American Parkour Forum

To me parkour is the training that encompasses the activity -  just as you can't say a vault over a table "is parkour" or "is not parkour" without context, I feel that any set of movements even ones executed with flow and purpose, are in themselves whyat parkour is, I believe that parkour is the training that makes one better at the above stated activities.

To compare to what Gabe is saying, I feel that this makes it "a discipline" and not just "an activity".

I don't argue that the activity itself is not parkour, just that it is not complete. I do think someone can go outside, vault a rail, and it can be parkour, but again that is not the complete parkour, parkour is more than executing a move or moves.

http://www.americanparkour.com/smf/index.php/topic,30637.msg383599.html
But Mark, this is the same thing I tried to tell Dave in my other discussion with him last year (that he doesn't listen is another matter), that all these views people have on Parkour are all subjective and open to personal interpretation, aren't they? Everyone has their own views of what it is or what it should be, or what they think they get out of the discipline. I still feel all these views are a secondary, subjective layer above the core definition. What you feel Parkour is about or does for you, may not be the same as what I feel it is and does for me, and a third person may have another view. If you feel it is more of a discipline rather than an activity, a second person may not feel so, and he may find it more of an activity, and not be interested in the discipline part, and yet another person might be in it just for the philosophy part, and yet another person may not want to have anything to do with the philosophy. Does this mean these guys are not doing Parkour, or that any of these guys are wrong about it?
I feel that they are just bringing their own subjective views, and are tacking it on as a secondary meaning to the original meaning.

Also, the benefits you state you are getting out of Parkour - be it motivation, or discipline, or a philosophical way of living, or the mindset to apply 'overcoming of obstacles' to all parts of one's life, or serious training, or whatever - is it unique to Parkour? Can't these same things be obtained from other things, or other activities or disciplines? If in all this mess, you were to differentiate Parkour from other activities/disciplines (example Martial Arts, Gymnastics, Dance, Yoga, Bodybuilding, Lifting Weights, Pottery, Painting, Fine Arts, Spitting Contests, etc.) and identify it uniquely, what would you be left with? What would be its defining characteristic? Wouldn't it be the same definition I proposed in my post above?

Parkour is the art of locomoting the human body and getting from one point to another by overcoming any obstacles in one's path, in any terrain, without the use of any external tools and using just one's own body.

Personally, I also feel we should limit this to land-based movement only, and not water-based locomotion, or at the max a very basic swimming from one point to another, because traversing through water and the myriad of locmotional challenges it provides in the form of its own unique obstacles, whether on the surface or underwater, makes water-based locomotion a separate discipline and study in itself.

Tom, I'd love to hear more about this format.

Courses based on 'flipping switches' to trigger a signal or light. Could be as simple as knocking off a flag or tag or having an LED attached that only turns on when the switch is flipped by a hand, foot, head, etc.

Round 1 - Pure Speed: Competitors given ample time to inspect the course and plot out the fastest route. Best time wins five points, second fastest gets three, and third fastest gets one.
*Can be modified to include more than one speed round, such as APEX having short/medium/long rounds.

Round 2 - Route Challenge: Given no preparation time, competitors must navigate a course in the fastest time possible. Competitors are kept separate during challenge so they can't see the course ahead of time or report back to the others. Top three winners receive same points distribution.

Round 3 - Strength/Endurance: While running a course, competitors must stop at various stations and complete tasks such as lifting 'logs', throwing 'stones', and pushing 'cars'. (Similar to Crossfit Games but with interesting in between sections) Same point spread for top three finishers based on time.

Person with most points at the end of three rounds is the overall winner.

Gabe, have you seen our Ultimate Sledgehammer course format and details? It's the same thing you describe, plus more.
http://www.parkourmumbai.com/sledgehammer/

I just want to understand one thing.
Why can't I just practice the physical discipline of getting from one point to another, past any manner of physical obstacles (leaving the rest of my life, metaphorical obstacles, etc. out of it), and learning to move or locomote my body through different surroundings using different methods than just the conventional methods of walking and running that are currently used by the modern world, regardless of time-urgency or purpose? Who says there isn't any mental element at all (note emphasis) in such a practice?

If, according to the infinite wisdom of Dave Sedgeley, this isn't Parkour, or ADD, then what should we call this separate discipline? I'd be happy to accept a new name for it and settle this debate once and for all. I'm sure what I described in the paragraph above has the scope to be a discipline or a study in itself, even if it doesn't fit under the broad, philosophical purview of Parkour/ADD, and that the concept will also find takers and practitioners, and practical application. Then I can go about practicing my separate discipline and be happy with it, and Dave (and others, if they exist out there) can continue practicing whatever it is they do under the name of Parkour/ADD.

Yeh, this can be true...if your training is based almost completely on what is interesting, which i was under the impression that it isn't for you.

Way to go Caleb! You really got him there. He's trapped in his own words.
(now only if he would actually accept that he's trapped..., but that's just wistful thinking)

I strength trained long before i started parkour and have yet to be injured beyond minor things that can hardly be considered an injury.

Same here man.

