American Parkour Forum

Parkour and Freerunning => Parkour And Freerunning => Topic started by: Adam McC on October 08, 2010, 10:25:59 AM

Title: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 08, 2010, 10:25:59 AM
Here's the deal. I'm completely done with seeing these posts about people claiming what Parkour is and what Freerunning is and being purists and expressing themselves. I've tried to individually explain this to these people, but to no avail. Maybe with some background and structure, people will understand. Please, if you consider yourself dedicated to this art we practice, take the time to read this article. It's time to end all these shenanigans.





The Art of Movement: Parkour vs Freerunning

    For the past few years, there has been and endless debate about the difference between Parkour and Freerunning. Now, people can't even agree on whether a video that someone shares is Parkour, or Freerunning, or either. If someone does a frontflip, is it still a Parkour video? If they do gymnastics or tumbling, is it still freerunning? If they do stuntwork, is it just streetstunts? If they are only conditioning, is it actually Parkour? How is it that we categorize our movement? We have names for techniques that make communication more clear, so why can't we do that with our art as a whole, as well? In this article I propose to solve the discussion of Parkour versus Freerunning and give us a universal idea of the movements that we do, and how to categorize our art clearly and concisely.

    To do this, we must take the time to understand the history of where the name of our art comes from. So, let us go back in time:

    First, we begin with the word "parcours". This word, which can be broadly translated as "route" or "course" from the French language, is where it all begins. Most have heard of the military obstacle course "parcours du combattant", which is the French military obstacle course, similar to what American soldiers train in during boot camp to improve their agility and strength in preparation for a battlefield. It is from this word "parcours" that all things originate. So imagine, if you would, a hierarchy of words, with "parcours" at the top.

    The next step we need to do is begin looking at the people involved in the beginnings of our art. For now, we will primarily consider David Belle, Sebastian Foucan, and the Yamakasi. Consider each of these three groups a branch off of "parcours". Yamakasi, a word from the Lingala language meaning "Strong body", "Strong spirit", "Strong person", was a collection of practitioners who dedicated themselves to betterment through the discipline of training their art. Anyone who has trained with the Yamakasi, or as a few of them are now known, "Majestic Force", will hear them refer to it as "ADD", or L'art du Deplacement, which translates into "The Art of Movement". Why? Because this is the name they gave the art. They studied movement, and considered it an art, thus, the Art of Movement.

    The second branch comes from David Belle himself. David Belle trained with, but did not stick with the group of the Yamakasi for long. We all know of David Belle because he made himself more known, and made the art that he trained more public and brought it to media attention through movies and through the internet. Because of his goals to share the art based on his personal philosophy on Parkour, he wanted to make the art more appealing to the public. Thus, he took the original word "parcours" and changed it. He removed the silent "s" at the end of the word, and changed the softer letter "C" to the harder letter "K", to give the word a more hard, urban edge. Thus, the same type of movement changed name from "parcours" to "Parkour".

    The third and final branch this article will go into comes from Sebastian Foucan. Seb was also one of the original "Yamakasi" but like David Belle, decided to make his own way through the media. Foucan made his major debut in "Jump London", a documentary responsible for a great amount of awareness of the art of Parkour in Europe and even America. The term "Freerunning" was invented specifically for this documentary to make the art more self-descriptive. A foreign word like "Parkour" or "L'art Du Deplacement" does not describe what the art is very well to English speakers, and so they created a new name, Freerunning, for the purpose of clear communication to the audience of the documentary.

    Thus, we can see that all three names of the art are simply titles that were given by different people at different times for specific purposes. They were not splits from the original ideal based on a conflict of movement or principle. They are simply the three different directions that three different people or groups of people went. But they all origin from the same thing.

    So how does this help us categorize what our art is now? Well, in explaining the reasons for the three branches, we also will answer how it is that we can think of our art.

    To make it simple, the reason that these three different names were invented was because of the difference in the individuals who practiced the art. David Belle had his own personal philosophy which differers from Foucan which differs from the Yamakasi, and thus each changed the art just slightly to adapt to their lives and their purposes. What this boils down to is that each person takes the art of what we are calling Parkour and uses it for their own specific purposes. Some train for exercise. Some train for the fun. Some train for the community. Some train for self-betterment. Some train for multiple, all, or none of these. Everybody has their own reasons why they train Parkour. And so, Parkour goes through small changes on an individual basis, in order to adjust to each person.

    The same concept applies to movement, as well as purpose. Even though there are specific movements in Parkour, every person moves differently. Every person has movements they prefer, and movements they do not prefer. Often, this is dictated by the environment that the practitioners live in. Also, there are previous experiences that come into play. Martial artists, gymnasts, breakdancers, track and field athletes, every person adds their own experience and background to the art of Parkour.

    What this means is that for each and every person, in both movement and purpose, Parkour is different. My Parkour is different from your Parkour, which is different from John Smith's Parkour. We all train the same thing, but in our own way; Just as we can all go over the same obstacle, but in our own way. Parkour is a completely individual art that adapts to the person, just as movements adapt to the environment.

    This gives us two options. The first option is to personally rename Parkour, just as Foucan and Belle did, so that each and every person has their own name for what they do. This of course, would make global communication very difficult, especially as we're trying to expand awareness of what Parkour is to the general public, so that our practice can become more accepted. The second option, which is of course the option I am proposing, is that we all agree to use the words Parkour and Freerunning and L'art du Deplacement as having one meaning, which is the practice of that individual art that we all ourselves train in, according to us. Some may flip, and some may not. Some may condition more, and some many condition less. Some may strive for self-expression, and some may strive for efficiency of motion. But we are all on a path of fulfillment of our own individual goals through movement; a path named Parkour.

-Adam McC
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Eli on October 08, 2010, 10:41:49 AM
Amazing article Adam. I completely agree. It seems to me that the newbies more often seperate the art based on name. It's like someone told me, as you progress, you start getting curious about other movements and may end up flipping. That doesn't mean you aren't a traceur anymore. It doesn't mean that you have become a free runner. It just means your movement style involves flips.

Anywho, you get an imaginary +9001
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 10:49:47 AM
AGAIN! The difference is the intent of training. Locomotion capability vs aesthetic expression both through physical motion and development. This is what happens when people limit training parkour movements instead of parkour. Like I ALWAYS say, martial arts is significantly less physical than it is philosophical and mental. The second you remove the intent of training, the culture of practitioners, and the purposeful origins of the movement, you get equivocation and Bubba Fu Karate schools.

It's the same reason all these beginners are having roll problems. They're flipping at the ground thinking "Okay, I know I have to tuck my shoulder and roll up so I'm going to do that as hard and fast as possible."
Everything changes when you get them to understand about the laying out of momentum and how the move ACCOMPLISHES that. This has become a community based around physical activity accomplishments instead of physical capability preparations. I'm sick of it.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 08, 2010, 10:52:31 AM
AGAIN! The difference is the intent of training. Locomotion capability vs aesthetic expression both through physical motion and development. This is what happens when people limit training parkour movements instead of parkour. Like I ALWAYS say, martial arts is significantly less physical than it is philosophical and mental. The second you remove the intent of training, the culture of practitioners, and the purposeful origins of the movement, you get equivocation and Bubba Fu Karate schools.

It's the same reason all these beginners are having roll problems. They're flipping at the ground thinking "Okay, I know I have to tuck my shoulder and roll up so I'm going to do that as hard and fast as possible."
Everything changes when you get them to understand about the laying out of momentum and how the move ACCOMPLISHES that. This has become a community based around physical activity accomplishments instead of physical capability preparations. I'm sick of it.

So teach people the correct intent of training. That doesn't mean we need to split what we do into different fields. We all train the same thing. Some people just need to do it better, or more safely, or more responsibly. Read my article again, if you need to. Aesthetic expression, locomotive capability, all are reasons to train parkour, not the differences between Parkour and "x".
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 10:57:37 AM
I disagree entirely. I think it's a cheapening of what can be a specified and sharpened physical discipline. Most martial artists train multiple martial arts, but doing so does not change Karate into Hapkido or Kung Fu into Krav Maga. These are all essentially the same movements; punches and kicks and throws and blocks, but they are not all equivocal. They each have specific training methods and intents. And every person that does one of these arts will adapt it to their own physicality and mentality. That individuals actions do not change the art itself.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 08, 2010, 11:00:56 AM
I disagree entirely. I think it's a cheapening of what can be a specified and sharpened physical discipline. Most martial artists train multiple martial arts, but doing so does not change Karate into Hapkido or Kung Fu into Krav Maga. These are all essentially the same movements; punches and kicks and throws and blocks, but they are not all equivocal. They each have specific training methods and intents. And every person that does one of these arts will adapt it to their own physicality and mentality. That individuals actions do not change the art itself.

But Parkour and Free Running and ADD aren't martial arts, nor are they all that similar to martial arts. The martial arts you mention came from different places. PK/FR/ADD do not.

Personally I'm getting tired of people overusing the martial arts comparison. Sure, there are traits that are similar between martial arts and parkour, but that does not mean all traits/rules apply to both.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 11:02:55 AM
Also: http://www.freerunningtv.com/films/history-how-it-all-began/

Sebastien specifically referring to Parkour and Freerunning separately as well as 'Parcours' specific intent to reference obstacle courses. Obstacle courses having the inherent purpose of maximizing locomotor capability for efficiency and fastest course completion. Throw a flip on an obstacle course at basic training and see what happens. Please. Get it on tape.

But Parkour and Free Running and ADD aren't martial arts, nor are they all that similar to martial arts. The martial arts you mention came from different places. PK/FR/ADD do not.

Also, see above where Seb refers to the arts coming from different people. I would say geographic distance matters much less than perspective distance in this case since TRAINING INTENT is what I'm arguing. Besides I can name 3-4 martial arts from each major country. Want to make the come from different places argument again?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Alexz on October 08, 2010, 11:03:08 AM
...Go outside and train.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 08, 2010, 11:09:50 AM
Also: http://www.freerunningtv.com/films/history-how-it-all-began/

Sebastien specifically referring to Parkour and Freerunning separately...

And he says "the history of Freerunning is my own personal journey, the history of Parkour is my personal journey which I share with all the people."

Here, if you think about what he is saying, he explains that Parkour is what they all did - what we all now do - and that Freerunning is his one personal adaptation - exactly what Adam is referring to when he says about how we all train differently. Seb is not saying Parkour and Freerunning are totally different arts or disciplines.

Throw a flip on an obstacle course at basic training and see what happens. Please. Get it on tape.

This is irrelevant and simply makes it seem like you have something personal against flips.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 08, 2010, 11:15:10 AM
Also, see above where Seb refers to the arts coming from different people. I would say geographic distance matters much less than perspective distance in this case since TRAINING INTENT is what I'm arguing. Besides I can name 3-4 martial arts from each major country. Want to make the come from different places argument again?

Yes.

The "different places" argument does not specify different geographical places. Martial arts do come from different geographical locations for the most part, but they also come from different cultures, different time periods, different types of people.

I think it would help you understand if you stop comparing parkour to a specific martial art, and start comparing parkour to "fighting" or "self defense" instead, and seeing each individual's training methods as those specific martial arts in the analogy. Just because I train Capoeira and Adam trains Kung Fu does NOT mean we both don't train fighting or self defense. Right?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 11:15:34 AM
This is irrelevant and simply makes it seem like you have something personal against flips.
Its not irrelevant when you don't edit it out from the surrounding paragraph. Seb specifically says they called it Parcours equating it to "obstacle course" in france. The purpose of an obstacle course being... exactly what I said before you isolated my single line quote.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Mark Toorock on October 08, 2010, 11:17:44 AM
To say that David and Seb did not train with Yamakasi very long is very misleading. They trained together for most of the formative period of Parkour.

David did not replace the C with a K, Hubert Kounde did - sometimes sited as having done it as a "screen name" - strikingly similar to how Freerunning term came about.

As you mention, the differences did not come about because of a difference in training style. The differences all came about AFTER the splits.

These misconceptions have been spread since about 2002 by people that weren't there and didn't train with them, and the political and friendship reasons that broke up the group will probably never be brought to public light, so some of this truth died right before the filming of "Rush Hour". Even in 2002 when I was trying to find my way around this wasn't discussed very much, and so since then it seems to have simply drifted further from the truth, perpetuated by whoever wants people to believe a certain side of it.



I know people will continue to argue about this until the end of time, and I will go on record once again as saying that what the terms have become is as important if not more important than where they come from, there are 100's of cases where the etymology of a word is completely lost however the word still carries a very strong meaning. There are 1,000's of "branches" of martial arts which derive from similar sources, and most are not branches at all but rather singular interpretations - is that where we want Parkour to go?

To say that Parkour and Freerunning are the same thing is simply not true, the two have come to mean different things. To say that Parkour is whatever I make of is is also not true nor particularly useful (as you pointed out) - so I will ask, what is wrong with the definitions that the APK community came up with for the two different activities?




Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 11:18:19 AM
Yes.

The "different places" argument does not specify different geographical places. Martial arts do come from different geographical locations for the most part, but they also come from different cultures, different time periods, different types of people.

I think it would help you understand if you stop comparing parkour to a specific martial art, and start comparing it to "fighting" or "self defense" instead, and seeing each individual's training methods as those specific martial arts. Just because I train Capoeira and Adam trains Kung Fu does NOT mean we both don't train fighting or self defense. Right?
But thats EXACTLY the argument I've made TIME AND TIME AND TIME again. The term Movement Arts is appropriate for an encompassing genre just as Martial Arts is for self defense. Karate, TKD, Kung Fu, Capoeira are all Martial Arts. L'add, Parkour, Freerun, MA Tricking, and MN are all Movement Arts. The parallels are so obvious it actually PAINS me to have to explain it.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Mark Toorock on October 08, 2010, 11:18:56 AM
BTW - Adam I do have great respect for you - but I also wish I had a nickel for every person who started a "final discussion" thread on this subject :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 11:20:16 AM
To say that Parkour and Freerunning are the same thing is simply not true, the two have come to mean different things. To say that Parkour is whatever I make of is is also not true nor particularly useful (as you pointed out) - so I will ask, what is wrong with the definitions that the APK community came up with for the two different activities?
I have no problem with APK's definitions. It seems everyone else does. The recurring pattern seems to be people throwing hissy fits the second says something is "not parkour." Seems like everything else just WANTS to be parkour.

Edit: In fact, after rereading, I LOVE APK's definitions.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 08, 2010, 11:35:25 AM
Sadly these arguments have convoluted what we do. There is a large difference between true parkour and Tricking and tumbling. Calling them the same would be like calling gatorade water, seeing as gatorade was made from the very essence of water does that make them the same. I think not.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 11:38:00 AM
Sadly these arguments have convoluted what we do. There is a large difference between true parkour and Tricking and tumbling. Calling them the same would be like calling gatorade water, seeing as gatorade was made from the very essence of water does that make them the same. I think not.
+1
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Eli on October 08, 2010, 11:44:48 AM
Sadly these arguments have convoluted what we do. There is a large difference between true parkour and Tricking and tumbling. Calling them the same would be like calling gatorade water, seeing as gatorade was made from the very essence of water does that make them the same. I think not.
Yes, but calling parkour and freerunning the same is more of calling gatorade kool-aid. The only difference is the addition of a bit of salt.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 11:50:11 AM
Yes, but calling parkour and freerunning the same is more of calling gatorade kool-aid. The only difference is the addition of a bit of salt.
In gatorade vs. kool-aid dare we say the difference is INTENT? Salt for science's sake to have a specific beneficial physical purpose vs sugar and color for flavor.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Mark Toorock on October 08, 2010, 12:10:46 PM
Oh god now this is really going wrong. I'm going to ask that you stop the Gatorade comparison now. We have enough analogies floating around that we don't need to argue about more analogies.

Please, do it for the children.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 12:12:10 PM
Oh god now this is really going wrong. I'm going to ask that you stop the Gatorade comparison now. We have enough analogies floating around that we don't need to argue about more analogies.

Please, do it for the children.
Hahaha! Fair enough, sorry.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 08, 2010, 12:14:49 PM
This might be one of those threads that is simply beneficial to read, but not necessary to post/argue in.

Read it. If you agree, cool. If you don't, cool. But hopefully it got you thinking about what really matters.


Now go out and train.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 12:16:44 PM
I don't think thats productive. Putting this on a non responsive status is essentially endorsing the content. Unless of course you want people to make OTHER threads for the sake of the other side of the argument?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Eli on October 08, 2010, 12:18:03 PM
Well, since it's for the children, alright.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Rafe on October 08, 2010, 12:19:34 PM
Have to agree with Mark here. We will likely never have a good understanding of the splits among the founding group, and its not that important while the reality of how the how people practice and orient themselves has fairly clear division which is generally encoded as parkour and free running.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 08, 2010, 12:21:50 PM
I don't think thats productive. Putting this on a non responsive status is essentially endorsing the content. Unless of course you want people to make OTHER threads for the sake of the other side of the argument?

Sorry, I didn't mean to say it should be locked, stickied, front-paged, and published in the local newspaper. :P

I mean more that if someone reads it and disagree with one [or many] points, it may not be worth his/her time to argue it. There will [unfortunately] always be opposing views, so sometimes it's better to take it for what it's worth and move on.

Just my personal suggestion.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 12:24:11 PM
And I'll politely ignore it. Debate is healthy and has been fairly productive with high level discourse (read: not mine) over in the purist thread. Just because this isn't something some people WANT to talk about doesn't make it any less important, if only to help individuals further their own understanding of their beliefs.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Tom Coppola on October 08, 2010, 12:26:44 PM
I don't think this article really brings anything new to the table and it certainly isn't the "end all" article on the subject.  It's a perpetuation of the "just move" argument.  As Mark said, parkour and freerunning have obviously become two different entities.  Arguing otherwise seems to be an attempt to reconcile your own reasons for practicing.

There are many freerunners who are acknowledging that they practice something separate from parkour and vice versa.  Just because you find yourself falling somewhere in the middle doesn't mean you can ignore the distinction.

If you want to understand more about my position on the issue, see the Parkour Purist thread.  I'm tired of typing it out.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 08, 2010, 12:31:52 PM
And I'll politely ignore it. Debate is healthy and has been fairly productive with high level discourse (read: not mine) over in the purist thread. Just because this isn't something some people WANT to talk about doesn't make it any less important, if only to help individuals further their own understanding of their beliefs.

And you're right! Look what discussion has done for all of us! If someone wants to talk about this, yeah, they should. What I'm asking is that people not get all flustered in this thread if someone doesn't agree with you. Truth is, you probably won't convince them to agree with you, but that's okay.

I guess the main thing I'm trying to say is this: posts in threads like this should be in the interest of presenting different points of view, rather than trying to convince everyone else to adopt yours.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Mark Toorock on October 08, 2010, 01:01:29 PM
I agree Andy and I've said that before - if someone likes vanilla better you can "argue" all you want for chocolate, they will still like vanilla. It seems that this will be the case for whether someone feels that parkour and freerunning are the same thing or not. I try to present a logical argument, and if someone bites, fine, if not, fine :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 01:05:16 PM
True, but this is more of a gravity/not gravity than a chocolate/vanilla. You're arguing about what is/isn't, not a preference. That's to other thread of which do you like better pk or fr.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Austin"Yoshi" on October 08, 2010, 02:07:30 PM
Does it really matter what we call it ?  come on guys we all love the same thing and we all add in a little flips here in there i agree we all have our own ways to do this amazing art.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: JCalebM on October 08, 2010, 02:50:35 PM
Is this real life?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 08, 2010, 02:52:18 PM
Is this real life?

Yes, and it's also a parkour forum. Please keep posts relevant and constructive.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 02:53:38 PM
Really? I thought this was an "it's all just movement" forum. Wouldn't want to stand for something on someone's toes.

Edit: Admittedly that was a dick thing to say. But I really meant it as a joke.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 08, 2010, 03:08:57 PM
Really? I thought this was an "it's all just movement" forum. Wouldn't want to stand for something on someone's toes.

Edit: Admittedly that was a dick thing to say. But I really meant it as a joke.


I know you're joking, but your joke misses Adam's point. I could have replaced "it's also a parkour forum" with "it's also a freerunning forum" or "ADD forum" or whatever. Make sense?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Shae Perkins on October 08, 2010, 03:15:24 PM
 Just because you find yourself falling somewhere in the middle doesn't mean you can ignore the distinction.



Actually you can! I do it everyday:)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: MThomasfreerun on October 08, 2010, 03:50:43 PM
Actually you can! I do it everyday:)

Shae ftw. I actually decided about 3 iterations of this ago that when it came up I would go learn a skill I don't have yet, so instead of bitching about it I can say "while you were getting your junk in a knot about semantics I landed a webster 1 and 3  ;D"
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Macgyver 0. on October 08, 2010, 05:20:34 PM
Come on! Isn't that why this dang thread was created?? You have my vote for sticky and lock.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 05:23:57 PM
Come on! Isn't that why this dang thread was created?? You have my vote for sticky and lock.
Again. Endorsing the idea that is not agreed upon.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Mark Toorock on October 08, 2010, 05:55:47 PM
Holy crap, did Rafe just say he agreed with me?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: David Jones on October 08, 2010, 06:10:29 PM
Holy crap, did Rafe just say he agreed with me?

Yes, yes he did. And I do too.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Tom Coppola on October 08, 2010, 06:22:19 PM
First of all, Ican't speak for everyone, but just because I've been posting in the APK forum doesn't imply that I haven't been training.  Don't assume people aren't training because they choose to spend a portion of their free time reading and discussing ideas on a parkour forum.

Shae ftw. I actually decided about 3 iterations of this ago that when it came up I would go learn a skill I don't have yet, so instead of bitching about it I can say "while you were getting your junk in a knot about semantics I landed a webster 1 and 3  ;D"

This is a perfect example of the difference between parkour and freerunning training mentality.  You mentioned you wanted to learn a new trick.  You didn't say you were going to improve your striding ability, or try an arm jump that is particularly challenging, or attempt to find a quicker way to move through an environment  You didn't say you were going to try to get quicker climb ups or improve your vault exit distance.  You are interested in learning a new trick.

