worms.

To say it is "your intentions and motives, not actions" is flawed as well, can I be a traceur if I'm sitting on my couch and never actually overcome an obstacle?

You are also arguing a whole lot more than what you say you are in the first sentence "that an action can't be parkour by nature" ... you started by arguing that training for parkour is in fact parkour.

I feel like to be productive, you really have to bullet point your argument and maybe number or letter them to put people on a fair ground in this discussion, as every time someone raises a point, this argument gets bigger, broader, and more circular, which (to me anyway) doesn't seem like a productive method of argument (debate, friendly opposing discussion). :)

Now, the one point I tried to get to in my last post was directly related to this:

Quote
It's you.  You are practicing Parkour when you train box jumps for the purposes of efficiency, but the box jumps are not Parkour.

I hope I am cutting that quote correctly, please let me know if I'm not or if it loses context, I couldn't really tell where "it's you" as a sentence belongs!

anyway, my point is that it seems that you are now saying that if I am doing box jumps with the intention of increasing my efficiency of movement, that I am doing Parkour ... is that correct? If so, I could be doing any one of 1,000's of activities with that mindset, and at any time, I would be "Doing Parkour" ... in which case I have to say I feel I understand your argument, but I disagree, and I feel that your argument can only lead to misunderstanding and dilution.


Edit: Spellcheck  :-[
« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 07:33:15 PM by M2 »
Be Useful.
If I don't try to make the world a better place, who will?
Every person has a choice - live by your fears or live by your dreams

Offline Andy Animus Tran

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
  • Karma: +146/-44
  • The Invisible Man
    • View Profile
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #33 on: April 11, 2007, 09:32:18 PM »
I apologize.  I didn't mean to suggest it was a personal thing.  Rather, the intention of the training is what defines Parkour, and thereby the training itself insofar as it is practiced by the traceur.  One cannot sit on a couch and practice Parkour, because the training is not there, the intention is lost, and there is no discipline.

Quote
anyway, my point is that it seems that you are now saying that if I am doing box jumps with the intention of increasing my efficiency of movement, that I am doing Parkour ... is that correct? If so, I could be doing any one of 1,000's of activities with that mindset, and at any time, I would be "Doing Parkour" ... in which case I have to say I feel I understand your argument, but I disagree, and I feel that your argument can only lead to misunderstanding and dilution.

Your context is correct, but I failed to word myself properly.  The act of Parkour is in the training and the discipline.  "Doing Parkour" is bad wording on my part, and for that, I apologize.  What I mean to say is that you are a traceur when you train for that purpose.  You are someone who practices Parkour because you dedicate yourself to training for efficiency.  But Parkour is not necessarily an act or a set of actions, but rather, it is a mindset and a lifestyle that one chooses to live.

And you're right.  I did start the argument by saying that the training is Parkour.  I stand by that, because I believe it is the dedication and the discipline that defines the traceur.  (This is getting troubling, though, because I keep using "discipline" in two very different ways.)

And yes, I agree that this argument becomes more circular, more diluted, and more pointless as time goes on.  For each point that is brought up, it is countered with an even more vague point on both sides and it moves away from the original topic.  I think, for the most part, this argument is over, since we've gone about as far as we can go without going into the very personal, which we of course cannot agree upon, if it is so personal.  I started out debating about the nature of Parkour, the core of its principles, and I believe we are now in the realm of what I believe Parkour to be in my own interpretation, which is the above.  I still believe that the core of Parkour, the heart of what we were debating, is the discipline itself, and not the momentary usage of what the discipline results in.
Andy Tran, C.S.C.S.
Lead Parkour Instructor
Urban Evolution
Parkour Virginia

Offline FreeStyleFox

  • Global Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
  • Karma: +56/-32
    • View Profile
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #34 on: April 11, 2007, 10:29:13 PM »
From what I understand  and a couple of belle videos ages ago the Straight Forward Translation for Parkour into English is "The Way".  Nothing Further needs to be said.  To say more ruins it.  It is vagye for a reason.




Edit: spelling and grammar that made my head almost explode...I won't even touch the "The Way" reference...animus, that's you're job -gear-
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 01:49:27 AM by gear »
"If you cannot be a poet, be the poem."  David Carradine
May the flow be with you.  ~~FreeStyleFox

"A title and a few perks dont mean much. It takes nothing but a little thought and time to get your point across in a peaceful manner."