People, typically, don't just start hitting massive things because they can make the distance. Because they still don't know what will happen even if they do make it. I've seen plenty of beginners that have huge jump, that could easily hit larger things than i could. But i haven't once seen a beginner take off and hit, say a 12 foot rail precision, just because they could make the distance easily. Because in their head they think, "i could slip, what if i land wrong, what if i don't make it, what if i jump too far. i don't know what will happen. That scares me. Thats dangerous. I need to work up to that by doing some smaller ones first". The only thing that separates them from me is that when i look at it i think "yeh i can make that, i expect to stick it first try, if i come up short ill bounce back, if i over shoot ill just hop off"

You're forgetting a huge aspect of parkour training, and in my opinion the most important aspect. Control. I came into parkour already very strong, but i didn't just go out and try to hit the most massive things i could, because i still had no idea what would happen because i had no control. So i trained control on small things constantly. I spend almost 100% of my day every day falling over and over again. I made it so that i could adapt to any situation, so that i could put my body in any position i wanted when i wanted to and when i needed to. The more control i had, the bigger things i could do. It never mattered how strong i was, what mattered is how much control i had. What mattered is whether or not i could look at something and go "yeh i can do this, and if any thing goes wrong i can adapt."  Now i can do whatever i want because i have the control to do it. I know that if i don't hit it perfect i can adapt. I know what will happen in almost any situation that i end up in and that i will be able to adapt in each and every one of those situations and come out safely because i have the control to do so. This is why i haven't sustained any real injuries.

Word.
I think with a 2.x+ deadlift and squat for reps, 1.2x Bench and Bent-Rows for reps I could be considered a pretty strong guy. I can box jump 50 inches, broad jump 9 feet+. But according to Dave's impeccable logic, I should find smaller jumps boring to train then, shouldn't I? However, I would behoove him to come and look at my training approach and then say the same nonsense that strength leads to training beyond one's level. When I drill precisions, I never go beyond 6 feet (or 7 feet max), when I drill drops I never jump off 2 feet. And I don't go around seeking larger/longer jumps in my other training just because I'm strong enough to do them, most people (except impressionable teenagers, who just need direction and guidance from the right seniors) are smart enough to not try things beyond their (skill) abilities, even though they may have built a certain level of strength and physicality.

Just because i can go further doesn't mean that i will. It doesn't matter how far i can go if i cant control it when i get there.

^^This!

Dave, no offense, but you remind me of Saruman. More specifically, the description of Saruman from the chapter 'The Voice of Saruman'.
Earlier you were like Saruman the White, even thought whatever you said never did make any sense, but the way you always say it is so convincing that many people used to see merit in it.
Now you're slowly turning into Saruman the Colorless/Multi-colored. Your voice has lost its charm, and no one buys into it any more.

Also, is it just me, or does this entire conversation remind anyone of 12 Angry Men? Toward the end of the movie, it's 10 men trying very, very hard to convince two adamant thick-headed guys who refused to see things in a logical manner because they were so wrapped up in their own prejudices and beliefs.
Also, the way people keep coming back and try to post more logical reasoning in an effort/last hope to convince Dave, despite knowing in the bottom of their hearts that it's completely futile (some have also acknowledged that in the thread but keep coming back), gives me the feeling there's a judge waiting outside the room somewhere, waiting for a unanimous jury decision or nothing.
It's no use guys, he's not going to concede. Everyone knows this. That's why I too gave up on it a long time ago.

Just chipping in to say, I agree with all of Adam's posts so far.

Dave, I have noticed that unless you tell/show the beginners the different ways of moving available, and the different, more efficient/safe/effective tried, tested and proven methods of tackling certain types of common-denominator obstacles, they get into the tendency of learning just one or two types of moving, getting extremely comfortable with those movements, and then insisting on using them everywhere in every situation in a one-size-fits-all mentality whether that movement fits the situation or not. It then becomes a very hard task to get his mind to unlearn that pattern and make him aware of other types of movement patterns that would be better suited to utilizing in other situations.

Place a hand on your heart and honestly tell me how many new people have you seen get into the habit of doing nothing but 'precisions and vaults, more precisions and more vaults, and then move on to learning flips' in the name of Parkour training? This is what happens most of the time when you just let them explore on their own, they don't learn the things they need to learn. Probably this is not an epidemic in your country as much as it is in the US or in mine, and that's because, as is being discussed in the U.S. vs. Them thread, you've been blessed with natural surroundings that make them totally conducive to learn and excel at a variety of locomotive capabilities, but we're not. Our environments force the newer practitioners into that set way of thinking. It's the rare practitioner that ends up breaking out of that mold, and that too, only after a few years of fooling around and not really progressing, and later realizing he wasn't training right but now wishes to rectify things.

Okay, fair enough, if that's the case, I'd be happy to help wherever I can.
We're already working on something similar to set up an formal body/association with these same kind of guidelines governing us here in India, so we might be able to exchange notes here.

Alec, he's asking you to show that you are following principles laid down by a recognized Parkour body. Why not just take Mark's assistance in this, and cite APK (with Mark's permission ofcourse) as the Parkour body he's looking for?
Also, I agree with what aerosfcity says above.

Also, I don't think I'll be able to provide much input on this, nor be able to derive any help from it myself, because the situation in my country is a lot, lot different. We don't/can't have college Parkour clubs here the way you do. Most people of college-going age can't even enjoy extra-curricular activities, because they hardly get the time for it. School and college lives here are miserable, given Indians' obsession with education, and insistence that a kid that age has to do nothing but study 24x7. That's why most practitioners you'd find here are people who've finished college.
And if we tried to get permission, we'd run into a very different kind of problem in trying to convince authorities, not the same as your main moot point of liability, because they don't seem to be that lawsuit-trigger-happy here, over here everything is politically motivated, and people are usually just closed to any and all new ideas or things they don't understand.