There is nothing wrong with training this way, in fact, I encourage it.  Its a healthy lifestyle and I support anyone who is interested in improving themselves in some way.  What I am saying is that this is DIFFERENT from parkour.

Once a basic level is reached in parkour, there really isn't very many new movements to learn.  There is a refining process to make the basic movements faster, stronger, and more controlled.  Occasionally you might come across a new skill that helps move past certain types of obstacles, but ultimately, the focus is on learning to be more proficient at getting from place to place. 

I'm not saying that people who practice parkour should not practice other forms of movement.  I think its only natural to want to explore other movement skills after being introduced to a discipline focused on movement, but the differences are so evident that it's baffling that people are still arguing Parkour and Freerunning are the same, rallying behind a horribly misleading "Its All Just Movement" banner.

If the "just movers" can't see the difference between this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spGDbyxDu4k), where the same basic movements are applied to the changing environment, and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3AepKhy034), where numerous skills are applied to a "limited" environment, then I'm done posting.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Joel PK on October 08, 2010, 06:32:29 PM
Funny, I saw this thread was 3 pages *long* and was just gonna read the first few posts to see what it was about, yet here I am on the 3rd page. I wouldn't want this locked, this is all so intriguing and interesting :P

I would kind of find myself at a hybrid of points. Parkour id indeed translated to "route" (or at least parcours is), which I would think implies nothing more than finding a route from A to B, namely the quickest one. Though.... the quickest route perhaps would be a car? Or just going through the building and up the stairs? Or just running around the rail? Just saying that even a lot of parkour purists I have found putting up "parkour" videos of them doing kongs and dash vaults 2 feet away from the edge of a rail, that seems pointless doesn't it? Well the opposite could be applied. Say you have a wall about as high as you are and you are sprinting towards it. What do you do? I've seen people sideflip over things this high before insanely quickly! Way faster than any pop vault or possibly even a kong vault. But it's a flip! Oh no! Not parkour? Well, it is parkour. It's the quickest way. I think, as with many things, if you drive and drive at a word looking for the root, you will end up at something different then from what your going for! David Belle does MANY flips and such, but he is known for parkour. I have to admit that flips, almost always, are ADDED to parkour for flare. But so what? Learning flips increases body awareness incredibly! It is great exercise and could help give you better balance and agility, both useful for parkour. If I see someone throw a video on youtube called parkour and it's them flipping around in a field, no, that's not parkour. If I see someone sprint a mile and vault a few rails, not that's not freerunning. But if I see someone do a fast city run with maybe a couple flips (ONLY BECAUSE THEY LOOK COOL), yeah it's still parkour! But it's also freerunning! The two are different, but so closely related, and there's nothing wrong with incorporating both. I would encourage this, but also I don't discourage learning only one or the other.

In other words, parkour is point A to B quickest, freerunning is flipping and tricking, but a video of someone getting to point A to B quickly while doing some flips, that's both, not just one or the other.

(All just my opinion)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: FrostySTL on October 08, 2010, 06:39:22 PM
Funny, I saw this thread was 3 pages wrong....

Typo? LOL

Maybe the problem is one of genre? "Martial Arts", while all being different in form and intent, have a common term called "Martial Arts". We have no such all encompassing term, and some people are trying to push the word "Parkour" into that role, which is ticking off the people who are trying to keep their intent behind "Parkour" constant?

The problem, is there is no suitable word that everyone can agree on, I'm guessing.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 06:52:34 PM
Um...
But thats EXACTLY the argument I've made TIME AND TIME AND TIME again. The term Movement Arts is appropriate for an encompassing genre just as Martial Arts is for self defense. Karate, TKD, Kung Fu, Capoeira are all Martial Arts. L'add, Parkour, Freerun, MA Tricking, and MN are all Movement Arts. The parallels are so obvious it actually PAINS me to have to explain it.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Joel PK on October 08, 2010, 06:58:54 PM
Typo? LOL

Ha yes, typo, thanks :P

Um...

I agree with andrew here. No sense in comparing to other situations. While sometimes analogies can clear things up and shed new light on a topic, every possible one has already been said. Apples and Oranges. I won't try to force my opinions on others. If someone wants to call them the same, they have the right, and vice versa, doesn't make it right though, doesn't make it wrong. I know what I believe, that's all I need.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 07:02:57 PM
Yeah, not what I was saying at all, but you're from jackson so the fact that you've learned to use a computer at all astonishes me and I'll let it go. I'm saying there is a perfect analogy in place (or READY to be in place) that alleviates the pressure in the situation. He was saying he wishes we had something all encompassing like "Martial Arts" which I had already made a DIRECT comparison to earlier in the thread.

I think if anyone reads this thread and thinks I'm okay with the equivocation of Parkour and Freerunning then you need to retake 3rd grade reading comprehension. Or in the case of Jackson, 8th grade reading comprehension  :P
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: FrostySTL on October 08, 2010, 07:11:38 PM
Yeah, not what I was saying at all, but you're from jackson so the fact that you've learned to use a computer at all astonishes me and I'll let it go. I'm saying there is a perfect analogy in place (or READY to be in place) that alleviates the pressure in the situation. He was saying he wishes we had something all encompassing like "Martial Arts" which I had already made a DIRECT comparison to earlier in the thread.

I think if anyone reads this thread and thinks I'm okay with the equivocation of Parkour and Freerunning then you need to retake 3rd grade reading comprehension. Or in the case of Jackson, 8th grade reading comprehension  :P

I'm hoping this is a school rivalry thing and both of you will take this in good humor?

Actually, I didn't say I wished for one, i was just pointing it out, havn't somehow missed that part of your post.

Sadly, "Movement Arts" doesn't flow off the tongue very well, and flow is important. Besides, being old, it also brings to mind "bowel movements". (When you get to be my age, you will understand)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Sparklefish on October 08, 2010, 07:12:11 PM
I'm with Mark and Rafe and David here, for the most part.

There's a lot none of us will know about the hows and whys of the split.  Constantly referring to what "the founders" wrote or said is a form of the appeal to authority fallacy: it's persuasive, but it's not logical.  Things are the way they are, and the way they are the vast majority of people feel that freerunning and parkour are distinct.

I personally don't feel that parkour and freerunning are "different," or that it's beneficial to think of them that way.  So I don't.  In my personal conception, there is one disclipine, with a continuity and a spectrum to it.  For the most part I'm way more interested in the style of movement most people call "parkour," but I prefer the inclusivity of "freerunning."  

This likely will never be settled.  I acknowledge that I'm in the minority in how I personally conceive of all of this, and so I generally use the accepted nomenclature.  However, that doesn't mean I don't have the right to my well reasoned opinion or philosophy, and it definitely doesn't mean that I'm wrong or lack an understanding of parkour.

Most of us, much like the founders, have a different individual viewpoint on, relationship with, and understanding of parkour.  I think this discussion is far more useful when it's a back and forth:

"Hey, how do you think of things?"
"Well I see it like this..."
"Whoa, totally different than my viewpoint.  Here's how I see things..."

Generally the in-person discussions Rafe and I have had have been like this.  Though we see things differently, I value those conversations more than any others I've had about parkour.

We don't all have to agree about this in order to engage in a respectful and mutually beneficial conversation.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 07:15:28 PM
I'm hoping this is a school rivalry thing and both of you will take this in good humor?
Yeah I'm from Michigan and Jackson is like... basically Ohio to the rest of Michigan.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Joel PK on October 08, 2010, 07:19:10 PM
Yeah, not what I was saying at all, but you're from jackson so the fact that you've learned to use a computer at all astonishes me and I'll let it go. I'm saying there is a perfect analogy in place (or READY to be in place) that alleviates the pressure in the situation. He was saying he wishes we had something all encompassing like "Martial Arts" which I had already made a DIRECT comparison to earlier in the thread.

I think if anyone reads this thread and thinks I'm okay with the equivocation of Parkour and Freerunning then you need to retake 3rd grade reading comprehension. Or in the case of Jackson, 8th grade reading comprehension  :P

Ha don't be a douche andrew. My reading level is actually college (being in college). I read like the first line right after reading the other pages and thought it was a different post. So my bad. Don't stereotype me for being in Jackson :P At least it's not Detroit XD
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 07:19:59 PM
HA! You got me back man, I'm from detroit. Good on ya though, we're cool.  :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: MThomasfreerun on October 08, 2010, 07:21:43 PM
First of all, I can't speak for everyone, but just because I've been posting in the APK forum doesn't imply that I haven't been training.  Don't assume people aren't training because they choose to spend a portion of their free time reading and discussing ideas on a parkour forum.

This is a perfect example of the difference between parkour and freerunning training mentality.  You mentioned you wanted to learn a new trick.  You didn't say you were going to improve your striding ability, or try an arm jump that is particularly challenging, or attempt to find a quicker way to move through an environment  You didn't say you were going to try to get quicker climb ups or improve your vault exit distance.  You are interested in learning a new trick.

I'm interested in learning as much as possible. But "increasing stride length" has no endpoint. You arguably can always increase your stride length. I choose to learn a skill because once you learn it you have it.  And at the current frequency of this type of thread, one new skill is about all I can get in between them  :P

Also, I said "skill," not "trick" - I feel like the people who emphasize the non-acro areas of freerunning seem to refer to acro skills as "tricks," perhaps as a way to cheapen their value...this may not be what you were trying to do but I find it common and correlated...
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Joel PK on October 08, 2010, 07:26:10 PM
HA! You got me back man, I'm from detroit. Good on ya though, we're cool.  :)

I had to pull out the big guns ;) I also kind of meant that second half of the paragraph to be my own anyways :P Shoulda spaced it.

Also, I said "skill," not "trick" - I feel like the people who emphasize the non-acro areas of freerunning seem to refer to acro skills as "tricks," perhaps as a way to cheapen their value...this may not be what you were trying to do but I find it common and correlated...

I agree. While I think referring to a front flip as a trick COULD be correct... not the way I want it to be referred to. It's a skill. It's beneficial to me and a core to freerunning in itself.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 07:27:51 PM
Wait so you can refer to whatever you want as parkour but we can't refer to things we want as tricks? Because its not how you want it referred to? It doesn't fit your definition? Anyone get the irony here?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: MThomasfreerun on October 08, 2010, 07:29:30 PM
Wait so you can refer to whatever you want as parkour but we can't refer to things we want as tricks? Because its not how you want it referred to? It doesn't fit your definition? Anyone get the irony here?

You can call it whatever you want. But if you're gonna quote me, quote accurately :-) My comment was more concerning the tone/connotation. And I trust that if I missed the mark with Coppola he will check me on it :-)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Joel PK on October 08, 2010, 07:32:54 PM
I think andrew was aiming at me? If so, parkour vs freerunning, diff from tricks vs skills. The correlation is there, but they're two different topics. Somewhat ironic in essence, but not really.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 08, 2010, 07:52:09 PM
through my eyes. Tumbling not done in olympics or training for olympics is tricking. So flips = Tricking. tricking +parkour= Free Running. Basicly like adding gatorade mix to water. Water is your foundation and you slab some sticky sweets to enitise people.

parkour- is efficient movement
free running- is throwing some flips and unneeded movement
tricking- going outside and doing flips aka tricks.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Tom Coppola on October 08, 2010, 07:57:28 PM
I'm interested in learning as much as possible. But "increasing stride length" has no endpoint. You arguably can always increase your stride length. I choose to learn a skill because once you learn it you have it.  And at the current frequency of this type of thread, one new skill is about all I can get in between them  :P

Also, I said "skill," not "trick" - I feel like the people who emphasize the non-acro areas of freerunning seem to refer to acro skills as "tricks," perhaps as a way to cheapen their value...this may not be what you were trying to do but I find it common and correlated...

If you're interested in learning as much as possible, then you should also work on dance, chess, martial arts, juggling, gymnastics, soccer, pole vaulting, calculus, micro expression reading,...

By working on striding I mean specifically training striding in different scenarios. Maybe you're good at doing it at ground level between lines on the pavement, so perhaps you should try it across walls or rails, at all the same level or at varying levels, or with varying distances between each stride.  Striding is a very basic concept that can be developed and utilized in various situations.  If you practice striding you can improve your ability to move from one place to another.  Learning a webster will not improve your ability to move from one place to another, therefore it is not a part of parkour.

I'm not trying to cheapen acrobatic skills by referring to them as tricks.  I just tend to associate many acrobatic skills with tricking, but since you brought it to my attention, I'll begin using "acrobatic skills" when talking about flips.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 08, 2010, 08:03:34 PM
Just for clarification some of the issues I've seen brought up. I'm in no way saying that all tricks and tumbling and all forms of movement should be called Parkour just cuz. Parkour is a method of training, my primary point is that we apply whatever movements suit us best to that method of training, be that the kong vault or the flip. I don't see a difference in trying to achieve a kong versus trying to achieve a frontflip. Both are movements that have their purposes in the learning field. Movement is movement. The more you break it down into pieces, the less complete it becomes.
As for the intent of training, I think that's a mighty fine line, and its why I will respect and not contend with you at all, Andrew, for you seem quite set on your way of thinking about it. And that's fine! So am I. Not a negative comment. It's just that the amount of people I've taught who all have different intentions and different purposes for learning our art, makes it very difficult to draw any line anywhere, for I'd need 50 different names, if we are to separate by intention. As for your martial arts comparison, after 10 years of studying assorted martial arts I have also come to see the martial arts as all being the same, with only teachers and practitioners differing in their level of understanding. But you take two true masters of completely different systems and you will find that everything matches up. Anyways, so I personally have decided to draw no lines at all, within our discipline, conceptually. I'm in no way demanding that everyone accept my philosophy. I just wanted to share it in a way that is clear, and maybe I hope to help some new people shape their perspective, rather than allowing recent influences that plenty of people in this thread have already brought up, affect their understanding.

M2, I appreciate the extra info and historical corrections. I'll be sure to keep researching and talking to people and finding as much as I can to fix the little holes.

Andy, thanks for moderating this thread and trying to keep people on track. It seems after all it didn't really stay on topic and the conversation divulged from anything specifically related to the original post at all, but it is as such that I should expect.

Thank you all for taking the time to read this article!


P.S. Just because I have to. Anthony: Parkour = efficient movement? So if I balance back and forth on a rail for 5 minutes, am I moving efficiently? Or is that not Parkour? If I do a reverse vault over a bench, is that efficient? Is going over the bench even efficient to begin with, rather than jogging around it? So maybe we "train" for parkour, or efficient movement, but don't always actually perform it. Then we can do most anything as a part of "training", since we sometimes have to do things that are unneeded motions. Especially when conditioning or drilling repetitions! That includes flips, if I find body awareness an important skill in my training towards "parkour" or "efficient movement". So then, when do we separate "training" from "performing parkour", or being efficient without unneeded movement. ..Good luck! ;)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 08, 2010, 08:12:46 PM
Parkour vs. Parkour Movements. Read Tom's posts in the purist thread.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 08, 2010, 08:15:04 PM
Actually no its not. In my Humble opinion it is exactly what you said training. Im not preforming parkour when im out training. When im out training, im training to be better at parkour. When I walk out my door and run to a friends house or grocery store and dont let obstacles slow me down that is when I preform what is parkour.

In the same scenario If I was running to the store and thought to myself hey im gonna go kong to cat these 2 walls then pop up front flip of I am now prefroming what is freerunning

In the same scenario if I was just running down the road tumbling that would be tricking

what we do in a stationary are and practice is repetition is conditioning and training.
take it as you will.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: JCalebM on October 08, 2010, 08:33:02 PM
through my eyes. Tumbling not done in olympics or training for olympics is tricking. So flips = Tricking. tricking +parkour= Free Running. Basicly like adding gatorade mix to water. Water is your foundation and you slab some sticky sweets to enitise people.

parkour- is efficient movement
free running- is throwing some flips and unneeded movement
tricking- going outside and doing flips aka tricks.

Tricking is its own separate art. Its not doing flips outside, Its martial arts tricking. Its a combination of martial arts and gymnastics. Doing flips outside is just doing flips outside. Just to clarify
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 08, 2010, 08:43:01 PM
"through my eyes"
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: JCalebM on October 08, 2010, 08:51:47 PM
lol well then through your eyes, i believe that a lot of trickers would be pretty offended. I mean if you call this "doing flips outside" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n5ya7Giixs then i think you might be a little delusional. Yes there are gymnastic elements, but its martial arts tricking. Hence all the off axis rotation, vertical spins, and kicks. You dont rotate off axis in gymnastics the way that you do in tricking, nor do you throw kicks. Its its own art.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 08, 2010, 08:55:24 PM
still just tricking to me except in a gym, Im very impressed by what they do but its still just tricking to me.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: JCalebM on October 08, 2010, 08:58:53 PM
....thats cuz it is tricking. He is a tricker...doing tricking. Exactly what im saying. Doing gymnastics outside is not tricking. When have you seen a gymnast throw an off axis flip or throw a bunch of kicks in a combo? Yes you can trick outside as well as in a gym, but it is not doing flips outside. Its tricking outside. Doing flips outside is just doing flips outside. Doing flips is not tricking all though in tricking you do flips. Its rooted in martial arts.... so even if an elite gymnast decides to go outside and throw some tumbling, he is not tricking, he is just tumbling outside. Its a whole separate art.

Now im curious as to whether or not you know what tricking is or if u just decided that doing flips outside is doing tricks, so you called it tricking. If not, you should research tricking and youll find that it is completely separate, and really should not be involved in the parkour or freerunning debate at all. It has nothing to do with either. In freerunning you use gymnastic skills as well as tricking skills yes, but no one  who is just a tricker and has no experience in freerunning or parkour will say that they are a freerunner or traceur because it is not even related. Just like no gymnast who has no experience in parkour or free running will say that they are a traceur or freerunner. Tricking is not a "split" from parkour like freerunning or L'ADD. It developed all on its own completely separate of parkour or freerunning  by a completely separate community of people who combined martial arts and gymnastics and had nothing to do with parkour or freerunning
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 08, 2010, 09:15:39 PM
Actually no its not. In my Humble opinion it is exactly what you said training. Im not preforming parkour when im out training. When im out training, im training to be better at parkour. When I walk out my door and run to a friends house or grocery store and dont let obstacles slow me down that is when I preform what is parkour.

In the same scenario If I was running to the store and thought to myself hey im gonna go kong to cat these 2 walls then pop up front flip of I am now prefroming what is freerunning

In the same scenario if I was just running down the road tumbling that would be tricking

what we do in a stationary are and practice is repetition is conditioning and training.
take it as you will.

So, Parkour is basically long distance running and/or sprinting? Cuz all those kong to cats and precisions and lazy vaults and stuff are unneeded movement, if you're going to your friends house. The quickest way, depending on the distance, is probably a fast paced jog down the sidewalk. So if all those movements are not actually parkour, why do you train all these vaults and jumps and cat leaps so much in the hopes of being more efficient? They won't be needed in 'efficient movement'. You seem to be barking up the wrong tree. Or maybe, all of it is "parkour", flips or jogging, and you just apply the movements for an efficient purpose when needed, or a fun purpose when needed, or a training purpose when needed. ;)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 08, 2010, 10:01:30 PM
On many occasions you have to overcome obstacles fences walls rails, numerous other objects. Whats the shortest distance between to areas? a straight line. If you live in a city where everything is on one road only then yes running would be. Not where I live there are numerouse walls rails fences building structures of all sorts and to go into a straight line to where you are goin means overcoming. You can think of efficient anyway you want but for me, If I can get to where I am going quickly without having to make a mile run into a 3 mile run thats dam efficient to me. Yes Parkour is mostly running everyone knows that. to do parkour is one thing and to practice for it is another.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 08, 2010, 10:09:47 PM
....thats cuz it is tricking. He is a tricker...doing tricking. Exactly what im saying. Doing gymnastics outside is not tricking. When have you seen a gymnast throw an off axis flip or throw a bunch of kicks in a combo? Yes you can trick outside as well as in a gym, but it is not doing flips outside. Its tricking outside. Doing flips outside is just doing flips outside. Doing flips is not tricking all though in tricking you do flips. Its rooted in martial arts.... so even if an elite gymnast decides to go outside and throw some tumbling, he is not tricking, he is just tumbling outside. Its a whole separate art.

Now im curious as to whether or not you know what tricking is or if u just decided that doing flips outside is doing tricks, so you called it tricking. If not, you should research tricking and youll find that it is completely separate, and really should not be involved in the parkour or freerunning debate at all. It has nothing to do with either. In freerunning you use gymnastic skills as well as tricking skills yes, but no one  who is just a tricker and has no experience in freerunning or parkour will say that they are a freerunner or traceur because it is not even related. Just like no gymnast who has no experience in parkour or free running will say that they are a traceur or freerunner. Tricking is not a "split" from parkour like freerunning or L'ADD. It developed all on its own completely separate of parkour or freerunning  by a completely separate community of people who combined martial arts and gymnastics and had nothing to do with parkour or freerunning


on the bright side you agree with me that tricking is not parkour on free running im glad we have that squared away. cause i alreayd posted that. So even though flips are tricking technically they are not technically tricking??  If you want ill add spins to my flipping part you seem to miss my point as I was trying to show that  doing the flips and spins on there own are not parkour or freerunning but you alreayd agreed with me on that.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: JCalebM on October 08, 2010, 10:21:30 PM
Yes lol, i agree that tricking is not parkour or free running at all. they came from completely separate places. I was referring to


tricking- going outside and doing flips aka tricks.


Because tricking is not going outside and doing flips aka tricks. Tricking is a specific art combining martial arts with gymnastics. Tricking is short for martial arts tricking and involves off axis flips and kicks and derives parts of the art from gymnastics (ie flips). You can do flips without ever having experience in tricking, ie gymnastics, cheerleading, power tumbling, trampolining. And doing that outside doesnt make it tricking either. But it is unlikely that you will be able to do tricking without doing any flips as tricking uses flips and other skills from gymnastics.