Offline Tsumaru

  • Patas
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • Karma: +9/-0
    • View Profile
    • Michael Yon: Online Magazine ((NOT MY SITE!))
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2007, 02:49:15 AM »
Quote
EDIT:  I'm going to add that if Parkour is a way of life, which that .NET article explicitly says it is, which David Belle has explicitly said it is, then the "way" cannot be condensed into ONLY the moments where Parkour is performed in dire circumstances.  Rather, if Parkour is a way of life, then the traceur is constantly practicing Parkour in his thoughts, in his actions, and yes, in his training.  if it is a way of life, it is the dedication that defines the traceur, not the act of moving in this way or that way.
If it is a way of life, then people who do not make it their way of life as per your definition are therefore not in any way ever engaging in Parkour according to you. This is complete and utter nonsense in my mind. I do not make Parkour my way of life, and yet I take offense to the accusation that even when I am training that I am still not a traceur and I'm still not doing Parkour.

Quote
The act is not Parkour, the movements are not Parkour, and the individual acts of training are not Parkour.  The overall training is.  Parkour is the discipline of the act, the movement, and the training.
I don't know if this was meant to be taken literally or not, so I'll deal with both cases. Firstly the literal - it would be an absurd notion to say that efficient movement in a chase situation, ie 'the act', is not Parkour. Certainly I would suggest that someone who is not aware of Parkour cannot strictly be performing Parkour, but I think it's fair to suggest that they are moving efficiently in a manner which a traceur might. So, literally, saying 'the act' is not Parkour is nonsense. That is taking the statement literally. The opposite end in which it shouldn't be taken literally and you are just saying no isolated part is Parkour as it is the whole - then the same still applies. To sit here and tell me that 'the act' is not Parkour and that I am not a traceur unless that is surrounded by numerous hours of dedicated training is just silly. This comes back to my comments above. Are you saying that if I don't have a disciplined training regimen, I can never be practicing Parkour. Are you saying that if I only have irregular 'jams' which are half social - I will never be a traceur? Even if I have to apply those skills in a practical situation, the fact that it is not encompassed by huge dedication and discipline means that it is not Parkour? I would say that having such a situation (irregular half-social training, but still put into practical application) can never be construed as a discipline as, quite simply, there is no discipline involved. And you can never call something a discipline if it doesn't really fit in with what the word means (and this isn't just finding a convenient dictionary definition - obviously a discipline must include discipline, even if that isn't strictly in every dictionary definition). So if somebody has no discipline in their training, they can never be a traceur and they can never do Parkour even if they do train to some degree and end up putting those skills into application? This also comes off as absurd to me. I would say they are a traceur, just not a very dedicated and most likely not a very good traceur - but a traceur nonetheless.



Now, I want to note a kind of changing in your description of Parkour which has been irking me. They haven't been contradictions as such, but it keeps changing and it makes it difficult to argue. Here's a series of quotes by you.
Quote
Parkour is not the act of moving efficiently and one does not automatically "do" Parkour when they move efficiently.  Parkour is the discipline of moving efficiently, and so the defining point of Parkour is the training.  The defining point of a traceur is the amount of dedication that is put into training for efficiency.
This covers two areas. Both training and discipline. Training is physical, discipline is abstract. This is hard enough as it is. Especially when you say "amount of dedication", as you cannot measure the abstract. So how do we measure the dedication? In the context you keep using dedication, it seems to be synonymous with training, so this can be interpreted as "the amount you train". This argument revolves, then, around physical training and the defining point of a traceur is how much they train.
Quote
Rather, if Parkour is a way of life, then the traceur is constantly practicing Parkour in his thoughts, in his actions, and yes, in his training.  if it is a way of life, it is the dedication that defines the traceur, not the act of moving in this way or that way.
Now you say it is something all-encompassing, you say it is life. Which includes the physical and the mental. You then pinpoint that the way to define the traceur is 'dedication'. Which, again, is abstract discipline. You cannot measure dedication. There is no scale. So how do we measure this? In this context it seems to be by measuring how much Parkour is in their life compared to how much there isn't and/or how much there could be. In this case then we look at someones thoughts and say "oh, yeah, they think a lot about Parkour" and then we look at their physical activities and say "oh, yeah, they're doing a lot of Parkour; and they do a lot of physical workouts too". And we add all that up and say "well, there's a lot of Parkour there" and realise that they are a traceur. Alternatively, if there's very little physical training and very little thought - they aren't really a traceur. We could also look at sacrifices which are an important part of dedication. How much do they sacrifice for Parkour? So there's a huge amount to look at here, and really I don't think it can be done by a human. So how do we really measure it? How do we define really? Are we to take "constrantly" literally? If so, well, if so I think we're all pretty screwed. However, regardless, this argument revolves around everything - physical, mental, how much is sacrificed etc etc. This is a setp on from just the physical.
Quote
The mindset of training a movement for efficient, the mindset of training efficiency as a whole, that is what Parkour is.
Now Parkour has become entirely mental. It is purely the mindset. You cannot be doing Parkour if you do not have a mindset of becoming more efficient and if you do have that mindset, then you are doing Parkour. This becomes odd as I don't think people would be impressed if I made a video called "Parkour!" and then the entire thing was me working out in a gym. However, in terms of your definition, this would be perfectly acceptable. Your argument here revolves around the purely mental.

Now, if we look strictly at the definitions there is enough inconsistency as it is. However, worse yet, your first two arguments give us a way to define a traceur by 'how much'; whereas the last is just "parkour or not parkour". In which case, what defines the traceur then? Your argument really does keep changing, and especially when you use abstract terms such as 'discipline' it is difficult enough for us to understand what you're trying to say, let alone debate about it. Perhaps you could sit down and come up with, as M2 suggested, a couple of dotpoints to perfectly define it. Also take this time to define the terms you use, such as 'discipline'. I realise that these discussions provoke thought which changes your definition so I'm not going to accuse you of contradicitng yourself or anything, but just try and set down what you think first as it is now, and then we'll be able to respond better. The shorter and more concise it is, and the less examples you use, the better.


Now, my own interpretation is mostly the same as Demon's. Although I will make a certain distinction that he might not have made (either because he doesn't hold this view, or he just didn't say it). I think if you do a kong and it is efficient, then that was Parkour. If that kong was inefficient because you stuffed up, or you struggled immensely to do it or any number of things, that was not Parkour. If you then turn around and do another kong, and another, and another - that is not Parkour. You look at one isolated kong and you say "oh, yeah, efficient - it's Parkour". You look at the whole; a string of kongs over and over back and forth and you realise "oh, he's just practicing - it's not Parkour. As the whole, it's not efficient movement." If then you take another step back and notice that people are throwing stuff at him and the only way he can effectively dodge (unlikely that it is) by konging, then you again realise that what he is doing is Parkour and it is effective. So we have to constantly step back and look at the bigger picture. A good idea is to define efficiency. Here is a nice definition from dictionary.com
Quote
accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort
So, efficiency is accomplishing a job with minimum time and effort. So when you see someone do a kong, you need to look at three things.
1. What was the job and was it accomplished?
2. How much time did it take?
3. How much effort did it take?
Now, we are talking purely about movement here. Efficient movement. So in the context of Parkour it becomes...
1. Why was he moving, where to, and did he succeed in doing so?
2. How fast was he?
3. How much energy and effort did it require?
Practice cannot be construed as efficient movement as the "why" is "to learn to be better at moving due to repeated practice". Can a single kong really classify as practice? Yes technically, but not really. The "did he succeed?" is generally a resounding "no" unless you look at it in combination with a number of other kongs he did. So we hit a kind of paradox of sorts. A single kong for practice does not fit without a greater number of kongs for practice. And in the case of practice, you have to remove the requirements of time and effort as the very point of practice is to minimise those. So practice, quite simply, cannot satisfy the requirements of efficient movement as part of Parkour. This is why I do not consider practice to be Parkour, as I see Parkour as efficient movement. A single kong on its own can be considered Parkour, as the answer above may be:
1. He needed to get to work and it helped for him to get there quicker.
2. He was very fast.
3. It was very easy.
However, a single kong could also not be Parkour even in a practical application if the answer is:
1. He was running away and needed to get over a wall.
2. He was very slow as he did one of those hops and double-foot take offs, and he didn't continue running straight after landing but stumbled a bit.
3. It required a lot of mental focus and physical effort and he was tired afterwards.
In this case, the kong is not particularly efficient as it's quite likely that if the wall wasn't too high he could have jumped straight onto it, taken one or two steps, dropped off the end and kept running. This may or may not have taken a fair amount of effort, but it would probably have been faster considering the specifics of the kong. However, at the same time, even if it was slow and took a lot of effort to do the kong - if it was the fastest and easiest way he could have done it, it is still classifed as Parkour.

These are all a lot of factors you have to look at when you discuss efficient movement, and my interpretation of Parkour revolves around the idea of efficient movement. Practice is not efficient movement, workouts in the gym are not efficient movement, and f#cking up a kong is not efficient movement. Therefore, none of these are Parkour in my eyes. This doesn't mean that awesome chase/escape practical applications are the only Parkour; just that most other situations we've looked at don't really fit well with efficient movement.