But i think we may have just had a misunderstanding about what we were each trying to say.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 08, 2010, 10:35:24 PM
I belive so too cause Im not trying to bottleneck tricking my aim was for the parkour freerunning part and threw the tricking in there for added discription but failed to elaborate on it, the main tricking I was referring to though are the people who do call themselves freerunners, but just flip and do tricking off of objects.

Also thanks for the added insight to the Real tricking aspect a better understanding will lead to less confusion later :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: JCalebM on October 08, 2010, 10:47:07 PM
No problem. lol. I understand what you were saying now, basically people just doing stunts. I just wanted to clarify what tricking is :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Gabe Arnold on October 08, 2010, 11:31:39 PM
Prepare yourselves, information overload in 4...3...2...1...

Interview With Teige "Teghead" Matthews-Palmer (http://www.americanparkour.com/content/view/5431/5/)

6. Do you see a difference between Parkour and Freerunning? In fact, what is your personal definition/application of either?

I think both fall into the category of lifestyle sport, just like skateboarding, and the abundance of youtube videos makes up for the lack of objective competitions or a way to measure your ability relative to your peers. I like to take a descriptivist approach, meaning I'll try to descibe PK & FR as they are, not as they should be.

The only major difference between Parkour and Freerunning is the flips and spins. In both sports you're using bits of architecture to test your skills on, there's a creative element to both. We all accept Freerunning has nothing to do with usefulness or getting anywhere; but many of us still hold on to this idea of Parkour. As it is practised by most of my peers, and me, Parkour is just Freerunning using equally pointless but less fancy moves like precision jumps and wallruns on the grippiest wall we can find. The words behind Parkour are well-meaning, but most people either don't care about them enough to really think about whether what they do is useful, or they just aren't very bright...



APK Parkour Definition
Parkour is the physical discipline of training to overcome any obstacle within one's path by adapting one's movements to the environment.

Parkour requires... consistent, disciplined training with an emphasis on functional strength, physical conditioning, balance, creativity, fluidity, control, precision, spatial awareness, and looking beyond the traditional use of objects.

Parkour movements typically include... running, jumping, vaulting, climbing, balancing, and quadrupedal movement. Movements from other physical disciplines are often incorporated, but acrobatics or tricking alone do not constitute parkour.

Parkour training focuses on... safety, longevity, personal responsibility, and self-improvement. It discourages reckless behavior, showing off, and dangerous stunts.

Parkour practitioners value... community, humility, positive collaboration, sharing of knowledge, and the importance of play in human life, while demonstrating respect for all people, places, and spaces.

(If anyone is interested, I still have all the emails the drafting committee sent to each other when deciding this. A fun read, 63 messages long)


Le Parkour - An Overview by Dan Edwardes of Parkour Generations (http://parkourgenerations.com/articles.php)
Le Parkour (1) , originally named l'Art du Deplacement, though crystallised into its current guise by the Yamakasi sometime in the 1980s, is a practice the roots of which precede records. It has drawn on a myriad of sources, been inspired by a number of notable individuals and evolved through several traditions to arrive at the modern discipline now referred to as parkour or l’art du deplacement. Names and labels come and go, of course, and the outward visage of this discipline has shifted and modified itself countless times. However, behind whatever appearance has been fashionable at the time, at its core there has always existed an eternal constant – the means, the end, the method and the goal of parkour: Movement.


APK Talks to Dave Sedgley (http://www.americanparkour.com/content/view/5492/5/)
APK: On different forums you've touched on your idea of Parkour and Freerunning not being different disciplines but really two stages of the same thing. Care to elaborate?

Dave: The connection is obvious once you remember that Parkour (or whatever you want to call it) is a training system.

Since Parkour is a training system we know we practise Parkour in order to improve, to help us get past obstacles of all kinds, whatever obstacles we encounter along our path. But the first obstacle we encounter is that of choosing a path. Our first challenge is working out what we enjoy, what is useful to us, what we want to do. We can't decide to go in a particular direction until we know what directions we can take. To do this we need to experiment and try new things, in order to learn about ourselves and the options we have. If you were to use movement to do this it would involve trying movement of all types and varieties, experimenting to see what you were capable of and what you enjoyed. = Freerunning.

Again I ask the question, what kind of nonsensical training system only works for people who are already strong, in this case a strong picture of their desires?

Training systems start at the beginning. Parkour starts with exploration and experimentation.

APK: What is Parkour? To you?

Dave: Parkour is the Way of Movement. It's the training system where you use movement for self development.

To me, Parkour is the best method I've found to learn the most important lesson in life - how to learn. Confront your problems rather than ignore them.

From the comments of the same article...
DaveS, responding to quoted comment: "its not Our right or our place to try and step up and tell them they cannot do something with something they invented."
It absolutely, 100% definitely, IS our place to tell them when they are doing something wrong. They're not perfect, and it's only other practitioners that can show them what the problems are!

The discipline of Parkour encompasses every practitioner, and if the experiences of other practitioners aren't taken into account then Parkour will continue to be something that is suited only to teenage boys. It is impossible to get a good understanding of the discipline as a whole without listening to every point of view.

Each person has a different experience which is unique to them. 20 years experience can't give you perfect understanding.

--------------

DaveS: "While I agree with everything, except the fact that we should have a right to dictate how the founders train and teach"
What I'm saying is that nobody should dictate how anyone teaches. Not you, nor me, nor anyone else either.
We should all try and add to the community's knowledge and improve on all systems and methods. We should all help each other improve.
 
'Founders' is a pointless title. There is no need for honorifics in Parkour. All practitioners are equal, and the idea of elitism runs contrary to the Parkour philosophy. Nobody has any special right to dictate to anyone else. Let's forget the hero worship. The people who practised first are normal people just like the rest of us.


Parkour Tokyo's definitions, translated by Google Chrome (http://pktk.jp/parkour.html)
About Parkour
Complex in the city, free to move smoothly skill.
Mental mistakes and no body can perform tricks for them.
And mental training to make that body.

Collectively, these "parkour" is called.

ABOUT FREERUNNING

Free running is a sport to enjoy the city more freely.

Parkour and free running are different.
The goal of parkour is to train ourselves strong.
Free-running goal is to freely enjoy the city and street.

It is interesting to both, but something deeper,
I have different goals, are thought to be different.
(http://pktk.jp/images/PKFRXMA.png)


Parkourpedia's "What Is Parkour" Article (created in part by Australian Parkour Association) (http://parkourpedia.com/about/what-is-parkour)
Parkour is a spirit/philosophy that incorporates a method of moving within your environment and approaching obstacles of any kind, be they physical or mental. The philosophy encompasses such things as:

• Seeking to improve and understand ourselves through the practice of Parkour.[2] [3] [6] [7]
• Using Parkour to help others, be it with helping someone learn Parkour or using your skills in a practical situation.[1]
• Seek mental and physical progression in ourselves.[1][7]

You then have the physical extension of Parkour which is as follows:
Move in such a way, with any movement, that will help you gain the most ground on someone/something as if escaping from someone/something or chasing toward someone/something. Also, wherever you go, you must be able to get back. If you go from A to B, you need to be able to get back from B to A. You don’t need to do the same “move,” but just get back.[1]

These skills do not only apply to an urban environment, they can be utilized anywhere, in the forest, desert etc. [1][3] It is not just they way you move that makes you a practitioner of Parkour, but the movement combined with the philosophy that defines it as Parkour.

MISCONCEPTIONS AND MISINFORMATION
Due to the way that Parkour arrived on the international scene there are quite a few misconceptions and erroneous information that has spread.

Parkour and Freerunning – These are not the same thing. They are not interchangeable terms. They are quite different from each other in their purpose and goals. Practitioners of Parkour are called Traceurs, Freerunning practitioners are called Freerunners, the terms Freerunner and Traceur are not interchangeable.[5][8]

Parkour shows – There is no such thing as performing a Parkour show. If you see any presentations of Parkour purely for the sake of entertainment cannot be defined as Parkour, simply because you are not following the principles of what Parkour is. You can take the movement from Parkour and use it to entertain, but the end result cannot ethically be called Parkour as it doesn’t follow the principles of the discipline.

Flips – Many people get confused when they see someone who calls themselves a Traceur doing flips and spins. Just because someone does these things does not mean the actions constitue Parkour, it just means that the traceur trains in other aspects of movement as well as Parkour. If you are unsure simply ask yourself, if you were running for your life what would you do? [5][8]

Parkour is not just an Urban sport – Parkour was developed and practiced in the trees and forests of France just as much as in the cities. It is practiced to great effect in the natural environment that has been shaped by time and the elements, and can be rough and jagged as opposed to the smoothed and usually symmetrical man made urban environment.


Parkour.net's "Parkour -vs- Freerunning" Article, written Nov.2007 (http://parkour.net/Parkour-and-Free-Running-t181.html)
Parkour
Object: Parkour aims for speed and efficiency. A practitioner of Parkour (traceur for male, traceuse for female) trains to develop skills that will allow them to traverse efficiently and overcome obstacles, urban or rural. A traceur's goal is to move effectively in any situation, which means that Parkour can be readily applied to life-threatening situations.

Freerunning
Object: Free-Running aims in beauty, gracefulness, and fluidity. A practitioner of Free-Running (free-runner) trains to be able to move freely and elegantly through the environment, urban or rural. A free-runner's goal is to create innovative movement through interaction with various objects and obstacles in their environment, in order to express themselves and feel a sense of freedom. In essence, for enjoyment.

common Points and Conclusion
Of course, Parkour and Free-Running share quite a few similarities. For example, both arts are non-competitive, both focus on durability and improving one's capabilities, both are highly demanding from a physical standpoint, and both hide a philosophy behind them.

Purpose is what defines an action. So, if Parkour and Free-Running have different ultimate goals and mindsets, then they are two different things. This site, Parkour.NET, is a Parkour site. Therefore, we discuss Parkour here, not Free-Running. Please avoid speaking about flips, spins, tricks, and Free-Running philosophy here, as doing so will only add to the confusion and public misconception.

(I think it important to state that the author of this article, noxteryn, was a major part of the Eon Death Hoax (http://www.americanparkour.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,159/topic,12900.msg151795/#msg151795), almost 2 yrs ago.)


Extensive Parkour Article from 'The New Yorker', circa 2007, featuring names like Mark Toorock, Ryan Ford, Jeff and David Belle (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_wilkinson)


Articles from late 2003, salvaged from original Urban Freeflow website.
Birth of an Art - Foucan Interview (http://web.archive.org/web/20031008082201/www.urbanfreeflow.com/UrbanFreeFlow/birthofanart.htm)

Art in Motion - Parkour Definition/Discussion (http://web.archive.org/web/20030901222800/www.urbanfreeflow.com/UrbanFreeFlow/artinmotion.htm)


So what's the point of this massive pile of text, pics, and links? To educate, inform, persuade, entertain, and all of the above. Really, it just drives home a belief I have...we'll never hit the nail on the head. We'll get close to defining Parkour, Freerunning, and the differences/similarities between them. But like a cloud of smoke, we'll reach for it and pass through, seeing it but never grasping it.

And I'm okay with that.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Ozzi on October 09, 2010, 12:07:45 AM
Can we just agree that they are both disciplines of motion in which the emphacise is efficientcy of movement thru training, repetition and constant and dedication?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: MThomasfreerun on October 09, 2010, 03:45:43 AM
Can we just agree that they are both disciplines of motion in which the emphacise is efficientcy of movement thru training, repetition and constant and dedication?

At 75 responses into just the most recent rehash of this...seems doubtful.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 09, 2010, 04:17:43 AM
If the mods deem appropriate, I'm cool with locking this thread down. Nobody's on topic, it's not goin anywhere useful from here; People are too busy shutting down other people to actually start thinking about their similarities.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 09, 2010, 06:03:31 AM
See no, thats bullshit. You're arguing for similarities, others are arguing for differences. It's not off topic just because people aren't arguing your side.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Eli on October 09, 2010, 08:57:51 AM
You could just say something along the lines of how light is a broad category and different spectrums fall under it.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 09, 2010, 09:00:34 AM
I thought M2 said no more analogies. And parkour is a color not a spectrum.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Macgyver 0. on October 09, 2010, 10:33:30 AM
Quote
If the mods deem appropriate, I'm cool with locking this thread down. Nobody's on topic, it's not goin anywhere useful from here; People are too busy shutting down other people to actually start thinking about their similarities.

And apparently many people think it will, which is why they are still arguing. We will not get anywhere because everybody's ideas are different, as said earlier.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 09, 2010, 10:41:08 AM
It's going to stay open for a little while yet, then reworked into something that can be presented to the community as a whole. If anyone else wants to get their views in, now's your chance.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Joshua "Djakk" Thomas on October 09, 2010, 12:09:16 PM
Hmm.... My opinion...
I see Parkour and Freerunning as different, yes. Wether it be because of different attitudes, movements etc...
BUT!!
They are in the same "category" perhaps?
I apologize for the martial arts analogy, but... Taekwondo vs. Karate... They are different "Martial arts", but they are both categorized "Martial arts". Or perhaps, Wushu vs. Yiwuan, both are "Martial arts" yet they have very different purposes, techniques, and ideals. Even their goals are different.
Maybe this is how we should view Parkour, Freerunning, L'add, or even Ninja Running! (Ya I just made up the Ninja Running...)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 09, 2010, 12:35:11 PM
How many people are going to have to make my Movement Arts argument before people realize its valid?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 09, 2010, 12:39:31 PM
How many people are going to have to make my Movement Arts argument before people realize its valid?

Is juggling one of these movement arts? Dance? Diving? Sleight-of-hand?

Sorry to be difficult, but I don't think "Movement Arts" is the be-all, end-all solution either.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Sparklefish on October 09, 2010, 01:18:56 PM
Anyways, so I personally have decided to draw no lines at all, within our discipline, conceptually. I'm in no way demanding that everyone accept my philosophy. I just wanted to share it in a way that is clear, and maybe I hope to help some new people shape their perspective, rather than allowing recent influences that plenty of people in this thread have already brought up, affect their understanding.

This is exactly how I feel Adam.  For me, it doesn't enhance my understanding to separate things, but I enjoy these conversations when people talk about the depths and dimensions of how they practice or experience parkour and what ideas go into it for them.  Even people who see things very differently inform my understanding of what I do, without convincing me that pk & fr are separate and distinct.

I said something along those lines earlier, but it was lost in a flood of inside jokes about school rivalry.

I'd like to see this conversation continue, so long as we're sharing perspective with each other rather than browbeating those who disagree with us.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Tom Coppola on October 09, 2010, 01:34:12 PM
"Each of us thinks we see the world directly, as it really is.  We further believe that the facts as we see them are there for all to see, therefore others should agree with us.  If they don't agree, it follows either that they have not yet been exposed to the relevant facts or else that they are blinded by their interests and ideologies.  People acknowledge that their own backgrounds have shaped their views, but such experiences are invariably seen as deepening one's insights...It just seems plain as day, to the naive realist, that everyone is influenced by ideology and self-interest.  Except for me.  I see things as they are."

-Jonathan Haidt, The Happiness Hypothesis
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Dirtyd240 on October 09, 2010, 02:03:24 PM
I see them the same way as a way to express one's self so what dose it really matter
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 09, 2010, 03:15:04 PM
How many people are going to have to make my Movement Arts argument before people realize its valid?

You know, something tells me we're actually arguing the same thing. Only, your term for it is "Movement Arts" and my term for it is "Parkour", to separate it by name from what Andy said: Gymnastics, Tricking, Dance, all other sports/activies from different origins.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: matcauthon12 on October 09, 2010, 03:33:29 PM
To me, parkour is like strict pole dancing whilst freerunning is more like an interpretive exotic dance.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 09, 2010, 03:48:23 PM
You know, something tells me we're actually arguing the same thing. Only, your term for it is "Movement Arts" and my term for it is "Parkour", to separate it by name from what Andy said: Gymnastics, Tricking, Dance, all other sports/activies from different origins.
We're not.

Andy, Martial arts doesn't include marksmanship, tank school, or strategic battle planning. All things that are Martial in nature. Its a specific enough term with a general understanding when it isn't taken to ridiculous extreme to prove a point.

And Adam that's like saying "I think we're talking about the same thing, your term is "Martial Arts" and my term is "karate". You're treating Parkour the same way Karate was treated in the 80's and 90's. All martial arts are not karate. All movement/motion/jumpy shit arts are not parkour. You're not dumb enough to make this mistake, you're making an illogical argument for the sake of your point.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: David Jones on October 09, 2010, 03:56:39 PM
To me, parkour is like strict pole dancing whilst freerunning is more like an interpretive exotic dance.

:)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 09, 2010, 04:58:50 PM
We're not.

And Adam that's like saying "I think we're talking about the same thing, your term is "Martial Arts" and my term is "karate". You're treating Parkour the same way Karate was treated in the 80's and 90's. All martial arts are not karate. All movement/motion/jumpy shit arts are not parkour. You're not dumb enough to make this mistake, you're making an illogical argument for the sake of your point.

Hahaa, I guess there lies our problem, man. As I said before, I also see martial arts as all being the same thing, only artificially separated by people with differing levels of understanding. If it was up to me, we wouldn't have a thousand different styles of Martial Arts bickering with each other. If it were up to me, all would train martial arts, and learn what fits them best according to what they need. And I'd call it.. maybe.. Kung Fu, cuz that's one of the oldest names, and has meaning to it (hard work, and all that). Same as Parkour. Seems to be a fundamental difference in our philosophies of the arts. I like to assimilate, you like to separate. I guess that's the core thing here. Which is cool, really.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 09, 2010, 05:27:21 PM
I like to be specific. Knowledge is not served by blurring distinction. I'm not arguing with relativism anymore. I'm done.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Eli on October 09, 2010, 06:10:49 PM
So does that mean my side has won by default?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: FrostySTL on October 09, 2010, 06:35:45 PM
So does that mean my side has won by default?

No, that means everybody loses.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 09, 2010, 06:55:27 PM
No, that means everybody loses.


And pole dancing wins. :)

Note: It's tough to be receptive of a good point when it comes across in a derogatory way. Even if one doesn't mean it, some ways of making an argument can come across as being a dick. Be careful everyone. Discussion is most beneficial when fostered in a positive, receptive environment.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: StreetPrince on October 09, 2010, 07:02:39 PM
I like to be specific. Knowledge is not served by blurring distinction. I'm not arguing with relativism anymore. I'm done.

$10 to anyone if you can get this guy to agree with you. Ha. I think it's a lost cause.

No offense Andrew, but you're kind of coming across as aggressively elitist in this thread [and a few others]. You may not mean it that way, but successful communication is not dependent on the sender's intent, it is all about the recipient's perception.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Eli on October 09, 2010, 07:07:01 PM
I'd like to take the time to remind everyone (including myself) that if you don't want to come off as a dick, use an emote. Also, for sarcasm use the  :-Sarcasm emote.

I'm only telling you because you are all retards who were dropped as babies. :-Sarcasm
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 09, 2010, 07:08:41 PM
I do believe andrew has agreed with me before he has given me the +1 so wheres my +$10  :P
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 09, 2010, 07:10:44 PM
Not matter how bad I personally want to see this thread go to shenanigans so that people stop bickering, I have to fulfill my civic duty.

[mod]Let's stay on topic.[/mod]

Thanks.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 09, 2010, 07:19:31 PM
$10 to anyone if you can get this guy to agree with you. Ha. I think it's a lost cause.

No offense Andrew, but you're kind of coming across as aggressively elitist in this thread [and a few others]. You may not mean it that way, but successful communication is not dependent on the sender's intent, it is all about the recipient's perception.
I'm not playing games with perception. If you were truly looking for answers instead of trying to assimilate people then the ISSUES and debate would take precedence over the tone of discourse. Yes, I'm a dick. I'm a GIANT dick. But what I have to say is valid. In fact, most of what I have to say has been said by Tom Coppola, one of the most intelligent and unwaveringly levelheaded people I've ever met in my life. No one has given him the time of day in this topic because fact is, you guys don't want to hear it. I come on strong because I feel this is a culture worth fighting for an preserving. I'm not going to demean my statements by tailoring them  to your tastes, and I'm not going to belittle you all by dumbing down what I have to say.

Maybe if the intelligent discourse that DOES exist on either side was actually LISTENED TO AND RESPONDED to as it was in the Purist thread, then I wouldn't GET like this. I cannot suffer fools making unreasonable leaps with semantics for the sake of proving their point.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Eli on October 09, 2010, 09:13:47 PM
I am now entering the case with a new argument.

You're all idiots, and both sides are wrong. :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Sparklefish on October 10, 2010, 01:46:42 AM
You're all idiots, and both sides are wrong. :)

I know you're just trying to be funny (it doesn't seem to be adding to the conversation, btw), but I'd like to point out that this isn't a case of their being two sides, or even twenty sides, or at least it doesn't have to be.  We should be able to talk about this in a way where we can all have different viewpoints that inform each other's understanding.

Andrew:  Would you care to elaborate a bit more?  You keep making very brief statements about your opinions, without saying why you feel that way or how that enhances your practice.  For instance why do you prefer specificity?  Does that help you structure your training sessions?  Do you ever train freerunning, or always only parkour (I get the sense it's only parkour, but I'm curious)?

I promise I'm not trying to catch you or anything.   I'm probably never going to agree with you 100% on definitions, but I'm interested in how you think about parkour and how that affects your practice.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: WoodlandGhillie on October 10, 2010, 03:55:57 AM
Andrew, I used to think that Parkour SHOULD have a definite meaning, and freerunning should be separate. I thought that there should have been an absolute and clear line saying what is what. Thing is, I've found, people don't care enough anymore. The older guys, who are tired of fighting the same battle, saying it's different. They're tired of arguing and have just given up. This makes new guys think "Oh! Parkour and freerunning are the same!" and they start to call it that.

It IS wasted time. You can continue to argue your (perfectly correct,) point, but they won't listen. Those new guys become old guys, and that's how they were "raised."

Honestly? That time could be better spent training.