PS: I think I win the Biggest Reply on APK Ever Award. =/ Jeeze, I hope I didn't f#ck something major up in one of my points and so now look like a complete jackass. <_<

PPS: Gear, your spelling fixups above weren't perfect. Take a look at the fourth last word in the post. =P Last I checked, 'vague' didn't have a y. =)

Offline FreeStyleFox

  • Global Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
  • Karma: +56/-32
    • View Profile
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2007, 03:04:07 AM »
Quote
Edit: spelling and grammar that made my head almost explode...I won't even touch the "The Way" reference...animus, that's you're job -gear-

lol ty for the spelling help gear  Late night spelling doesnt become me.
"If you cannot be a poet, be the poem."  David Carradine
May the flow be with you.  ~~FreeStyleFox

"A title and a few perks dont mean much. It takes nothing but a little thought and time to get your point across in a peaceful manner."

Offline Mark Toorock

  • M2
  • Administrator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 3087
  • Karma: +302/-72
    • View Profile
    • American Parkour
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2007, 05:00:15 AM »
Tsumaru - Excellent!
Animus - one of the points that I hope you get from our discussions is that I am not only "arguing the point" .. which I took both sides on in this case - but I am also trying to help the discussion and lead you.

I have to say that I feel the same pattern that Gene talks about, and here is why, and I'll continue to follow the same pattern as long as the forums needs it :)

When you (Ani) make a post, you do it in a way that seems like only one "opinion" can be right. A-la my first post saying I felt like it was too strong for you to say Demon was "wrong" about something that to me is ultimately an opinion.

then the argument gets broader, more convoluted, and views change until it does become clearly an opinion, a philosophy that may or may not be shared by others (Tsumaru's post - offended that he can't be a Traceur by your definition)

Then you end up apologizing (no harm there, in fact, kudos for backing what you say while correcting at the same time).

My overall point is that these discussions might go differently if you started off from a more open stance, ie "this is my opinion, what is your opinion" vs. ""This is my opinion, your opinion is wrong".

I think it's very easy to find quotes about the internet that will support any and all sides of a Parkour argument, people's opinions, reflections, and "arguments" do change over time, and that is a good thing, if they didn't, none of us would be learning, growing, or evolving.


anyway, the point has also been brought up (thanks again Gene) that perhaps we are near the edge of our knowledge ... I'll give another explanation - none of this is Fact. It is hard to "argue" when what we are doing is so based on opinion. Yes, we can argue about what David Belle actually said or didn't say, and whether it has been exactly the same for 10 years, but does that have any merit? Those would indeed be facts, but who cares what he said 3 or 5 or 10 years ago, David is also evolving, changing, growing, if you want to follow him, follow him where he IS not where he was.

So, my overall point is that we collectively may be better served by discussing opinions than arguing as if we know facts.
Be Useful.
If I don't try to make the world a better place, who will?
Every person has a choice - live by your fears or live by your dreams

Offline Rafe

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
  • Karma: +54/-5
    • View Profile
    • Natural Athletics
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2007, 10:19:57 AM »
Whatever your defination revolves around Tsumara or the APK defination revolves around doesn't matter much to me in the long term scheme of things, I have allways seen Davids definations as consistent and that is what I follow I don't see how you can possible see something described as an art of movement or a sporting practice as refering only to an emergency situation. Parkour is the practice. If you don't practice efficiency when you practice the movements maybe your not doing parkour to me it is very simple.
I shall not fear, fear is the mind killer the little death that precedes total obliteration

I will face my fear, I will let it pass over and through me and were it is gone, I will turn the inner eye and see its path, and only I will remain.

Offline Mark Toorock

  • M2
  • Administrator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 3087
  • Karma: +302/-72
    • View Profile
    • American Parkour
Re: Is Parkour the Act or the Training?
« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2007, 10:32:26 AM »
I feel like it's important to add here, "The APK  definition" doesn’t mean squat really. Its not meant ot be official, it's not a challenge to any other definition, it's really just meant to be an informative idea that helps people grasp Parkour.

I have this feeling from some people's comments that "The APK definition is different from" or "APK def Vs. this def" ... it's really not meant to be that at all, it's meant to serve as a guide, mostly for the uninitiated who come to this site wondering "What is Parkour".

And as I mentioned in another post in response to a great post by Asa, it's not meant as a substitute to what you can and need to learn through training to actually have a grasp or the faintest understanding of parkour in a physical sense.


I also get the sense that some people don't understand the concept of "scaling" and "appropriateness" ... a definition on a web page is meant to inform the masses.

Can you tell me that someone in a wheelchair can't understand what parkour is because they can't practice? No, of course not.

But, there is a different level of understanding between someone who reads, someone who practices once a month, and someone who trains regularly.

PART of this understanding can be grasped from words, from pictures.

My mom KNOWS what Parkour is. She has never practiced, yet I have no doubt that she "gets it". Of course this is on a whole different level than a 23 year old male practitioner, but that's where "scaling" and appropriateness come in.
Be Useful.
If I don't try to make the world a better place, who will?
Every person has a choice - live by your fears or live by your dreams