(However, I'd be glad to help you in your ranting ;D )
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 10, 2010, 04:48:58 AM
Again, I've hardly been known to give up. Education is the most important thing in the world. We have schools that have given up on teaching kids that don't want to learn instead of fighting for knowledge. We have txt speak getting put in the Oxford Dictionary. We live in a society of "good enough" and "make your own world" and I won't settle for it. Good enough never is and the whole is more important than its parts. The idea of Parkour as an ordered training system to cultivate locomotor ability, teach us how to overcome obstacles, and develop physical and personal strength is more important than me. If it were best served by me shutting up then I would.

But the truth is we are seeing a robust culture based around indomitable spirit and a purpose beyond oneself being reduced to a series of moves and tricks in search of a more free personal expression. From George Hebert to the French fire brigade, the roots of Parkour are in being more to your world than someone who can do cool shit. Etre fort por etre utile. My community is not content with building a stream of young men able to dazzle others and themselves. We build people. We've taken in people on the verge of suicide and helped them learn to systematically overcome everything that faces them, on the street and in their life. We participate in our community with charity events and workshops. Our members have tutored students in more than just Parkour. We are burdened with this powerful knowledge of a lifestyle that proves human potential is limitless. A lack of clarity in this world serves no one.

There is, or was, and should be a culture here beyond the movements and beyond the jams. "The idea is a man that nothing stops." THAT's a message people need to hear. That is whats going to do more for the greater good than saying "Move your own way." And thats why I'll defend Parkour for what it is and for as long as I have to.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: WoodlandGhillie on October 10, 2010, 04:55:14 AM
Exactly the clear and concise answer I wanted to hear.

Thank you. (Check your PM's in about 5 minutes.)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 10, 2010, 06:01:32 AM
Andrew, great post man. I definitely agree. I'm not one for just movements at all. I don't like the "list of techniques and now you do parkour" at all. That's the mistake people make, get caught on, and end up quitting Parkour, because they think they know it after they can do double kongs. I live in the discipline, the lifestyle, the application of all that stuff Parkour can teach us and give us to our lives to make us better in every way. Physical, mental, spiritual. I believe in that culture as well. I'd rather see someone become a better person with a stronger, more independent spirit through Parkour than learn a single movement, because that's what matters.

I guess my question is, how do you connect that philosophy with your stance on isolating Parkour and Freerunning? How does integrating them ruin the culture or the spirit that you (and I) value so highly? Not trying to trick you up here or anything. Just trying to learn and understand.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Graham Hughes on October 10, 2010, 10:57:48 PM
Bravo, Andrew.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 11, 2010, 06:39:26 AM
Yes, it's against the nature of Parkour to give up: "I haven't managed to get over the wall yet, but I will do if I keep trying. I want to get over the wall so I will keep trying."
There isn't a clear and widely-accepted definition of Parkour yet, but there will be if we keep trying. We want to help practitioners understand Parkour so we will keep trying.


Now, to go back to cover some of the other points earlier in this thread:

Parkour is a training discipline. It is the training, not the end product. You do it to get better. The purpose of Parkour is to improve, to learn, to develop, to live a long and happy life.
Moving efficiently and getting past all obstacles is the end product. This is not Parkour.
Moving badly, making mistakes, falling over, repeatedly being stopped by an obstacle, these things are the training. These are what you improve as a result of. This is Parkour.

There is no list of techniques because every movement can be used. You need to experiment to learn what is useful, and to be useful (and to become more useful) you do need to learn what is useful. To experiment you need to be creative. Creativity is an essential part of being useful.

Experimentation with movement? Parkour.
Creativity with movement? Yes, Parkour too.
Inefficient movement? Aye.
Using movement to be yourself? Yep.
Using movement for anything that helps you learn or improve or develop in any way? Parkour.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 11, 2010, 07:38:30 AM
No.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 11, 2010, 07:52:04 AM
No.
+1
Title: .
Post by: David Jones on October 11, 2010, 08:37:49 AM
I pretty much agree with Dave. And simply stating "no" doesn't make for much of a rebuttle lol...
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 11, 2010, 09:05:47 AM
I could just copy and paste andrew's posts over and over again. Stating that move your own way and all movement is parkour is just asinine.

Why keep trying to explain over and over again to people and their intentional incoherences.

So for now. I believe "No" works just fine.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 11, 2010, 09:14:09 AM
I could just copy and paste andrew's posts over and over again. Stating that move your own way and all movement is parkour is just asinine.

Why keep trying to explain over and over again to people and their intentional incoherences.

So for now. I believe "No" works just fine.

"No" just makes you sound like a dick. We should all agree with you because you said "no?" At least do Dave the respect of responding to his points.
Title: .
Post by: David Jones on October 11, 2010, 09:24:11 AM
And you completely missed Dave's point, btw. On top of that, DaveS is one of the more knowledgable people on here, just alone through the amount of years he's been active in the global community...
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: JCalebM on October 11, 2010, 09:42:45 AM
He responded "no" because he has already made his points responding to Daves post about 50 times. Read Drews posts right before Daves, and theres your response. Keep going back and youll see it 49 more times. Just because someone makes the same argument again doesnt mean he should have to retype his response again. It just means that no one is paying attention because you're all to busy trying to prove your point instead of listening to what anyone else says, so as soon as you start to type out an argument you completely forget every thing else that has already been said, and you just continue to go in circles over and over and over and over. This thread has maybe 3 arguments through the entire thread that are just repeated over and over for 6 pages. And that is why none of you will ever come to an agreement on anything.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Jacquis "Curfew" on October 11, 2010, 11:16:44 AM
Hey guys, I've got something urgent happening....Oh, safety. Nevermind.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 11, 2010, 11:18:24 AM
He responded "no" because he has already made his points responding to Daves post about 50 times. Read Drews posts right before Daves, and theres your response. Keep going back and youll see it 49 more times. Just because someone makes the same argument again doesnt mean he should have to retype his response again. It just means that no one is paying attention because you're all to busy trying to prove your point instead of listening to what anyone else says, so as soon as you start to type out an argument you completely forget every thing else that has already been said, and you just continue to go in circles over and over and over and over. This thread has maybe 3 arguments through the entire thread that are just repeated over and over for 6 pages. And that is why none of you will ever come to an agreement on anything.

yup!
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: MThomasfreerun on October 11, 2010, 12:07:11 PM
If we want to do this the hard way, I’m game. Andrew, you’re so up your own ass about what COULD be a calm, orderly and enlightening discussion. So here we go.
Your first response to The OP was this (emphasis added):

Quote
AGAIN! The difference is the intent of training. Locomotion capability vs aesthetic expression both through physical motion and development. This is what happens when people limit training parkour movements instead of parkour. Like I ALWAYS say, martial arts is significantly less physical than it is philosophical and mental. The second you remove the intent of training, the culture of practitioners, and the purposeful origins of the movement, you get equivocation and Bubba Fu Karate schools.

It's the same reason all these beginners are having roll problems. They're flipping at the ground thinking "Okay, I know I have to tuck my shoulder and roll up so I'm going to do that as hard and fast as possible."
Everything changes when you get them to understand about the laying out of momentum and how the move ACCOMPLISHES that. This has become a community based around physical activity accomplishments instead of physical capability preparations. I'm sick of it.

First off, who gives a DAMN if YOU’RE sick of it? Who the hell are you? Merely ONE of a community that spans the entire world and hundreds of thousands of people.

As for intent of training, the intent will NEVER be the same for everyone. Even your intent is different from those who came before and those who come after. That’s what happens when something evolves. You’re just one person, who came after many others and before still others. Your ideas are not gospel, nor are they directly in line with the people who came up with the purpose to begin with.  As here:

The Yamakasi:

"Parkour, l'art du deplacement, freerunning, the art of movement... they are all the same thing. They are all movement and they all came from the same place, the same nine guys originally. The only thing that differs is each individual's way of moving." Don't try to separate them or waste energy debating whether this is this or that is that - that leads only to separation within yourself. You must find out why YOU practise, that is all. After that you will find your way. Labels count for nothing. Just move.”

http://www.parkourgenerations.com/articles.php?id_cat=4&idart=29

Get sick if you want. But do it on your own shoes, not ours.  You continue:

Quote
I think it's a cheapening of what can be a specified and sharpened physical discipline. Most martial artists train multiple martial arts, but doing so does not change Karate into Hapkido or Kung Fu into Krav Maga. These are all essentially the same movements; punches and kicks and throws and blocks, but they are not all equivocal. They each have specific training methods and intents. And every person that does one of these arts will adapt it to their own physicality and mentality. That individuals actions do not change the art itself.


Reference the quote from the Yamakasi above.  You “cheapen” parkour when you attempt to limit it. And limit people. Stop it.
Andy Keller posted in reply to your base comment:
Quote
But Parkour and Free Running and ADD aren't martial arts, nor are they all that similar to martial arts. The martial arts you mention came from different places. PK/FR/ADD do not.
As you will later point out in a last-ditch effort to reinforce your standpoint, parkour originated in once place. Freerunning is, at most extreme, an outgrowth of it, but more likely just an evolution. Muay Thai and Jujitsu and a vast number of martial arts arose independently from one another; parkour and freerunning did not. This analogy is asinine.

M2 chimed in at this point:
Quote
These misconceptions have been spread since about 2002 by people that weren't there and didn't train with them, and the political and friendship reasons that broke up the group will probably never be brought to public light, so some of this truth died right before the filming of "Rush Hour". Even in 2002 when I was trying to find my way around this wasn't discussed very much, and so since then it seems to have simply drifted further from the truth, perpetuated by whoever wants people to believe a certain side of it.
While Toorock is on the verge of a good point, he falls back into the pitfall that is plaguing this thread and the discussion as a whole. There are plenty of resources and interviews, etc. from the people who trained with the founders. But alas, people will believe what they want, which is why threads like this are 100 comments and counting.  He continues:
Quote
To say that Parkour and Freerunning are the same thing is simply not true, the two have come to mean different things. To say that Parkour is whatever I make of is is also not true nor particularly useful (as you pointed out) - so I will ask, what is wrong with the definitions that the APK community came up with for the two different activities?
According to whom? Once again I will reference the quote above, and I will provide dozens more sources if you need them.  APK is not the end-all resource and decision maker on what  constitutes parkour, freerunning, tricking, or any other thing. I think the problem with the definitions are the same problem with the various opinions in this thread: Everyone believes theirs is right and the rest are wrong. You didn’t poll everyone in the world community. Those definitions can be APK’s definitions, but they aren’t THE definitions
Tom Coppola responds to my comment on learning new skills instead of responding 30 times to this thread:

Quote
This is a perfect example of the difference between parkour and freerunning training mentality.  You mentioned you wanted to learn a new trick.  You didn't say you were going to improve your striding ability, or try an arm jump that is particularly challenging, or attempt to find a quicker way to move through an environment  You didn't say you were going to try to get quicker climb ups or improve your vault exit distance.  You are interested in learning a new trick.

Tom clearly is either a friend of Andrew’s or at least is acquainted with him.  Improving striding ability is the same as “learning a new trick” in that one gains ability they didn’t previously have. The difference in Tom’s eyes appears to be that he considers striding ability a more noble and useful thing than learning a Webster. Congratulations on having better striding ability. I have improved my proprioception and air awareness. Your personal views on which is more useful are no more universal than APK’s definitions of parkour and freerunning.  Coppola continues:
Quote
Once a basic level is reached in parkour, there really isn't very many new movements to learn.  There is a refining process to make the basic movements faster, stronger, and more controlled.  Occasionally you might come across a new skill that helps move past certain types of obstacles, but ultimately, the focus is on learning to be more proficient at getting from place to place. 

By admission there ARE new skills that help you move past certain types of obstacles faster. In previous threads I have argued that a front flip can be a better way to clear a chest-high razor-wire fence with an 8’ drop on the other side. How does this fit with your myopic yet encompassing view of what you think is parkour? And the finale from Coppola:

Quote
I'm not saying that people who practice parkour should not practice other forms of movement.  I think its only natural to want to explore other movement skills after being introduced to a discipline focused on movement, but the differences are so evident that it's baffling that people are still arguing Parkour and Freerunning are the same, rallying behind a horribly misleading "Its All Just Movement" banner.

There is an inherent exclusivity that seems to either limit or ostracize people: either you only do these movements and then you’re doing parkour or you do whatever movements you want to do and you are out of the club.”
And it may baffle you, but AGAIN the quote from above from The Yamakasi, who I would consider more credible than you on the subject, disagree.  The glaring poverty of the efficiency argument is revealed by Olejay:
Quote
Though.... the quickest route perhaps would be a car? Or just going through the building and up the stairs? Or just running around the rail? Just saying that even a lot of parkour purists I have found putting up "parkour" videos of them doing kongs and dash vaults 2 feet away from the edge of a rail, that seems pointless doesn't it? Well the opposite could be applied. Say you have a wall about as high as you are and you are sprinting towards it. What do you do? I've seen people sideflip over things this high before insanely quickly! Way faster than any pop vault or possibly even a kong vault. But it's a flip! Oh no! Not parkour? Well, it is parkour. It's the quickest way.
This reiterates my point regarding the razor-wire fence: if I can front flip an obstacle more efficiently than trying to climb over it or going around it, then such movement IS within the artificial definition you espouse. His comment also reveals the true essence of efficiency: people have spent thousands of years finding ways to make life more efficient. No one ever shows a video of themselves running across the street to the store and calls it “parkour” because that’s not what they practice when they train parkour. That’s not “cool” as several people have rallied against in posts addressed below.

Anthony weighs in on his definitions, which are different than any of the others already discussed:
Quote
through my eyes. Tumbling not done in olympics or training for olympics is tricking. So flips = Tricking. tricking +parkour= Free Running. Basicly like adding gatorade mix to water. Water is your foundation and you slab some sticky sweets to enitise people.

parkour- is efficient movement
free running- is throwing some flips and unneeded movement
tricking- going outside and doing flips aka tricks.
Anthony at least prefaces with “through my eyes” but leads to Adam’s rebuttal:
Quote
P.S. Just because I have to. Anthony: Parkour = efficient movement? So if I balance back and forth on a rail for 5 minutes, am I moving efficiently? Or is that not Parkour? If I do a reverse vault over a bench, is that efficient? Is going over the bench even efficient to begin with, rather than jogging around it? So maybe we "train" for parkour, or efficient movement, but don't always actually perform it. Then we can do most anything as a part of "training", since we sometimes have to do things that are unneeded motions. Especially when conditioning or drilling repetitions! That includes flips, if I find body awareness an important skill in my training towards "parkour" or "efficient movement". So then, when do we separate "training" from "performing parkour", or being efficient without unneeded movement. ..Good luck!
So is training in parkour different than doing parkour? Is the intent of the training truly the defining factor as Andrew previously mentioned? Or does the training itself actually have merit of its own accord?
Anthony Ruiz responds:
Quote
Actually no its not. In my Humble opinion it is exactly what you said training. Im not preforming parkour when im out training. When im out training, im training to be better at parkour. When I walk out my door and run to a friends house or grocery store and dont let obstacles slow me down that is when I preform what is parkour.

In the same scenario If I was running to the store and thought to myself hey im gonna go kong to cat these 2 walls then pop up front flip of I am now prefroming what is freerunning

So the one flip you performed in the 2nd scenario has completely changed what you were doing?  What if the front flip was to prevent a car from getting in your way? Is it back to parkour? Is such a definition actually useful if it’s so fickle?


Gabe Arnold tries to inject some reason back into the fray:
Quote
Le Parkour (1) , originally named l'Art du Deplacement, though crystallised into its current guise by the Yamakasi sometime in the 1980s . . names and labels come and go, of course, and the outward visage of this discipline has shifted and modified itself countless times. However, behind whatever appearance has been fashionable at the time, at its core there has always existed an eternal constant – the means, the end, the method and the goal of parkour: Movement.

Again, an ineffable source yet this is glossed over because Andrew Hull’s got it right and no one else does. As he points out:
Quote
I like to be specific. Knowledge is not served by blurring distinction. I'm not arguing with relativism anymore. I'm done.
If only he had kept to his word! But no, Andrew comments ad nauseum:
Quote

I'm not playing games with perception. If you were truly looking for answers instead of trying to assimilate people then the ISSUES and debate would take precedence over the tone of discourse. Yes, I'm a dick. I'm a GIANT dick. But what I have to say is valid. In fact, most of what I have to say has been said by Tom Coppola, one of the most intelligent and unwaveringly levelheaded people I've ever met in my life. No one has given him the time of day in this topic because fact is, you guys don't want to hear it.  I come on strong because I feel this is a culture worth fighting for an preserving. I'm not going to demean my statements by tailoring them  to your tastes, and I'm not going to belittle you all by dumbing down what I have to say.

Maybe if the intelligent discourse that DOES exist on either side was actually LISTENED TO AND RESPONDED to as it was in the Purist thread, then I wouldn't GET like this. I cannot suffer fools making unreasonable leaps with semantics for the sake of proving their point.
No one gave Coppola the time of day cause he’s not arguing any better than you are. And as for people listening and responding, you’re not exactly winning awards for it either. For someone who can’t “suffer fools making unreasonable leaps with semantics of the sake of proving their point,” you sure don’t stfu.
As you finally get down to it, you post the traditional, self-righteous “I’m out there helping people live better lives while you assholes are learning how to do flips, you inconsiderate jerks!” post that people put out there when they aren’t getting what they want and need a perceived trump card:
Quote
But the truth is we are seeing a robust culture based around indomitable spirit and a purpose beyond oneself being reduced to a series of moves and tricks in search of a more free personal expression. From George Hebert to the French fire brigade, the roots of Parkour are in being more to your world than someone who can do cool shit. Etre fort por etre utile. My community is not content with building a stream of young men able to dazzle others and themselves. We build people. We've taken in people on the verge of suicide and helped them learn to systematically overcome everything that faces them, on the street and in their life. We participate in our community with charity events and workshops. Our members have tutored students in more than just Parkour. We are burdened with this powerful knowledge of a lifestyle that proves human potential is limitless. A lack of clarity in this world serves no one.
There is, or was, and should be a culture here beyond the movements and beyond the jams. "The idea is a man that nothing stops." THAT's a message people need to hear. That is whats going to do more for the greater good than saying "Move your own way." And thats why I'll defend Parkour for what it is and for as long as I have to.

Well aren’t you suddenly the patron saint of parkour?  I call bullshit. Unless you are using your parkour to go physically save people from fires or impending death, or escaping from such situations yourself, then your comparison is inapt and your professed purpose is insincere.  I’m very happy you’ve been able to help people in your community. But that happens through many things: basketball, freerunning (as you would call it) gymnastics, volunteer work, etc.
I’m sorry you’re so “burdened” with parkour. Maybe you just aren’t cut out for it?  Also, we haven’t even nailed down what parkour is and you’re ready to burned at the stake for it. 

So here we are, 7 pages and 100 comments and Caleb M. attempts to defend Andrew’s self-admitted dickishness:
Quote
He responded "no" because he has already made his points responding to Daves post about 50 times. Read Drews posts right before Daves, and theres your response. Keep going back and youll see it 49 more times. Just because someone makes the same argument again doesnt mean he should have to retype his response again. It just means that no one is paying attention because you're all to busy trying to prove your point instead of listening to what anyone else says, so as soon as you start to type out an argument you completely forget every thing else that has already been said, and you just continue to go in circles over and over and over and over. This thread has maybe 3 arguments through the entire thread that are just repeated over and over for 6 pages. And that is why none of you will ever come to an agreement on anything.

I can promise you after typing this whole thing I have not forgotten everything else that has been said. Yes, this IS going in circles, and Andrew is a HUGE reason why.  Andrew’s opinion doesn’t become more valid just because it’s consistent with his previous posts, and we don’t  have to agree with it either.

If you MUST have a concrete, all encompassing definition of parkour, you’d better take it from the people that created it to start with.  Not you, nor I, nor Toorock, nor Ilabaca or Raffaelli or any other person other than those founders has the grounds to try to universally define it. And your self-righteous , self-congratulating goals for training in parkour don’t make someone else’s purposes any less valid. Get over yourself. 


Edit: Sorry for misspelling your name, Tom, and yes, I meant Andrew. Updated to fix typos. As for quoting only one of Gabe's many sources, well, I'm giving the other posters the benefit of the doubt and assuming they read the posts. My example was illustrative of my point.


Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: WoodlandGhillie on October 11, 2010, 12:22:15 PM
What do you think Thomas? What is parkour, and what is freerunning? Are they the same? Different? Other?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: JCalebM on October 11, 2010, 12:34:57 PM
No, what you have clearly done, is take bits and pieces of every ones arguments and used them in many instances as personal attacks against them in an attempt to discredit them. It is quite clear that although you have read their posts, and quoted them, you did not pay attention to the points they were making. It seems that you did not even attempt to understand the meaning of what they have said. I defended Drew saying that he has already responded to Daves question many times over. He is no more the reason for these circular arguments than anyone else. point A is given and then countered, then point B is given, and countered, and then what happens. "well, what about "insert point A""....again. And its countered again. This argument is circular because of peoples refusal to attempt to actually comprehend the meaning behind anything that anyone else is saying.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 11, 2010, 12:40:24 PM
This argument is circular because of peoples refusal to attempt to actually comprehend the meaning behind anything that anyone else is saying.

Not quite.

See, we are "attempting to actually comprehend the meaning" of what other people say. And, although I do understand the other viewpoints, I still disagree and wholeheartedly think they are wrong.

Just because we don't agree with someone after they express their views in a concise and clear way does NOT mean we do not understand what they are saying. And just because something makes sense in your own head does NOT mean that it will in others' too, which also means you could be wrong.

Make sense?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: JCalebM on October 11, 2010, 12:51:05 PM
I did not say that disagreeing is the equivalent of misunderstanding. But what people are doing is reading meaningful post, and then just putting it aside, acting like it never happened, and the bringing up the same points that were already addressed rather than reading that post, acknowledging their point, trying to really understand the meaning behind it and saying, "ok, i see what you mean, but..." continue the discussion with your next point, or with a rebuttal to their previous argument, taking the discussion off of a circular path, and making it linear.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 11, 2010, 01:24:19 PM
I did not say that disagreeing is the equivalent of misunderstanding. But what people are doing is reading meaningful post, and then just putting it aside, acting like it never happened, and the bringing up the same points that were already addressed rather than reading that post, acknowledging their point, trying to really understand what the meaning behind it and saying, "ok, i see what you mean, but..." continue the discussion with your next point, or with a rebuttal to their previous argument, taking the discussion off of a circular path, and making it linear.

That's where the problem lies, however. No one is willing to accept a rebuttal because they often lack proof [at least in their eyes]. But what is proof anyway? Is it a quote from the founders? Is it a personal testimony?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 11, 2010, 01:46:32 PM
Edit: I should have left the thread alone when I said I was going to. Sorry. I'm done now.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 11, 2010, 01:53:22 PM
The aim of Parkour is to follow your own path and get past all the obstacles in your way.

However, nobody starts off being able to do this. We start off weak and through Parkour we get stronger. We start inefficient and become efficient. We start out accepting limits and learn that we can get past them all.
We only learn what is good by having the bad to compare it to. If we only ever do things the best way we don't appreciate the difference it makes, we have no informed perspective on the benefits and can have no solid motivation for our training. The experimentation is vital.

I didn't say that all movement is Parkour. I said that all movement that helps you can be Parkour. There's a pretty big difference. Just because something 'can be' useful doesn't mean it always is. In Parkour there is never anything that is always useful.
A somersault is rarely useful as the best way to get past an obstacle, but it is sometimes. Inefficient movement is not something it is useful to focus all your training on by any stretch of the imagination, but at some stages during your training it is useful.

All that Parkour requires is that you attempt to develop yourself through moving past the obstacles you face. It's your intent that matters, or rather the path that your intent will lead you to take.


Andrew, you say that Freerunning is expression. I say that Freerunning is exploration, and expression is Dancing. I haven't seen another point here I disagree with you on, just the name labels.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 11, 2010, 02:02:20 PM
But Adam and Andy; just watch out when Joy-Marie surpasses you within the year.

Interesting move, Andrew. You're making this way more personal then it should be. Why does my skill level matter? Why does Joy-Marie's matter? Is this a competition? Do I need to be better than Joy-Marie?

Respond in a PM if you no longer want to participate in this thread.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: JCalebM on October 11, 2010, 02:03:56 PM
That wasn't necessary Drew. Theres no need to attack anyone. Yes Florida is producing some great athletes, but so are many communities around the world. As far as our community has come we are by no means greater than the rest and there are far superior athletes than ourselves out there. I apologize on Drew's behalf for those statements
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Tom Coppola on October 11, 2010, 02:13:18 PM
I was disappointed to find your response to this thread to be filled with personal attacks, but I'll try to discuss a few of the points you brought up.


The Yamakasi:

"Parkour, l'art du deplacement, freerunning, the art of movement... they are all the same thing. They are all movement and they all came from the same place, the same nine guys originally. The only thing that differs is each individual's way of moving." Don't try to separate them or waste energy debating whether this is this or that is that - that leads only to separation within yourself. You must find out why YOU practise, that is all. After that you will find your way. Labels count for nothing. Just move.”

http://www.parkourgenerations.com/articles.php?id_cat=4&idart=29


That's great, but the Yamakasi no longer includes David or Sebastien.  I could link you to numerous interviews with David where he defines parkour, the goals behind it, his view on flips, and why it is more than "just movement".

Its important to note that "Parkour" is the term that David used.  For a long time, if you mentioned "parkour" to the Yamakasi they would get annoyed and say "We practice L'art du deplacement".  Just because in recent times they're attempting to unite the disciplines under one banner, doesn't mean they aren't different disciplines.

Tim Coppola responds to my comment on learning new skills instead of responding 30 times to this thread:

Tim clearly is either a friend of Anthony’s or at least is acquainted with him.  Improving striding ability is the same as “learning a new trick” in that one gains ability they didn’t previously have. The difference in Tom’s eyes appears to be that he considers striding ability a more noble and useful thing than learning a Webster. Congratulations on having better striding ability. I have improved my proprioception and air awareness. Your personal views on which is more useful are no more universal than APK’s definitions of parkour and freerunning.  Coppola continues:

First, my name is Tom.  You only got that right half the time.

Second, I only responded to your comment because A. I already posted my views in a lengthy discussion in a different thread not even a day earlier and B. I saw an opportunity to point out differences between your way of training and the goals behind what I consider to be Parkour's way of training. 

Third, I don't know who Anthony is.  If you're talking about Andrew, then yes we're friends.  We trained quite a lot together when I was living in Florida, but I don't see how that really matters.

Fourth, I never said striding was more noble.  I think you're trying to paint me as an elitist, who thinks there is only one way to do things, but the reality (if you actually read my posts) is that I think you can develop yourself in a multitude of ways, including using flips.  However, the system of development is different based on your overall goal.  Striding IS a more useful skill to learn if your goal is to move past obstacles, than say a webster or corkscrew or backflip.




By admission there ARE new skills that help you move past certain types of obstacles faster. In previous threads I have argued that a front flip can be a better way to clear a chest-high razor-wire fence with an 8’ drop on the other side. How does this fit with your myopic yet encompassing view of what you think is parkour? And the finale from Coppola:
 

Yes I admitted there are new skills that you can develop the move past obstacles.  Thats because I don't think parkour is static, I believe it is constantly evolving and improving.  I just don't think acrobatic skills are a part of that process.

I've heard that "front flilp to clear chest high razor-wire fence, with 8' drop" argument a hundred times before over the past several years.  First, that's an awfully specific situation for one flip to be useful in.  I've never personally encountered a "chest high razor-wire fence" because usually razor-wire fences are much higher than chest height.
Second, even IF a front flip would be the most useful movement in that situation.  Thats just one acrobatic skill that I should add to my repertoire.  Practicing tumbling, tricking, or break dance-type skills won't be effective for getting me past obstacles.  Just front flips.

Saying my view of parkour is "myopic" is a personal attack and really unnecessary.  I sincerely resent that statement.

There is an inherent exclusivity that seems to either limit or ostracize people: either you only do these movements and then you’re doing parkour or you do whatever movements you want to do and you are out of the club.”
And it may baffle you, but AGAIN the quote from above from The Yamakasi, who I would consider more credible than you on the subject, disagree.  The glaring poverty of the efficiency argument is revealed by Olejay:This reiterates my point regarding the razor-wire fence: if I can front flip an obstacle more efficiently than trying to climb over it or going around it, then such movement IS within the artificial definition you espouse. His comment also reveals the true essence of efficiency: people have spent thousands of years finding ways to make life more efficient. No one ever shows a video of themselves running across the street to the store and calls it “parkour” because that’s not what they practice when they train parkour. That’s not “cool” as several people have rallied against in posts addressed below.

Just because I practice gymnastic strength skills, doesn't mean I go around saying that I do gymnastics.  I don't feel ostracized from the gymnastics community because of it.  I don't call myself a powerlifter just because I do squats and deadlifts.  I use the skills that they developed in their respective systems and I've applied it to my own training to improve myself.  I think the same is true with freerunning.  Freerunners often use skills that were developed in other disciplines (parkour, tumbling, tricking, break dance, etc) and combine it with freerunning specific skills, in order to improve themselves.

I think it's perfectly fine to train with people from different disciplines.  That's how we learn new challenges and discover ways to apply what you learn from people to the discipline that you practice.

A comment on running:  Just because no one films themselves running doesn't mean they don't apply it to their training.  I've actually spent quite a bit of time systematically improving my running ability for speed, stamina, and in the context of a run with intermittent obstacles.  Not all parkour training is on youtube.


Gabe Arnold tries to inject some reason back into the fray:

You took ONE of the 10 or so definitions Gabe posted to "prove" your point, which by the way is from the same source you cited earlier.  Most, in fact nearly all, of the definitions Gabe provided made a distinction between the two disciplines and you readily ignored those.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Tom Coppola on October 11, 2010, 02:20:49 PM
How about one person respond to Tom Coppola's comments effectively and I promise never to post in this thread again?

I'm willing to let this come down to the test of time. Florida is following this mindset. We are building this community this way and we are producing more capable and more complete traceurs and people than nearly any community in the US right now. So fine, I'll let it go. Adam can have his article. But Adam and Andy; just watch out when Joy-Marie surpasses you within the year.

Caleb, please stop posting in this thread, as will I.

Our methodology will still be standing when the smoke clears, I just hope the rest of you haven't destroyed Parkour beyond recognition before then.

I'm equally as disappointed in this personal attack, Drew.  This was unnecessary...
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 11, 2010, 02:27:17 PM
Yes, I've removed it. Its been a long couple of weeks. No excuses. I'm sorry.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 11, 2010, 03:49:48 PM
Yes, I've removed it. Its been a long couple of weeks. No excuses. I'm sorry.

Gentlemen, I really don't know why this is so hostile. Why are we all involving our egos in this discussion? Why must everyone be using personal attacks and getting incredibly defensive? Aren't we adults? Can we not fall back on anger as an excuse? Can we not use personal attacks against people? I'm talking to everyone, here, those who argue against the article and those who argue for it. I really don't understand why so much intensity and emotion needs to be invested in these posts. I didn't post this article for those reasons. Its not an attack, there's no reason to take it that way. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot have a simple, intellectual conversation on a good way to solve the problem of classification in our community.

Andrew, (and others), I have read every word in this topic and taken it all in. There's nothing I've ignored simply because I don't agree with it. I asked what I asked a number of posts ago because I still don't understand the connection between your philosophy, and all the great things you listed that we agreed on, that Parkour (or whatever) is about. I'm trying to learn and gain clarity from everyone's perspective, to get as whole of an opinion as I can about it all. You said your goal is knowledge and understanding, and you'd do anything to preserve the culture of Parkour. Well I'm trying to gain it from you, and I don't yet have it. Maybe that's my fault for not comprehending your posts well enough. That's quite possible, I just may not have understood it the way you said it. I just want clarity so we can all understand each other. As Andy said, agreeing is one thing. I don't expect us all to agree. -That's the point of this article-. I just want to increase some understanding.

So let's all calm down, stop getting so freakin' up tight about ourselves, take our egos away from this conversation, and talk about this like civil, experienced practitioners, as we are.

As for the personal attack you deleted, Andrew, I'll completely disregard it. I really appreciate the apology. Bringing JM into this is not fair in any way, to either of us. Again, the apology says a lot about you. Thank you.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Joy-Marie on October 11, 2010, 03:53:13 PM
Andrew can be derogatory at times. He’s also very loud. Sometimes it’s annoying but when you come to actually know a person, you see beyond the façade they put up and see what they really stand for. Probably in all our lives we’ve argued with someone in a nasty way. It doesn’t help your point and it’s not pleasant for all parties involved, but it happens. We are human beings.

That being said, Andrew, I’m disappointed by some of the language you used and the way you said some things. I’m also rather proud of the one post where you speak about education and culture. That’s the Andrew I know. You know I’m always onto you about your lack of brain filter.

While it is hard to be objective about things, I think it’d be beneficial to all involved to stop letting your personal opinions of people get in the way of what is being discussed.

Andy & Adam, I would be very happy to be “as good” as you all in the next year. However, my goal is not to be as good as “Adam and Andy”. I work very hard conditioning and training parkour. And if all that hard work and training in a year means I come to the same level as you two than it simply means I have pushed myself very hard and dedicated a lot of time to my training. We all have different goals, different lives, and different ways of training. It’s not a competition to me. It is what it is. 

And yes, while here in FL, we are making lots of wonderful progress with our community, it doesn’t make us better than anyone else and I think all of us from FL agree with this statement. I just spoke about personal attacks.

Also, though, to Adam and Andy, I would speak to you privately about what has gone on. And although Andrew said some unnecessarily rude things, I cannot say you all have been pillars of all that is sweet and good. So while the FL community has made clear that it does not condone Andrews recent actions, I ask you to look at your own posts and words and see that at times, while they were not terribly wrong, they were also not of the friendly and respectful nature that I expect from two knowledgeable and esteemed members of the parkour community.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 11, 2010, 04:01:37 PM
Also, though, to Adam and Andy, I would speak to you privately about what has gone on. And although Andrew said some unnecessarily rude things, I cannot say you all have been pillars of all that is sweet and good. So while the FL community has made clear that it does not condone Andrews recent actions, I ask you to look at your own posts and words and see that at times, while they were not terribly wrong, they were also not of the friendly and respectful nature that I expect from two knowledgeable and esteemed members of the parkour community.

You know how to reach me several different ways...

EDIT: After reading through all of my posts and all of Adam's posts, I haven't been able to find an example of being disrespectful or derogatory. Can you point out where I misbehaved? I'm serious. If my posts were not received as I intended, I would like to know so I can fix my writing for next time.

Thanks! :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 11, 2010, 04:04:48 PM
Hey JM, :)


As my post right before you said, I definitely agree, there's no reason for personal attacks or anything. I just want a good discussion. I read over all of my posts, and don't see where I did not show the appropriate level of professionalism. That's probably a perspective thing, it's hard to tell when a post offends and when it doesn't sometimes. Could you show me where I should have said things differently? I want to fix up any miscommunications. My goal here is a level-headed sharing of information among traceurs in a community. Definitely all about fixing up things I've said wrong.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andrew Hull on October 11, 2010, 04:05:18 PM
Yeah, I'm taking some time off to focus on training. Sorry guys.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Deminchia on October 11, 2010, 04:05:23 PM
dude that is alot of words my brain hurts now thanks! good thing i do parkour not mathmatics :-X
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Joy-Marie on October 11, 2010, 04:13:56 PM
To Adam & Andy:

As I said "I would speak to you in private." Which means, I will. Or I would rather. And yes of course, I know how to contact you Andy.

What I said in my post was meant for you to think about what you were saying. Also, I said it was not of the "friendly and respectful nature that I would expect..." And then the rest of what I have to say, I'm not saying in this thread but privately to you all, when I can. As I think that it is much more appropriate than posting it all here.

You two know me well enough :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Mr. Curly on October 11, 2010, 05:22:33 PM
I don't care anymore it's all amazing movement through the same kind of environment 
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Ashley McCauley on October 11, 2010, 05:59:24 PM
NOTE:This may be sort of mixed up, as I tend to not make sense most of the time (thoughts run amok) when posting something in a topic like this. Please forgive me, and feel free to point out if I said certain things wrong.

To me, parkour and freerunning is just movement. Yes, I understand that they're different but I believe we should stop arguing about it because each person thinks of it differently. You can't shove your opinion down someones throat because you think it is the correct one, it's what shoves practitioners away from forums or from the community in general and stop training or to train alone.

Parkour is the root of my training. It's what makes the movement, in my opinion. Freerunning is like a flower from that root and it adds to the movement that makes it beautiful. Just wanted to say that. Anyways, we all see the world differently and so the two fuse and for me it becomes one. A flip could be a better way to get across a obstacle or environment better than one of the basic movements. To each their own is what I say when I see this argument or discussion because we all have different opinions that we believe are right and it will still be that way down the road. But my main point is just, it's all movement why put a label on parkour or freerunning when the two mostly (at least from what I've seen) fuse together and are one? I know there are still parkour purists that will say I'm wrong, but it won't change how I think of parkour and freerunning because in my mind they have always been one, what I mean is movement when I say that.

I don't care anymore it's all amazing movement through the same kind of environment 

This is exactly what I'm thinking.

I feel like I have more to say but I'm not sure how to put it. So this is all I'm going put for now. I'll add to this topic when I feel I need to say or add clarification to what I posted.

Thanks for reading. :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 11, 2010, 08:40:10 PM
Ashley, the reason 'Parkour' exists as a word is because it describes something new, something distinct and different from previous ideas. If it was just movement then we could use the word 'movement', but it isn't and so we don't. Parkour is a training discipline that uses movement, making Parkour both different from and more than just movement.

We use labels as an aid to understanding. You don't necessarily need to understand the ideas of Parkour in order to practice it at a basic level, but the more you practice the more it becomes necessary to think about what it is you do. There are a number of obstacles you can't get past without a rational understanding of what you do.

Mr Curly, the basis of the discussion that is taking place at the moment is that there is more to this discipline than simply the movement that you can see. There is a purpose behind it, a method linking each movement together.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Evan Fleming on October 11, 2010, 08:49:37 PM
How about this:

Parkour is not so-much the "movement", as it is the "training".


When we do "Parkour", we train with a certain intent in mind. Of course, movement is involved, but like Drew said, not all movement is Parkour.


Edit: GAH, Daves beat me to it.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 11, 2010, 08:54:50 PM
How about this:

Parkour is not so-much the "movement", as it is the "training".


When we do "Parkour", we train with a certain intent in mind. Of course, movement is involved, but like Drew said, not all movement is Parkour.


Edit: GAH, Daves beat me to it.

I agree, but someone will come along and argue that you're only "doing parkour" when you're moving efficiently.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 11, 2010, 09:42:43 PM
...and then I'll point out that 'efficient movement' already has a name, it's called 'efficient movement', and it doesn't need another name. Furthermore, I'll mention that since we're only human and make mistakes, nobody will ever move efficiently and everyone will forever be moving inefficiently and trying to improve. I'll suggest that it might be useful to have a label for this, for what we're actually doing, and since the name 'Parkour' is not required elsewhere I'll use that.

Someone else will mention that practically every experienced practitioner there has ever been has also stated that Parkour is a discipline not a state of perfect movement. They will then be told off by someone else for using anecdotal evidence, who will in turn by castigated by others who point out that there is no absolute source of information in the Parkour community. Then someone 'helpfully' points out that since there is no official source we should each make it up for ourselves. Then I come back in and point out that we need some kind of common understanding in order to talk about it. Followed by someone else who suggests that we all agree that efficient movements are Parkour and flips are Freerunning and we're back to the start.

The discussion is only circular because each stage involves different people. Every time we explain things more people start to understanding things a little better, but then they move on to the next problem in understanding (because you can't change every part of your opinion in one go) and new beginners join at the start. It's not futile, just never-ending. A bit like the quest for improvement.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 11, 2010, 11:00:16 PM
Well I guess no one could say it better and shorter than david belle himself right

"parkour is the method of training in the physical preperation of obstacles"

read into it however you like.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: NOS - from Parkour Mumbai on October 12, 2010, 03:15:05 AM
If you MUST have a concrete, all encompassing definition of parkour, you’d better take it from the people that created it to start with.  Not you, nor I, nor Toorock, nor Ilabaca or Raffaelli or any other person other than those founders has the grounds to try to universally define it.
I don't think that is right, Matthew. The Yamakasi did not invent human movement. They were simply the first ones to start practicing it in a more formal, disciplined manner. That does not make them the ultimate authority on all things movement. Although, they should get respect for the experience they have in this topic over everyone else who practices this discipline.


Someone else will mention that practically every experienced practitioner there has ever been has also stated that Parkour is a discipline not a state of perfect movement. They will then be told off by someone else for using anecdotal evidence, who will in turn by castigated by others who point out that there is no absolute source of information in the Parkour community. Then someone 'helpfully' points out that since there is no official source we should each make it up for ourselves. Then I come back in and point out that we need some kind of common understanding in order to talk about it. Followed by someone else who suggests that we all agree that efficient movements are Parkour and flips are Freerunning and we're back to the start.
LMAO, Dave. :D
But true.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: NOS - from Parkour Mumbai on October 12, 2010, 03:59:28 AM
Matthew, 'efficiency' is always subjective. What is efficient in one situation may not always be efficient in another. Taking your example of doing a front flip over a chest high barbed wire fence (which does not even exist in my country in the first place) being more efficient than trying something else to cross it, like Tom Coppola says, that is just using one specific skill in one very specific situation. Sure, if it helps you cross that obstacle in a better manner, by all means, go use it. No one is denying that in such a situation a flip cannot be considered useful movement. But efficiency and usefulness are all context-dependent.

Consider this hypothetical example:
If you have a series of long walls or railings at waist height stretching out in front of you and you have to get to the other side. Now if these walls/railings are only 4-5 feet apart from each other, then Striding them would be a far more efficient movement and also faster than trying a series of vaults in 'flow'. However, if the same series of railings/walls were about 6-7 feet apart, then suddenly strides do not seem like a very intelligent idea, and vaulting over them quickly begins to look more attractive.

Now if you take the same series of walls at a height of say, 10 feet (can't have railings that high), and they are about 4-5 feet apart each. Vaults aren't even something you can consider in this situation. You will have to wall-climb the first wall and stride over the rest. If the same tall walls are about 6-7 feet apart each, then you'd be better off just finding another way to run around them instead of climbing up one, jumping down, then climbing the next one again and so forth.

So in the example above, does that make any of the techniques discussed above (namely vaults, wall-climbs, strides, and running around) any less efficient than the other? It all just depends on the situation.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: MThomasfreerun on October 12, 2010, 05:17:15 AM
Matthew, 'efficiency' is always subjective. What is efficient in one situation may not always be efficient in another. Taking your example of doing a front flip over a chest high barbed wire fence (which does not even exist in my country in the first place) being more efficient than trying something else to cross it, like Tom Coppola says, that is just using one specific skill in one very specific situation. Sure, if it helps you cross that obstacle in a better manner, by all means, go use it. No one is denying that in such a situation a flip cannot be considered useful movement. But efficiency and usefulness are all context-dependent.

I agree completely. My example is merely to illustrate that a flip CAN be an efficient choice, and therefore arguments that flips are never efficient and thus should not be considered a part of parkour are flawed.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Yusuf Abed on October 12, 2010, 06:02:07 AM
This cleared me up good. Ive always thought PK and freerunning were different things completely.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Joel PK on October 12, 2010, 07:53:23 AM
I think far too many people are getting caught up in parkour, freerunning, tricking, and whatever else label needing to be all the same and called the same. I just think this would be a bit too confusing. I won't throw out any more analogies on this but just have you take it as it is. If they were all the same name then it could become unnecessarily confusing to begin to describe and categorize various movements, practices. And what about all those purists who practice parkour with no flips at all? They wouldn't be happy to hear that what they practice now is understood to incorporate flips and acrobatics, they would prefer it to be what they do. (I know they aren't the parkour gods and what they say goes, but it's just an example) The separation of categorization between parkour and freerunning is an evolution as well as a tool to help more clearly understand the distinction between various moves, skills, and tricks.

Anthony says
"So flips = Tricking. tricking +parkour= Free Running"

I really appreciated this because this is probably exactly how I view it. Though there are no definite lines between the three arts (as so many seem to feel there is) more of blurred lines between them. Some may cringe at that and disagree, but think about it. The blurred lines are my way of representing everyone's opinions and styles. I earlier stated that a sideflip is the way to go over a wall. Applying the sharp, hard line approach I would say that is the only way! Forget who you are, do it that way or it's not parkour. This would be utterly egotistic and incorrect. The best way to say it is to blur that line some and say, "A sideflip is my quickest and most efficient way to overcome that obstacle, which makes it parkour FOR ME." Someone might chime in and say, "Well a pop vault is my quickest and most efficient way to overcome that obstacle, which makes it parkour FOR ME." Neither are wrong and, in fact, both are quite correct. Parkour (don't shoot me for saying this, just read) is relative to the traceur practicing it. ONLY TO AN EXTENT. I try not to use this concept loosely because then it can be twisted and distorted with extreme examples. Well please don't give me the extreme "well then why can't someone prefer to walk down the sidewalk and call that parkour??" Fine, sure, someone could, but come on, who's gonna do that?

Parkour is not a list of skills/tricks with a specific application method and do's and don'ts. It is simply someone learning and training their own ways to overcome future obstacles in whichever way feels best and quickest for them. If you google parkour, you may find a list of different vaults, jumps, tricks, skills, whatever. There is nothing wrong with this, but none of these lists are the definitive, written in stone list of parkour moves where anything else isn't parkour. These lists are simply tools that traceurs use in efforts to expand their horizons and incorporate more moves or tricks or skills that they have either not thought about or simply forgotten.

Not to rehash, but to make more clear. My point and belief stands as this:

Parkour is relative to the individual to a meaningful and efficient extent.

I also quite agree with that diagram Anthony used (which I will edit slightly):

Parkour = Efficient movement to the individual and training to overcome obstacles in the way best suited for the individual

Tricking = Flips, tumbling, acrobatics, and anything of such that "looks cool"
EDIT: Tricking = Flips, tumbling, acrobatics, off axis flipping, kicks, and many martial arts oriented moves.

Free running = Parkour + Tricking (certain elements) = Efficient movement to the individual and training to overcome obstacles in the best way suited for the individual with the incorporation of flips, tumbling, acrobatics, and anything of such that "looks cool".
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: JCalebM on October 12, 2010, 07:58:32 AM
Tricking = Flips, tumbling, acrobatics, and anything of such that "looks cool"
These are tricks yes, but This is not what tricking is. As i said before, it is a completely separate art.

Gymnasts flip and tumble, cheerleaders flip and tumble, power tumblers flip and tumble, but none of them are trickers. Tricking is a combination of martial arts and gymnastics skills. In tricking, flips and gymnastic skills are used, but tricking uses kicks and off-axis rotations, which is not found in just flipping, or in gymnastics, or in tumbling.

From earlier:
Tricking is a specific art combining martial arts with gymnastics. Tricking is short for martial arts tricking and involves off axis flips and kicks and derives parts of the art from gymnastics (ie flips). You can do flips without ever having experience in tricking, ie gymnastics, cheerleading, power tumbling, trampolining. And doing that outside doesnt make it tricking either. But it is unlikely that you will be able to do tricking without doing any flips as tricking uses flips and other skills from gymnastics.

 Also from earlier:
....really should not be involved in the parkour or freerunning debate at all. It has nothing to do with either. In freerunning you use gymnastic skills as well as tricking skills yes, but no one  who is just a tricker and has no experience in freerunning or parkour will say that they are a freerunner or traceur because it is not even related. Just like no gymnast who has no experience in parkour or free running will say that they are a traceur or freerunner. Tricking is not a "split" from parkour like freerunning or L'ADD. It developed all on its own completely separate of parkour or freerunning  by a completely separate community of people who combined martial arts and gymnastics and had nothing to do with parkour or freerunning
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Joel PK on October 12, 2010, 09:21:28 AM
I apologize, I overlooked/forgot about that point. I agree with you 100% on tricking. But the point I was trying to make was that when certain parts of tricking are applied to parkour, that is freerunning. Thanks for the correction though!
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 12, 2010, 02:16:41 PM
If you ask people who say that they practice Freerunning the vast majority will tell you that they don't do things simply because they look cool. Freerunning is no more about appearances than Parkour, and Freerunners generally resent the implication that their discipline is all about appearances in the same way that a practitioner of any of these disciplines would.

Freerunning is not a shallow activity. Freerunners do things because they enjoy the experience of doing them, and they like the freedom of being able to do whatever it is they want to do. They do things because they can, with the same spirit of exploration that pioneering climbers have. They do it for the intrinsic benefits contained within the experience itself. The reasons are the same as those given by Parkour practitioners, the only difference is that they aren't as focused.

I think that it's no coincidence that Freerunning emerged at a time when vast number of new people were taking up Parkour without support from experienced practitioners. Lots of people suddenly had a new direction to explore, and since there was no one to direct them I think they did what anyone does in that position, they explored all directions.

Focus comes with finding something that you want to focus on, something you desire strongly. Most people in the world don't have strong goals because we're encouraged to sit back, relax, and let other people do things for us. This is the age of convenience and there's no point having a strong desire when we can get what we want with minimal effort or willpower.

The vast majority of newcomers to Parkour start off without any clear goals, with little willpower, directionless. They need first to be encouraged to do something about it, and then they need to explore and experiment in all directions until they find something that they want.

Freerunning isn't a split from Parkour, it's simply the relatively overpopulated beginner's stage.


Anthony, I agree we should listen to what David Belle told us all those years ago when he still had an interest in teaching Parkour to others. Unfortunately parts of his meaning often get lost in translation (and when taken out of context) so although it's a good basis it's not going to tell us everything.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Joel PK on October 12, 2010, 06:26:42 PM
Dave, I always love your posts and sharings. You are quite experienced and knowledgeable. And I completely understand where you're coming from, but I have to politely disagree.

Maybe what I said was a bit extreme, no not everything in Freerunning is just for being flashy, but then again I suppose maybe I should consider Freerunning as relative to the individual as I consider Parkour. Because most of that came from my personal philosophy and beliefs. I guess I don't disagree now that I think about it, but I also don't consider my points incorrect. I think a combination of your and my points are how I view it. Freerunning is as much a discipline to me as parkour is, but I also do many things in freerunning because it looks cool! It just depends on what moves/skills I'm referring to I suppose.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Sparklefish on October 12, 2010, 07:40:16 PM
Freerunning isn't a split from Parkour, it's simply the relatively overpopulated beginner's stage.

I agree with everything else you wrote wholeheartedly, but this seems out of place in that post.  There are plenty of very advanced freerunners, as I'm sure you've seen.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Shae Perkins on October 12, 2010, 07:41:02 PM
Above all, before any name, definition, or connotation of any sport/art/practice, the most important thing to me is the brotherhood and the love behind the community. I think discussing this is completely healthy and a long as y'alls differences don't interfere with the friendship we should all share, then I have no problem with anyone or their views:)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 12, 2010, 08:09:26 PM
Above all, before any name, definition, or connotation of any sport/art/practice, the most important thing to me is the brotherhood and the love behind the community. I think discussing this is completely healthy and a long as y'alls differences don't interfere with the friendship we should all share, then I have no problem with anyone or their views:)

Word, man.

Important post, here. Read it. Comes before everything else.

Dave, great posts man. You make some great points for sure, and I'll be giving them some more thought and consideration and then see how it all shapes together and get back to you. I like where this is going.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 13, 2010, 03:10:28 AM
Brett, I think 'advanced' means different things to different people. There's no doubt some people that call themselves Freerunners are very capable at moving, but that doesn't make them advanced practitioners of this discipline because there is more to it than the ability to move. Animals learn from moving and can move well but they don't practice Parkour. For practicing the discipline of Parkour it's the ability to use movement to improve yourself deliberately that's key.

The process of learning from movement works even if the practitioner is not aware of it, but to get the most out of it you do need to take control with your conscious thoughts too. I think with respect to Parkour, 'advanced' means understanding how to use movement to develop yourself, not just doing it naturally.

There's nothing in life that says you have to think consciously about how to practice Parkour, and if a natural, 'feeling' approach works for you then that's great. Parkour is a tool and part of using that tool is knowing how much to use it. 'Advanced' Parkour practice, though, I think describes a complete understanding of movement's uses in self-development.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Sparklefish on October 13, 2010, 12:10:55 PM
Haha...  you've lost me again Dave.  You and I share many opinions.  However you lose me when you start saying this stuff about how "parkour" is the only way to develop yourself personally, and "freerunning" just doesn't work for that.

(I'm not just directing this at you Dave, I think lots of traceurs share the mentality I'm about to discuss.)

I think it's extremely arrogant when traceurs start talking about how parkour is this deep spiritual discipline and more than just a sport because it develops people on a deep spiritual level that isn't part of other sports.  I'm not saying there's anything wrong with making spiritual development a goal and a part and parcel of the "philosophy" of parkour. 

What rubs me the wrong way is not the positive attributes ascribed to parkour in this way of thinking, but the fact that other athletic endeavors are torn down in order to raise parkour up.  Which is silly.  Weightlifting is an intensely spiritual practice for me that keeps me centered.  So is parkour.  I'm sure basketball, football (soccer), rugby, water polo, track and many other sports are considered a way of life by many athletes.  And just as there are "spiritual" basketball players, there are people who practice parkour without developing on a spritual or personal level.

Why do so many traceurs insist on parkour having a special status, held in mythic regard above all other human endeavors?

I'm all for altruism, but my individual parkour practice does not directly help anyone but me.  Can it make me better, faster, stronger, kinder, gentler, and more willing and ready to directly help others?  Sure it can, just like lots of other things.

To me parkour isn't any less meaningful just because there are other things as meaningful as it is.  ( ;D funny sentence to type.)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 13, 2010, 01:26:52 PM
I didn't say that Parkour is the only way to develop yourself personally. I specifically said that you can develop yourself via Freerunning. My point was that to be an advanced Parkour practitioner you need to understand what it is you're doing, not just do it.

I don't consider Parkour unique because it can be a 'way of life'. You're right, any activity can be a way of life, all that indicates is that you can be dedicated to it. I consider Parkour unique because it uses the idea of moving past obstacles to help you develop your ability to get past difficulties of all kinds. Parkour is the only activity that is Parkour, and that makes it unique. The method is unique therefore the combination of benefits is unique; that's just basic acknowledgment of cause and effect.

I like the combination of benefits Parkour provides because nothing is wasted, everything we learn is useful. The medium is useful and the method is practical and natural. It has no impracticalities, and there aren't many other activities like it in that respect. Not basketball, not football, nor any other sport.

Would you really expect people who've chosen Parkour above all other activities not to think Parkour was the best choice?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: WoodlandGhillie on October 13, 2010, 01:37:46 PM
http://www.americanparkour.com/smf/index.php?topic=23131.0

(Did a transcript for this a while back, seems to be relevant.)

Your passion could be anything, it could be... music, art, it could be dance, it could be sport, it could be reading, it could be writing. But, when you have a passion, and its something that you really love, it drives you deep, and makes you think more, makes you think why you do what you do, and that's something that is very important to having a full life.


It can be anything, you just have to be dedicated.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 13, 2010, 03:56:07 PM
Definitely agree with you Dave (and Brett). I hold Martial Arts as an equal passion, in fact the majority of what I learn, I also realize is in the other. And I'm sure the same holds for anything else you dedicate yourself to, and are passionate about.

So the question for us all is then, if all these activities have the same value, what is the separation of PK/FR? Apparently they both have the potential for deep, meaningful purpose and value to the individual. Both stem from movement, and that movement as a discipline. Whether that movement involves rotation through the air or not, does not effect its importance to the individual, if they have that true purpose of dedication. We've all heard the efficiency argument a million times, that efficiency is a carrot infront of the horse, a goal to make you better, not something you actually perform. So if Parkour isn't really efficiency, but rather training, then it's on the same side of the equal side, if you will, as 'Freerunning'. Boils down to dedication to self-betterment through movement, which we do to fulfill our purposes and intentions, whatever they may be. If we can't separate the movements because they have the same purpose, how can we separate the disciplines? We -can- isolate Martial Arts from Parkour because they come from a different culture, a different time, different geographic locations, etc. But 'Freerunning' and Parkour stem from the same thing, the same root. So same family, equal potential for significant purpose, how do we logically separate them? How do we look at a video and go "not parkour."? If I do a bunch of vaults back and forth on a rail, then a sideflip, was I really doing either "efficient movement" or "self-expression"? No, neither. I was training, working on perseverance, strength, focus, resolve, discipline, and happiness. I'd like to just call that Parkour, since its what we all do, encompassing all of our preferences for types of movements and intentions.

I guess that's my thoughts in a nutshell. What do you guys think? What am I missing that jumps out at you?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Matthew Wang on October 13, 2010, 06:21:15 PM
You have my respect for your article, Adam.

But, as others have pointed out, this is good for reading, thinking, and no more. Not for debating. Not for changes in your ideas. Not for discussion.

Why? Because we're right back to where we started: Trying to decipher Parkour vs. Freerunning.

It is my personal opinion, that this topic should and shouldn't be locked. It should, because it will prevent any future flaming/spam/repeated conversations made a million times before. It shouldn't, because it again allows people to express their opinions, which I do respect and take in to consideration for each one of them.

But none of us really want that huge (this is already 9 pages...) debate over this not-extremely-important topic. So, with my humble opinion, let us lock this thread?
Title: .
Post by: David Jones on October 13, 2010, 06:32:01 PM
Umm... I think the recent posts have been pretty damn good, enjoying it myself. There's not much to lose with discussing this topic anyways, no reason to lock in my opinion.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Evan Fleming on October 13, 2010, 06:38:42 PM
I like to think of Parkour as a Martial Art: You can create a sport or show (*ahem*free-running*ahem*) out of it, but in the end, you're not participating in that philosophical aspect of the discipline. You're only participating in the physical side. Of course, that's not to say that you can't do both, but even still.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 13, 2010, 07:13:30 PM
I like to think of Parkour as a Martial Art: You can create a sport or show (*ahem*free-running*ahem*) out of it, but in the end, you're not participating in that philosophical aspect of the discipline. You're only participating in the physical side. Of course, that's not to say that you can't do both, but even still.

I'm with David on this. I've really been enjoying the last page of posts, I'm learning a lot, and that's what this is all about! Its not about debating or being right or wrong. Its about sharing perspectives and learning from one another.


Evan, you speak as though doing flips is somehow only a physical thing, while performing vaults and precision jumps are somehow much deeper and carry with them a philosophy. That discipline and philosophy lives in 'Freerunning' as much as Parkour! All of it is movement. Where are you getting the thought of freerunning as a sport or show, while Parkour is the true discipline? That's the missing piece, for me. I guess I need someone to explain that distinction to me.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Evan Fleming on October 13, 2010, 07:29:02 PM
I'm with David on this. I've really been enjoying the last page of posts, I'm learning a lot, and that's what this is all about! Its not about debating or being right or wrong. Its about sharing perspectives and learning from one another.


Evan, you speak as though doing flips is somehow only a physical thing, while performing vaults and precision jumps are somehow much deeper and carry with them a philosophy. That discipline and philosophy lives in 'Freerunning' as much as Parkour! All of it is movement. Where are you getting the thought of freerunning as a sport or show, while Parkour is the true discipline? That's the missing piece, for me. I guess I need someone to explain that distinction to me.

I wasn't particularly trying to draw a physical distinction between Parkour and Freerunning, because they are very similar to each other in that regard. However, the intent of the training matters. What are traceurs generally training for? Applicable scenarios in which they can utilize their training. What do freerunners generally train for? To entertain themselves and others. Now, there may be some individual intent hidden with each person, but remember, I'm talking generally. For example, you have two martial artists: one who consistently spars in an effort to find what is pragmatic for him in certain situations, and another who uses his skills to perform acrobatic feats. The base physicality is there, but which is closer to the ORIGINAL intent? After all, the goal of martial arts is ultimately to learn to protect oneself, as well as others. Parkour and Freerunning are no different.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 13, 2010, 07:41:33 PM
I wasn't particularly trying to draw a physical distinction between Parkour and Freerunning, because they are very similar to each other in that regard. However, the intent of the training matters. What are traceurs generally training for? Applicable scenarios in which they can utilize their training. What do freerunners generally train for? To entertain themselves and others. Now, there may be some individual intent hidden with each person, but remember, I'm talking generally. For example, you have two martial artists: one who consistently spars in an effort to find what is pragmatic for him in certain situations, and another who uses his skills to perform acrobatic feats. The base physicality is there, but which is closer to the ORIGINAL intent? After all, the goal of martial arts is ultimately to learn to protect oneself, as well as others. Parkour and Freerunning are no different.

You know, I think you're right, especially when we're talking about people in their first few years of training. There's a lot of that "checklist of moves" and the freerunning ones tend to be more of a focus for the sake of entertainment or enjoyment. But that happens for Parkour, too, as though the kong and dash vault are what makes you a "Traceur", rather than the mindset.

So I do find, and this comes from my own personal experience and the great many experienced traceurs out there I've met, that eventually there is no difference. Talk to some of the great athletes, from Yann and Chau from Majestic Force, to the PkGen guys, to even the APK top dogs like Ozzi or the fellas around D.C. that I've been fortunate enough to hang out with a bit. They 'freerun' for reasons much deeper than entertainment of others or showing off or that common perception of freerunning. I love my frontflips and backflips and sideflips and wall spins and all the other movements that "aren't efficient", and it has nothing to do with entertainment or showing off. It's about being pragmatic. To me, its just another element in my training like pushups and kong vaults and rolls. It teaches me to be in tune with my body and be prepared for any scenario. I'm not talking diving frontflips over barbed wire fences. It's not that shallow. I'm talking about training myself to persevere, to accomplish goals, to have confidence and knowledge that if I set a goal, be it a smooth roll or a clean backflip, I can achieve it, and that translates into my entire life, the same as your perception of Parkour.

The real, deep, philosophical and character-attributes that we see at the root of Parkour also lie in 'Freerunning'. It seems strange to me to assume that because people flip, they aren't interested in deeper things. That's like an outsider looking at a Parkour guy doing a rail precision and saying "he's an adrenaline junky, obviously doesn't have any refinement or philosophical depth". The "original intent" applies to all movements, probably because we've done so well at keeping this away from the "sport" arena, which unfortunately, has happened to a lot of the martial arts. Anyways. See what I mean? Or am I still missing something from your perspective?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Sparklefish on October 13, 2010, 10:50:10 PM
The real, deep, philosophical and character-attributes that we see at the root of Parkour also lie in 'Freerunning'. It seems strange to me to assume that because people flip, they aren't interested in deeper things. That's like an outsider looking at a Parkour guy doing a rail precision and saying "he's an adrenaline junky, obviously doesn't have any refinement or philosophical depth". The "original intent" applies to all movements, probably because we've done so well at keeping this away from the "sport" arena, which unfortunately, has happened to a lot of the martial arts. Anyways. See what I mean? Or am I still missing something from your perspective?

Very well put Adam.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Billy Heston on October 13, 2010, 11:10:42 PM
Very well put indeed, I have never thought of it that way. You have enlightened me to a new perspective.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: NOS - from Parkour Mumbai on October 14, 2010, 03:08:21 AM
Alright, this discussion in this thread has gone on long enough, and I'm gonna prematurely put up some stuff I was going to publish a few months later on the Parkour India website as an article. I've tried to hastily finish it and published it already now. I'm only putting this in since Andy mentioned a few pages back that this thread was being left open in order to get more opinions on the definition of Parkour, and that the community definition might be re-worked based on the inputs received in this thread.

Please note: These are MY views on this topic, I'm not claiming this is the absolute gospel truth.

Parkour Stripped to its Essentials:
http://www.parkourindia.net/articles/parkourstrippedtoessentials.php

I'm a bit short on time right now, so I'll just leave you guys with this link, and would like to come back to discuss this later. Dave has already sent me a reply to it via PM addressing the article. Dave, if you'd like, could you please post that here as well? And I'll reply back to your points later when I have the time. Thanks.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 14, 2010, 04:28:53 AM
Nos, this is an exceptionally well-framed article! I really enjoyed that read. Thank you for taking the time to write it and sharing it with us here! I really like how you put things, and I'll be sure to make a post that's more detailed, but first I wanna let it sink in more so I can really understand your article, rather than just reacting to the surface.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 14, 2010, 05:55:34 AM
Why have a discussion forum and then lock topics so you can't discuss things? Where's the problem with having a long thread?
We're clearly not done discussing this subject so locking this thread would just mean we start the same discussion again in another thread. This way anyone coming new to the discussion knows where all the things we're referring back to will be.

NOS, I don't mind discussing your article on this forum, but I think that although it's relevant here, the subject of your article is different than the subject we're discussing here. Maybe a separate thread would be appropriate.
(For reference, I think that many of the points NOS makes in the article are true, however the basic premise of the article is flawed because Parkour DOES have a mental aspect that is a fundamental part, and trying to understand Parkour as a complete discipline without considering it is impossible. Anything that talks about the motivations and goals needs to consider the mental aspect, which explicitly deals with those things.)

Anyway, back to this thread.

As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between that's commonly called 'Parkour' and what's commonly called 'Freerunning' is that with 'Freerunning' you base your training on what you feel, and in 'Parkour' you base your training on what you think. In 'Freerunning' the development is subconscious, in 'Parkour' it is conscious.

Utility, practicality, usefulness, these things that we associate with 'Parkour' are all determined by conscious thought. Freedom, self-exploration, enjoyment, these things that we associate with 'Freerunning' are all based on feelings and emotions. I think that if you're truly dedicated to an activity then intrinsic to that dedication is a complete understanding. Complete understanding requires a lot of experience of doing the activity so that you can feel the effects, but it also requires a lot of time spent consciously thinking about it. If you dedicate yourself to 'Freerunning' then at some point you will have to add in the conscious thought, and if you dedicate yourself to 'Parkour' then at some point you will still have to pay attention to your feelings and desires.

I only refer to 'Freerunning' as a beginner's stage because the starting point for most people. They can feel the effects of movement but they don't understand them. There are people who start unbalanced the other way, understanding the theory but not the practice.

I've added the inverted commas (') in for a reason, because neither of these concepts is complete. Both are missing something if you define them in the popular way.
If you dedicate yourself to either then you'll end up combining the two. The 'advanced' stages of both are identical. You practice by listening to your feelings and then refining with conscious thought. It's the same discipline, and we all start at our own, unique starting point. I call this discipline Parkour. No inverted commas because the discipline is complete.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Evan Fleming on October 14, 2010, 07:23:01 AM
You know, I think you're right, especially when we're talking about people in their first few years of training. There's a lot of that "checklist of moves" and the freerunning ones tend to be more of a focus for the sake of entertainment or enjoyment. But that happens for Parkour, too, as though the kong and dash vault are what makes you a "Traceur", rather than the mindset.

So I do find, and this comes from my own personal experience and the great many experienced traceurs out there I've met, that eventually there is no difference. Talk to some of the great athletes, from Yann and Chau from Majestic Force, to the PkGen guys, to even the APK top dogs like Ozzi or the fellas around D.C. that I've been fortunate enough to hang out with a bit. They 'freerun' for reasons much deeper than entertainment of others or showing off or that common perception of freerunning. I love my frontflips and backflips and sideflips and wall spins and all the other movements that "aren't efficient", and it has nothing to do with entertainment or showing off. It's about being pragmatic. To me, its just another element in my training like pushups and kong vaults and rolls. It teaches me to be in tune with my body and be prepared for any scenario. I'm not talking diving frontflips over barbed wire fences. It's not that shallow. I'm talking about training myself to persevere, to accomplish goals, to have confidence and knowledge that if I set a goal, be it a smooth roll or a clean backflip, I can achieve it, and that translates into my entire life, the same as your perception of Parkour.

The real, deep, philosophical and character-attributes that we see at the root of Parkour also lie in 'Freerunning'. It seems strange to me to assume that because people flip, they aren't interested in deeper things. That's like an outsider looking at a Parkour guy doing a rail precision and saying "he's an adrenaline junky, obviously doesn't have any refinement or philosophical depth". The "original intent" applies to all movements, probably because we've done so well at keeping this away from the "sport" arena, which unfortunately, has happened to a lot of the martial arts. Anyways. See what I mean? Or am I still missing something from your perspective?

I agree with you that the "moves checklist" is something that often happens with Parkour as well. I'd also like to point out, that "Parkour movements" (sounds a bit strange, I know) does not a traceur make.

I'd like to draw an analogy: If someone who learned Karate-based punches and kicks, but uses them to assert his "superiority" over others, does that make him a Karateka? I would say "not necessarily", because he's doing something other than what the training was originally intended for.

Now, you can participate in free-running and still be a traceur, so long as you understand the original intent of the training of Parkour. However, once you forgo that understanding in favor of aesthetics, you stop being a traceur and start being just a free-runner. Does this make sense?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 14, 2010, 08:41:25 AM
I don't think that applies to Freerunning, because I don't think Freerunning is at all concerned with aesthetics. Freerunning is training with the intent to explore the possibilities with movement and that's a part of the original intent for Parkour.

However, for the people that perform using movement who are concerned with aesthetics, it certainly does apply. If you're training in order to look better while moving then you're certainly not practicing the same discipline as the rest of us. Then you're an acrobat, or a dancer, or a gymnast, or something else.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 14, 2010, 09:12:11 AM
I only refer to 'Freerunning' as a beginner's stage because the starting point for most people. They can feel the effects of movement but they don't understand them. There are people who start unbalanced the other way, understanding the theory but not the practice.

I've added the inverted commas (') in for a reason, because neither of these concepts is complete. Both are missing something if you define them in the popular way.
If you dedicate yourself to either then you'll end up combining the two. The 'advanced' stages of both are identical. You practice by listening to your feelings and then refining with conscious thought. It's the same discipline, and we all start at our own, unique starting point. I call this discipline Parkour. No inverted commas because the discipline is complete.
[Same, with the inverted commas. I've been doing the same]

I agree, Dave. I think we're on the same page. What you said at the end of your post is exactly my whole point, but you've gone into more detail, that I need to delve into.

I guess this article is a reaction (specifically to "that's not parkour" type comments to videos and such) of those who are still in those conscious vs unconscious stages you're describing. To me, at this point, they are the same, as you said, because both arts are both conscious and unconscious. 'Freerunning' has served me utility and purpose, and 'Parkour' has served as a way for me to express myself and I find beauty in it, and vise versa. But you may be right, this may not be something people can truly recognize without a good amount of time and experience in the art.

So the question is, can we expect newish people to understand the lack of distinction, or do they need to go through the process, and then put them together themselves. That seems pretty reasonable to me. An understanding that eventually, the 'two' disciplines come together into being one, according to the individual practicing and how they move and what their purposes are. My only peev, and the reason I wrote this article, is to fix this misconception that "Freerunning" is flashy or aesthetic" and essentially shallow, and only "Parkour" is deep and useful. As we can see all over this topic, people still hold this, and it's a surface level understanding of both arts. That's what I tire of seeing. That's why I'm putting all this effort into this issue.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Evan Fleming on October 14, 2010, 09:38:01 AM
Well, I'm not saying either one is "deeper" than the other. What I'm driving at is that it's sort of like "Martial Arts vs Martial Arts Tricking". Two separate beasts. 

Edit: Or an even better comparison, "Sparring vs Tricking".
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 14, 2010, 10:25:38 AM
'Freerunning' came about because thousands of people flocked to a new activity that didn't come with any direction. There has never been any clear idea on how you progress through this discipline, on where there is to go after you start, so lots of people got stuck at the start.

We need to make this progression clear to the whole community in order to solve these arguments, but first we need to understand it ourselves. Nobody understands it yet, even the most experienced practitioners have only just started to think about the process of learning, as shown by the rudimentary coaching systems springing up. We need to practice more, think about it more, discuss it more.

Seriously, to all those people trying to lock these threads, we need to discuss it more not less. We can't expect newcomers to understand things straight away and we can't expect to be able to explain things to people unless we've been able to practice doing so. Conversations and discussions are what force you to put your thoughts in order and they're the only way to test whether what you think makes sense. I first saw Parkour on TV, but I learned Parkour by talking with practitioners in Lisses. I learned how to explain it to others better by trying to explain it to people on Parkour.NET. I've spent the last two years revising the BPCA's coaching materials again and a lot of the understanding I've put into them has come from directly from discussions like these.
You get better at what you practice.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 14, 2010, 11:25:53 AM
No worries Dave, it's not gonna get locked. I talked to Andy about it. Now that people are actually discussing the issue the proper, adult way, it's heading in a great direction.

So that's what I'm saying, then, on page one. To continue the thought process on this, and how to progress it in, what if we were to insert the movements of "freerunning" into the progressions of Parkour, as a part of the method that helps you to understand your own body and overcome your fears and develop that proprioception and push your limits and build confidence and individualism and all those things we strive for. What if we began to consider them ('FR' movements), from step one, to be a part of that singular discipline we so easily call Parkour.

I think the problem with the perception is that people see 'freerunning' as an independent option to take from the methods of Parkour, and they then elect the easier, more satisfying in the short term approach to training, by doing their checklist of cool moves, like backflips off playgrounds and palm spins on tables. Only later do they work that into the 'parkour' stuff, as we've established. What if these elements were integrated into the progressions of what we now consider Parkour, as they are for the advanced practitioners, with the same training purposes as all of the other movements? That -is- how Majestic Force (Yann, Chau, Laurent) taught at the Rendezvous. They had us doing backflips right after we climbed and vaulted over rocks, all as a part of a drill. Each movement they had us do had a purpose, including the flip.

Suppose we were to theoretically adopt this approach. Movements like flips and whatever other 'freerunning' which can be just as scary as cat leaps and vaults to precisions and that sort of 'parkour' stuff, so why not erase the distinction that is created by the false descriptions based on 'efficiency' and 'aesthetics'. What sort of problems arise for this, do you think?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Rebecca Myers on October 14, 2010, 11:34:30 AM
Son of a Gun, Adam actually did it. This is probably the best article I've read on parkour in a while. As much as I loved reading the circular debate of parkour vs freerunning, I'm happy that you were able to put it all into one page of text in a way that makes sense.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 14, 2010, 11:44:57 AM
This though will never be solved there are many who wont agree and like to preserve the roots. You cant expect everyone to follow its one in the same kind of thought process. I do Practice in multiple arts of movement. I do stand for the need of their individualities. I do believe that everyone should practice anything and everything they can to better themselves. Though If you do dont call all of it parkour.

 
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 14, 2010, 11:51:10 AM
This though will never be solved there are many who wont agree and like to preserve the roots. You cant expect everyone to follow its one in the same kind of thought process. I do Practice in multiple arts of movement. I do stand for the need of their individualities. I do believe that everyone should practice anything and everything they can to better themselves. Though If you do dont call all of it parkour.

 

We're not, bro. I practice other arts as well, particularly Martial Arts. I'm not proposing to call it all Parkour. Our discussion is simply the inevitable mesh of what the perception of 'Parkour' is and what 'Freerunning' is.

Many things are never solved, but better things are caused by discussion, analysis, and open minds presenting new ideas and perspectives.

You don't have to think like anyone except yourself. I agree that everything is individual. That's the problem. As originally stated in the article, its individual for each and every person. :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 14, 2010, 11:56:02 AM
This though will never be solved there are many who wont agree and like to preserve the roots. You cant expect everyone to follow its one in the same kind of thought process. I do Practice in multiple arts of movement. I do stand for the need of their individualities. I do believe that everyone should practice anything and everything they can to better themselves. Though If you do dont call all of it parkour.

You speak of preserving the roots, but [prepare yourself...] I'm don't think those roots are worth preserving.

Yes, there was a beginning, at least for the development of the parkour mindset, but that doesn't mean it was the most pure time. See, the founders were still figuring things out themselves back then, and they still are! We all are. Just because it was said back then doesn't make it perfect and unquestionable. We all have a lot of respect for David, Sebastien, the Yamakasi, and everyone else, but they weren't saviors sent from God. There's not some coveted secret level of understanding that they had back then that we are all looking for now.

Preserving the roots, in my opinion, is not something we should strive for. Really, we should strive to maintain the true parkour spirit, whether it conforms to the roots or conflicts with them.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 14, 2010, 11:59:15 AM
You speak of preserving the roots, but [prepare yourself...] I'm don't think those roots are worth preserving.

Yes, there was a beginning, at least for the development of the parkour mindset, but that doesn't mean it was the most pure time. See, the founders were still figuring things out themselves back then, and they still are! We all are. Just because it was said back then doesn't make it perfect and unquestionable. We all have a lot of respect for David, Sebastien, the Yamakasi, and everyone else, but they weren't saviors sent from God. There's not some coveted secret level of understanding that they had back then that we are all looking for now.

Preserving the roots, in my opinion, is not something we should strive for. Really, we should strive to maintain the true parkour spirit, whether it conforms to the roots or conflicts with them.


+1.

That, and if we're talking roots, then we should be talking ADD, where it all comes from. ADD, the Art of Movement, is all encompassing. Not "Parkour" specific. If we're talking about the roots, then we're talking about people who train what we consider 'freerunning' side by side with what we consider 'parkour. That's what Dave and I are discussing.

I hope it doesn't feel like we're putting you down Anthony. That's really not what I want to do at all. I just want to explain what we're discussing, which should explain why we're putting the effort into it, that it's more than just people who will never agree bickering. I think its a serious, worthwhile cause to discuss. I'm not trying to convert you at all. I think you should believe what you believe about our art. That's why it's there. :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Rebecca Myers on October 14, 2010, 12:07:08 PM
Quote from: Anthony Ruiz on Today at 03:44:57 PM
This though will never be solved there are many who wont agree and like to preserve the roots. You cant expect everyone to follow its one in the same kind of thought process. I do Practice in multiple arts of movement. I do stand for the need of their individualities. I do believe that everyone should practice anything and everything they can to better themselves. Though If you do dont call all of it parkour.

You speak of preserving the roots, but [prepare yourself...] I'm don't think those roots are worth preserving.

Yes, there was a beginning, at least for the development of the parkour mindset, but that doesn't mean it was the most pure time. See, the founders were still figuring things out themselves back then, and they still are! We all are. Just because it was said back then doesn't make it perfect and unquestionable. We all have a lot of respect for David, Sebastien, the Yamakasi, and everyone else, but they weren't saviors sent from God. There's not some coveted secret level of understanding that they had back then that we are all looking for now.

Preserving the roots, in my opinion, is not something we should strive for. Really, we should strive to maintain the true parkour spirit, whether it conforms to the roots or conflicts with them.


Let's take a well-known example where "pure" roots were soon found to be unworthy of being "preserved"; The Theory of Matter. There are 5 'parts' of the theory of matter:
1) Matter consists of indivisible atoms.
2)Atoms of a given element are identical.
3)Different elements have different atoms.
4)Atoms are indestructible and maintain their identities.
5)Compounds form from elements by combining atoms in whole number ratios.

Today, we know that all but the 3rd part are false, as has been proven through scientific experimentation. The same can be said for parkour, albeit the process is more individualized. If, let's say, the "original" blueprint of parkour was designed for really tall people, I'm obviously not going to want to follow that blueprint. Dalton drew from what he could at his time, as did the Yamakasi, Belle, and Foucan. And as are we.

Andy said it perfectly, in my opinion. Maintain the parkour spirit. There never was or will be one true parkour.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 14, 2010, 12:19:24 PM
reasoning for preserving roots, like history if not preserved it is lost. Even now we struggle to find the roots of parkour because not many know or were around when parkour was first beggining. Im all for training side by side and learning from it but. If we begin to water down blend mix and stir it all together soon. When more and more generations join in the movement they lose sight of where it came from and the purpose of it. how will they know where to go?. Sorry for the analogy but say we use karate which you trainied in for along time, but now MMA comes out and people of the karate practice start training more MMA than karate or even equal of both.

When new member join karate, their Idea of what karate is would be off, and incorrect.

sorry for the analogy I lack the vocabulary skill to otherwise state my point in any other way im sorry
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 14, 2010, 12:30:24 PM
reasoning for preserving roots, like history if not preserved it is lost. Even now we struggle to find the roots of parkour because not many know or were around when parkour was first beggining. Im all for training side by side and learning from it but. If we begin to water down blend mix and stir it all together soon. When more and more generations join in the movement they lose sight of where it came from and the purpose of it. how will they know where to go?. Sorry for the analogy but say we use karate which you trainied in for along time, but now MMA comes out and people of the karate practice start training more MMA than karate or even equal of both.

When new member join karate, their Idea of what karate is would be off, and incorrect.

sorry for the analogy I lack the vocabulary skill to otherwise state my point in any other way im sorry

You're right.

I just don't see how that conflicts with what I'm saying - specifically "we should strive to maintain the true parkour spirit." If we plug that into your karate analogy, I think it works out how you want it to. Can you try to explain more what doesn't make sense? I like seeing other peoples' points or view. :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 14, 2010, 12:44:10 PM
Adam, I wasn't overly concerned about this thread being locked, I was just making the point about discussion being essential, being part of the solution to this question we're discussing.

Already the vast majority of the movements we think of as 'Parkour movements' are there only for exploration and development. We'll almost certainly never need to cat-pass a wall and land on another one, or land on a railing. The issue about which movements to practice with remains even after you acknowledge that some are there only for exploration. The question is no longer "Which movements am I allowed to do?", it's "Which movements are best for me?", but it involves the same thoughts and decisions.

That's a question that each practitioner has to answer on their own in the end. At the very start though, before the individual can answer it themselves, that question has to be answered by the community. When we're teaching beginners, we should use the movements that are most beneficial to most beginners. That means a strong focus on the fundamentals of human movement, like running, crawling, climbing and rolling, for everyone. These are the building blocks of more complex movements and need to be learned first, whatever your goal with movement.
However, for those people whose physical ability develops beyond these movements before they are ready to adapt their own training to their life-long needs, exploration needs to be allowed to continue, as far as necessary.

Traditions are irrelevant. Don't maintain the roots for the sake of maintaining the roots. Instead, concentrate on making the present as good as possible. However, the spirit is what defines the discipline of Parkour, so maintaining the spirit means maintaining the discipline. Change the rest whenever you find something better, but the discipline's spirit can't change and still be Parkour. To preserve the discipline we need to preserve the spirit, and at the moment some of us need to look back to the roots to remind ourselves what the spirit is. That's why 'roots' are important at the moment. When the spirit returns to the present and current practice then there is no need to look back.
(Anthony, Andy, it seems like you're each pointing out half of that)

I think that there is just the one discipline that involves developing yourself using the idea of moving from one place to another. It has several names at the moment, there are as many starting points and goals as there are practitioners, and there are also some people that think they practice it when they don't, but it is still just one discipline, one method.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 14, 2010, 12:48:50 PM
Dave, great job summarizing/rephrasing/concluding what we've been getting at lately. I don't have much to add. I want to see Adam's thoughts on this now.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 14, 2010, 01:10:21 PM
I guess it goes back to the old saying actions speak louder than words. If we talk about Method of training to overcome obstacles, but we do flips gymnastic bar work tumbling, this is a contradiction to or words. So I believe that in order to preserve our roots of training we must have a line. That way our teaching can be past on correctly then, each individual may choose their path of learning afterwords.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 14, 2010, 01:13:25 PM
What do you mean by a 'line'?

A line between different movements where you can use movements on one side but not the other?
A line, as in a path?

Flips and tumbling can be involved in Parkour, but I think for most people it would be bad Parkour because it wouldn't really be helping them develop in ways that are as useful to them as others. It's their decision though, in the end. You can use flips to learn.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Anthony Ruiz on October 14, 2010, 01:19:12 PM
No a line in the method of training to overcome obstacles. The teaching and practice of movement that enables you to better overcome your obstacles. As long as we teach and preform this Idea first and instill that in the new trainees. Then as that individual grows, he or she will be able to choose their own path of learning. Then when they go to teach someone else they will teach the correct way and we will not lose the spirit or the movement.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 14, 2010, 01:29:24 PM
Ok, yes, that's what I meant by a path, a method, a route, a system... and yes, I agree, we need to instill a 'good habit' in beginners first, before they can take control. The foundation must be right.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Jacob Chess on October 14, 2010, 02:20:34 PM
As a good friend of mine says, "Practice makes better; not necessarily perfect. It all depends if you are practicing the right things."
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Joel PK on October 14, 2010, 02:42:09 PM
I really like where this is going. I said a few pages back that Parkour is, or at least should be, quite individualistic. Though I never considered the point Dave made on how beginners need a teacher to give them a direction, then they should take control. I really like that. It's something that is lost usually because most people (including myself) are self taught and don't have experienced traceurs to show them what they "need" to be doing or practicing at first.

I was in a park with a friend of mine training and practicing and some group of kids said "You guys playin the parker?" I couldn't help but laugh (though not in front of them :P) then say, "We're traceurs, practicing the sport or art of Parkour"

So many kids and people have the idea that Parkour is only jumping from building to building for fun. It really dissapoints me :-/ But that's how it is. All we can do is practice it the way we should and do our best to set others straight.

As for the "stick to the roots" discussion, I agree and disagree. Evolution of ideas and technology is the key to advancement and improvement. If people just "stuck to the roots" in everything, we wouldn't have cars, tv's, abstract mathematics, or any other improved ideas/technologies. So while it is important to never lose sight of where Parkour came from, there's nothing wrong with changing certain things or ideas, or at the very least, the title given. I don't mean this to an extreme, as in the true meaning of Parkour will never change, but incorporating the concept of Freerunning into the Parkour mix seems perfectly acceptable to me.

I read in an article regarding a science assignment about how any one of us could be a tutor to Aristotle. Aristotle was a brilliant BRILLIANT man who knew just about more than anyone else, during his time. But through the simple, inevitable advancement of time, we have learned so much more than he could have ever known, and applied it to various aspects of life. So the natural "evolution of Parkour" is perfectly fine and natural. Again, I don't mean this to an extreme and complete change of principles, but more or less about the name or individualism now applied.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Jacob Chess on October 14, 2010, 03:05:32 PM
I really like where this is going. I said a few pages back that Parkour is, or at least should be, quite individualistic. Though I never considered the point Dave made on how beginners need a teacher to give them a direction, then they should take control. I really like that. It's something that is lost usually because most people (including myself) are self taught and don't have experienced traceurs to show them what they "need" to be doing or practicing at first.

I was in a park with a friend of mine training and practicing and some group of kids said "You guys playin the parker?" I couldn't help but laugh (though not in front of them :P) then say, "We're traceurs, practicing the sport or art of Parkour"

So many kids and people have the idea that Parkour is only jumping from building to building for fun. It really dissapoints me :-/ But that's how it is. All we can do is practice it the way we should and do our best to set others straight.

As for the "stick to the roots" discussion, I agree and disagree. Evolution of ideas and technology is the key to advancement and improvement. If people just "stuck to the roots" in everything, we wouldn't have cars, tv's, abstract mathematics, or any other improved ideas/technologies. So while it is important to never lose sight of where Parkour came from, there's nothing wrong with changing certain things or ideas, or at the very least, the title given. I don't mean this to an extreme, as in the true meaning of Parkour will never change, but incorporating the concept of Freerunning into the Parkour mix seems perfectly acceptable to me.

I read in an article regarding a science assignment about how any one of us could be a tutor to Aristotle. Aristotle was a brilliant BRILLIANT man who knew just about more than anyone else, during his time. But through the simple, inevitable advancement of time, we have learned so much more than he could have ever known, and applied it to various aspects of life. So the natural "evolution of Parkour" is perfectly fine and natural. Again, I don't mean this to an extreme and complete change of principles, but more or less about the name or individualism now applied.

I do not wholly agree, even to invent cars or t.v. there is a fundamental knowledge that allows us to understand to further our individualistic practices. Sure, you might want to make a new way to make a greater transportation vehicle, but you must first learn of the car.

Thus, there is a right method of training (Starting with conditioning, learning the existing mindsets of parkour, fundamentals of movements and techniques.)
Once you have all of the 'roots' you can grow in your own unique way.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Joel PK on October 14, 2010, 03:11:01 PM
I do not wholly agree, even to invent cars or t.v. there is a fundamental knowledge that allows us to understand to further our individualistic practices. Sure, you might want to make a new way to make a greater transportation vehicle, but you must first learn of the car.

Thus, there is a right method of training (Starting with conditioning, learning the existing mindsets of parkour, fundamentals of movements and techniques.)
Once you have all of the 'roots' you can grow in your own unique way.


That was my point actually. That's why I made sure to say "I agree and disagree".

"Again, I don't mean this to an extreme and complete change of principles, but more or less about the name or individualism now applied."

I was saying that the roots ARE important to know and understand and that those starting out would be best to have those who are experienced to show them what they need to learn first, then go their own way from there.

Adding to a principle doesn't diminish the roots of it, nor change them, nor even effect them at all, just add to the principle itself.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 14, 2010, 04:02:05 PM
Adam, I wasn't overly concerned about this thread being locked, I was just making the point about discussion being essential, being part of the solution to this question we're discussing.

Already the vast majority of the movements we think of as 'Parkour movements' are there only for exploration and development. We'll almost certainly never need to cat-pass a wall and land on another one, or land on a railing. The issue about which movements to practice with remains even after you acknowledge that some are there only for exploration. The question is no longer "Which movements am I allowed to do?", it's "Which movements are best for me?", but it involves the same thoughts and decisions.

That's a question that each practitioner has to answer on their own in the end. At the very start though, before the individual can answer it themselves, that question has to be answered by the community. When we're teaching beginners, we should use the movements that are most beneficial to most beginners. That means a strong focus on the fundamentals of human movement, like running, crawling, climbing and rolling, for everyone. These are the building blocks of more complex movements and need to be learned first, whatever your goal with movement.
However, for those people whose physical ability develops beyond these movements before they are ready to adapt their own training to their life-long needs, exploration needs to be allowed to continue, as far as necessary.

Traditions are irrelevant. Don't maintain the roots for the sake of maintaining the roots. Instead, concentrate on making the present as good as possible. However, the spirit is what defines the discipline of Parkour, so maintaining the spirit means maintaining the discipline. Change the rest whenever you find something better, but the discipline's spirit can't change and still be Parkour. To preserve the discipline we need to preserve the spirit, and at the moment some of us need to look back to the roots to remind ourselves what the spirit is. That's why 'roots' are important at the moment. When the spirit returns to the present and current practice then there is no need to look back.
(Anthony, Andy, it seems like you're each pointing out half of that)

I think that there is just the one discipline that involves developing yourself using the idea of moving from one place to another. It has several names at the moment, there are as many starting points and goals as there are practitioners, and there are also some people that think they practice it when they don't, but it is still just one discipline, one method.

Yeah, I agree man. What you said sums it up quite well. Like Andy, not much to add that hasn't been said.  So, I suppose through time, and as more of these conclusions are made by more people, and we all learn better to express ourselves and understand what it is that we do, this idea will be better understood by more and more people.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 14, 2010, 05:49:41 PM
That was my point actually. That's why I made sure to say "I agree and disagree".

"Again, I don't mean this to an extreme and complete change of principles, but more or less about the name or individualism now applied."

I was saying that the roots ARE important to know and understand and that those starting out would be best to have those who are experienced to show them what they need to learn first, then go their own way from there.

Adding to a principle doesn't diminish the roots of it, nor change them, nor even effect them at all, just add to the principle itself.

Guys, you're pretty right in what you're discussing, but that is not what we're talking about when we say "roots." Of course we all agree that the basics must be learned first by beginners. What I meant by roots was more along the lines of the origins, specifically in terms of the original concepts and ideas.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Joel PK on October 14, 2010, 06:01:09 PM
Guys, you're pretty right in what you're discussing, but that is not what we're talking about when we say "roots." Of course we all agree that the basics must be learned first by beginners. What I meant by roots was more along the lines of the origins, specifically in terms of the original concepts and ideas.
Yeah, I was just trying to defend my point, but in my older post I was getting at what you were saying.
As for the "stick to the roots" discussion, I agree and disagree. Evolution of ideas and technology is the key to advancement and improvement. If people just "stuck to the roots" in everything, we wouldn't have cars, tv's, abstract mathematics, or any other improved ideas/technologies. So while it is important to never lose sight of where Parkour came from, there's nothing wrong with changing certain things or ideas, or at the very least, the title given. I don't mean this to an extreme, as in the true meaning of Parkour will never change, but incorporating the concept of Freerunning into the Parkour mix seems perfectly acceptable to me.

I read in an article regarding a science assignment about how any one of us could be a tutor to Aristotle. Aristotle was a brilliant BRILLIANT man who knew just about more than anyone else, during his time. But through the simple, inevitable advancement of time, we have learned so much more than he could have ever known, and applied it to various aspects of life. So the natural "evolution of Parkour" is perfectly fine and natural. Again, I don't mean this to an extreme and complete change of principles, but more or less about the name or individualism now applied.
Trying to make the main point that the roots are their, but perhaps more added, using comparison of other ideas and such :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Christian Hall on October 19, 2010, 11:19:42 AM
 I was just thinking about this earlier.

I read one of the posts that said Parkour is about getting past an obstacle and moving on. Not just physically with the movement, but mentally and in life too.
This of course made me think of where I was actually trying to go mentally and in life, and what the goal or end result of it would be, which then lead to some thoughts processes too deep for me and I was forced to stop thinking about it.


So a lot of this stuff kinda goes over my head because I don't think the way you guys do yet. And I know I'm extremely new when it comes to Parkour and Freerunning but as far as I'm concerned, for right now, their the same thing.

Can Freerunning/Parkour keep me fit? Check. Can I put either of them to practical use? Check. Can I have a little fun while doing either? Check.

^Then thats good enough for me.


Sorry if my ramblings insulted you guys or came across as the stupidest thing you've ever heard.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Evan Fleming on October 19, 2010, 12:44:38 PM
I was just thinking about this earlier.

I read one of the posts that said Parkour is about getting past an obstacle and moving on. Not just physically with the movement, but mentally and in life too.
This of course made me think of where I was actually trying to go mentally and in life, and what the goal or end result of it would be, which then lead to some thoughts processes too deep for me and I was forced to stop thinking about it.


So a lot of this stuff kinda goes over my head because I don't think the way you guys do yet. And I know I'm extremely new when it comes to Parkour and Freerunning but as far as I'm concerned, for right now, their the same thing.

Can Freerunning/Parkour keep me fit? Check. Can I put either of them to practical use? Check. Can I have a little fun while doing either? Check.

^Then thats good enough for me.


Sorry if my ramblings insulted you guys or came across as the stupidest thing you've ever heard.

You're sort-of like me. I wouldn't necessarily say I'm strictly a student of Parkour, or a student of Free-running. I would consider myself a student of movement.

However, I recognize the lines that separate Parkour, Free-running, Methode Naturelle, etc, and I believe this somewhat comes with experience. Only just recently was I able to clearly see the lines between the "sects".
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Jordan Strybos on October 19, 2010, 04:20:18 PM
You're sort-of like me. I wouldn't necessarily say I'm strictly a student of Parkour, or a student of Free-running. I would consider myself a student of movement.

However, I recognize the lines that separate Parkour, Free-running, Methode Naturelle, etc, and I believe this somewhat comes with experience. Only just recently was I able to clearly see the lines between the "sects".

Why are we having this discussion?! Who cares about what it's called, guys? The important thing is to move. Don't give it a specific title, which has several sects and sub-categories, just move. Giving everything names and defining yourself by saying that you practice "so and so" and that you aren't much into "whatever else" is just as good as letting these lines of separation define you as a person.

Training and learning with the Yamakasi and PKGens at American Rendezvous opened my eyes on this subject.

You are who you are. My name is Jordan Strybos, and I choose to ignore the "differences" between parkour, freerunning, l'art du deplacement, etc. I am my name, and I move, because I love to move. I love the feelings that I get when I am out, drilling the most boring aspects of parkour. I live to reverse QM up staircases, I live to condition my body as hard as I can each day so that each day, my training increases with intensity.
You speak of preserving the roots, but [prepare yourself...] I'm don't think those roots are worth preserving.

Yes, there was a beginning, at least for the development of the parkour mindset, but that doesn't mean it was the most pure time

Preserving the roots, in my opinion, is not something we should strive for. Really, we should strive to maintain the true parkour spirit, whether it conforms to the roots or conflicts with them.

I agree with this completely, and I will add to it. When parkour was in its foundations, it was a rough, undefined form of what it has become today. That being said, I think that we should strive to preserve what has come to be accepted and loved today, because it is that way for a reason. People can argue and discuss the proper ways to perfect techniques on forums all that they want, but the only correct way to find out what's right is to get out there and do it yourself. The people from PKGens and the ADDAcademy have been doing exactly that for much over 20 years, so I'm prone to believe that what they are teaching is correct, since they've learned through millions of experiences what is best for them personally.

Just move because you love to. I think we all need to look at ourselves and ask ourselves why we are training. If we can answer the question honestly and be proud of the answer, then that should be proof enough of why we are here. There is no need for walls and separation between disciplines of movement; each person does what they want, and they believe in what they do.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Evan Fleming on October 19, 2010, 06:21:32 PM
Responding to the above post, intention is a big part of why the "names" are there. Also, I feel that I don't "Do Parkour" so much as "train Parkour", "Parkour" being shorthand for "efficiently moving past obstacles to get from Point A to Point B."

What I do is move. What I train (as of now) is Parkour.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Jordan Strybos on October 20, 2010, 03:57:26 AM
Responding to the above post, intention is a big part of why the "names" are there.

Can you explain in a little more detail what you mean by this?

I just feel like if the name is defined by what we do it for, that kinda defeats the purpose. For me, PK/FR/ADD/whateverelse is all about releasing the inner child in me. It's the only thing that can consistently make me feel like I am capable of anything. I'm not concerned about what specifically I am accomplishing all the time, so to me the names are irrelevant. My movement is my movement, and it's different from your movement, and that's always going to be the truth, because we're all individuals. I just choose to call what I do (or train, rather; I agree with the second half of your post, Evan) parkour, because that's what I've been calling it for the past three years that I've been out training.
My argument is: When people ask me what I'm doing whilst training, I'll say "Parkour." If they have a puzzled look on their face when I say that, I'll suggest Freerunning as an alternative, more english-friendly term. I don't think that anyone can honestly say that when they go out and train, that they do only definition-specific parkour, that is, training by only doing the most efficient things possible and not stepping back or anything. That claim is ridiculous. Still, I call my movement parkour because that's what it's always been for me. I'm not saying parkour is what you make it, and I'm not saying create your own personal meaning of parkour. I'm saying don't be so concerned with the meanings of words and the specific guidelines that you fall into, just do what you want.

Of course, I realize that if you disagree with me, I'm not going to try to change your beliefs or anything, and I apologize if I sort of digressed from your original point.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Rebecca Myers on October 20, 2010, 04:28:49 AM
Can you explain in a little more detail what you mean by this?

I just feel like if the name is defined by what we do it for, that kinda defeats the purpose. For me, PK/FR/ADD/whateverelse is all about releasing the inner child in me. It's the only thing that can consistently make me feel like I am capable of anything. I'm not concerned about what specifically I am accomplishing all the time, so to me the names are irrelevant. My movement is my movement, and it's different from your movement, and that's always going to be the truth, because we're all individuals. I just choose to call what I do (or train, rather; I agree with the second half of your post, Evan) parkour, because that's what I've been calling it for the past three years that I've been out training.
My argument is: When people ask me what I'm doing whilst training, I'll say "Parkour." If they have a puzzled look on their face when I say that, I'll suggest Freerunning as an alternative, more english-friendly term. I don't think that anyone can honestly say that when they go out and train, that they do only definition-specific parkour, that is, training by only doing the most efficient things possible and not stepping back or anything. That claim is ridiculous. Still, I call my movement parkour because that's what it's always been for me. I'm not saying parkour is what you make it, and I'm not saying create your own personal meaning of parkour. I'm saying don't be so concerned with the meanings of words and the specific guidelines that you fall into, just do what you want.

Of course, I realize that if you disagree with me, I'm not going to try to change your beliefs or anything, and I apologize if I sort of digressed from your original point.

Names can help create a sense of universality (if that's not a word, it is now). Like in Judo, we say everything in Japanese. The moves are given names so people can be adequately taught them and so that if I go to Germany, we all know what I'm talking about when I say "Ippon seoeinage". I feel like this is the same TYPE of deal in Parkour, names are given so we have a sense that we're united under what we practice. But both activities provide the opportunity for the practitioner to manipulate previously named moves into their own to fit their bodies and their environment/opponent.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Lorenzo on October 20, 2010, 05:37:10 AM
I just fly above the bs and call myself a free traceur. So not only do I trace the lines but sometimes I make new ones to embellish my art, and make it mine.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: NOS - from Parkour Mumbai on October 20, 2010, 08:17:51 AM
I just feel like if the name is defined by what we do it for, that kinda defeats the purpose. For me, PK/FR/ADD/whateverelse is all about releasing the inner child in me. It's the only thing that can consistently make me feel like I am capable of anything. I'm not concerned about what specifically I am accomplishing all the time, so to me the names are irrelevant. My movement is my movement, and it's different from your movement, and that's always going to be the truth, because we're all individuals. I just choose to call what I do (or train, rather; I agree with the second half of your post, Evan) parkour, because that's what I've been calling it for the past three years that I've been out training.
My argument is: When people ask me what I'm doing whilst training, I'll say "Parkour." If they have a puzzled look on their face when I say that, I'll suggest Freerunning as an alternative, more english-friendly term. I don't think that anyone can honestly say that when they go out and train, that they do only definition-specific parkour, that is, training by only doing the most efficient things possible and not stepping back or anything. That claim is ridiculous. Still, I call my movement parkour because that's what it's always been for me. I'm not saying parkour is what you make it, and I'm not saying create your own personal meaning of parkour. I'm saying don't be so concerned with the meanings of words and the specific guidelines that you fall into, just do what you want.
I think you should read this.
http://www.americanparkour.com/smf/index.php/topic,30637.0.html
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Jordan Strybos on October 20, 2010, 08:33:50 AM
NOS,
Thank you very much. You essentially stated what my basic ideals are, but in a prettier and easier to read form. Absolutely great article. Some interesting comments from the thread, though, I'll post more on there to discuss.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Evan Fleming on October 20, 2010, 08:35:01 AM
Can you explain in a little more detail what you mean by this?

I just feel like if the name is defined by what we do it for, that kinda defeats the purpose. For me, PK/FR/ADD/whateverelse is all about releasing the inner child in me. It's the only thing that can consistently make me feel like I am capable of anything. I'm not concerned about what specifically I am accomplishing all the time, so to me the names are irrelevant. My movement is my movement, and it's different from your movement, and that's always going to be the truth, because we're all individuals. I just choose to call what I do (or train, rather; I agree with the second half of your post, Evan) parkour, because that's what I've been calling it for the past three years that I've been out training.
My argument is: When people ask me what I'm doing whilst training, I'll say "Parkour." If they have a puzzled look on their face when I say that, I'll suggest Freerunning as an alternative, more english-friendly term. I don't think that anyone can honestly say that when they go out and train, that they do only definition-specific parkour, that is, training by only doing the most efficient things possible and not stepping back or anything. That claim is ridiculous. Still, I call my movement parkour because that's what it's always been for me. I'm not saying parkour is what you make it, and I'm not saying create your own personal meaning of parkour. I'm saying don't be so concerned with the meanings of words and the specific guidelines that you fall into, just do what you want.

Of course, I realize that if you disagree with me, I'm not going to try to change your beliefs or anything, and I apologize if I sort of digressed from your original point.

I completely agree with the notion that no-one can tell you how you move. You move as you do, as an individual. I would like to point out that I don't view PK/l'ADD/FR/MN/etc. as systems of movement, but rather as individual methods of training, each with its own end-goal in mind. This is why the names exist. If I use the Karate analogy, it would go something like this: If I were to get into a real situation where I had to use my training as a Karateka, what I would be doing is fighting. The same goes for the "Movement Arts".
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 20, 2010, 11:23:17 AM
The same goes for the "Movement Arts".


Or... since "Movement Arts" could encompass anything from Yoga to breakdancing, I think Jordan's point is the term "Parkour" seems effective. :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Evan Fleming on October 20, 2010, 06:42:49 PM

Or... since "Movement Arts" could encompass anything from Yoga to breakdancing, I think Jordan's point is the term "Parkour" seems effective. :)

You know what I mean, herpa derp. < _ >

But, I agree that "Parkour" is excellent shorthand for how we train. If somebody were to come up and ask my what I was doing, I would answer: "Training".
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Jordan Strybos on October 21, 2010, 09:41:01 AM
You know what I mean, herpa derp. < _ >

But, I agree that "Parkour" is excellent shorthand for how we train. If somebody were to come up and ask my what I was doing, I would answer: "Moving".

I'm glad you edited your post to bring it back on topic, lol.

Doesn't moving seem like a very vague answer though? I'm gonna go ahead a bet that 9 times out of 10, when you respond with that, the other person will ask you to explain. Simply moving is probably the most bland response you could have. Technically, the person moved over to you to ask their question. We are all in constant motion, no matter how hard we try to stay still. I feel like your conversation would go something like this:

"What are you doing?"
"Moving."
"What do you mean?"
"Ever heard of parkour or freerunning?"
"Nope."
"Okay, let me explain..."

In essence, if I were to just respond by saying, I'm doing/training parkour, I could immediately go in to describe what exactly that entails.  I just feel like simply calling it parkour to begin with will be easier, instead of your first sentences to a stranger revolving around, well I'm training parkour, but just now I wasn't being very efficient in my movement, so I guess it was more of freerunning, but I'm basically just moving...

There's no need for guidelines and restrictions on what is and what is not. Obviously, ballet is not parkour. Ballet can be used as a supplement to improve balance and awareness, but it is by no means parkour. I'm not saying that parkour can be anything, but I'm saying that we shouldn't restrict ourselves by labeling exactly what it is NOT (yes, NOS, I realize that this point was made in your article, and I'm giving you credit here).
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Evan Fleming on October 21, 2010, 10:18:41 AM
I'm glad you edited your post to bring it back on topic, lol.

Doesn't moving seem like a very vague answer though? I'm gonna go ahead a bet that 9 times out of 10, when you respond with that, the other person will ask you to explain. Simply moving is probably the most bland response you could have. Technically, the person moved over to you to ask their question. We are all in constant motion, no matter how hard we try to stay still. I feel like your conversation would go something like this:

"What are you doing?"
"Moving."
"What do you mean?"
"Ever heard of parkour or freerunning?"
"Nope."
"Okay, let me explain..."

In essence, if I were to just respond by saying, I'm doing/training parkour, I could immediately go in to describe what exactly that entails.  I just feel like simply calling it parkour to begin with will be easier, instead of your first sentences to a stranger revolving around, well I'm training parkour, but just now I wasn't being very efficient in my movement, so I guess it was more of freerunning, but I'm basically just moving...

There's no need for guidelines and restrictions on what is and what is not. Obviously, ballet is not parkour. Ballet can be used as a supplement to improve balance and awareness, but it is by no means parkour. I'm not saying that parkour can be anything, but I'm saying that we shouldn't restrict ourselves by labeling exactly what it is NOT (yes, NOS, I realize that this point was made in your article, and I'm giving you credit here).

I agree. In a social context, "parkour" is perfectly fine, especially if you're trying to explain it to somebody who has not clue about what it is. However, if you're trying to rigidly define "parkour" (as is the purpose of the thread, lol), then an entirely different direction needs to be taken.

I concur with your assertion that Parkour should not be constrictive. It's like those people with the aformentioned "move list" of "Parkour".
Edit: How about this? Instead of "moving", I would say "training".
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 21, 2010, 01:41:02 PM
Hi Jordan, welcome to the discussion. :)

We're not actually discussing a name so much as discussing the understanding associated with those names. Analysis is an essential part of learning and improving. You can learn and improve a bit by moving and not thinking, but I think even you think about your movement after you've done it, working out what you did wrong and how to improve it.
What we're doing here is the next step of analyzing; analyzing our training system as a whole. We're trying to work to how to improve how we train, therefore we need to think about it. Discussion's not for trying to persuade others to agree with us, it's for trying to understand it ourselves.
'Just move' is a very simple concept, and it's good for beginners to forget about all the social nonsense that usually fills our minds. However, at some point we will want to improve on that method and to do that we need to think. At some point we need to re-awaken our conscious minds to the real world that movement shows us.

Labels don't restrict us in any way, unless we're obsessed with fitting into a certain label for some reason of social acceptance. Labels are created to fit the thing they are attached to, not the other way round.

The word Parkour is broad enough in it's definition to include all ways of using the idea of moving from one place to another to help you develop. I appreciate that there's a lot of information in this thread now, but if you read some of the earlier posts you'll see explanations of why Parkour is more than just moving from A to B by the most efficient path.

If you know what you're doing then you don't need labels or guidelines to keep following your own path. However, if you aren't sure what you're doing then you need to learn about it, and talking about it is one of the most useful ways of doing this. It means you can learn about it without having to do it, which is very useful if the things you're trying to learn about can have serious consequences (as is the case with Parkour). That's the whole point of communication, to share ideas. We simply do not have the time to experience every useful thing ourselves, so we work together and share our experiences.

Whenever you are practicing Parkour you are training. Sometimes you are moving but you're still practicing Parkour when you stop to think or to rest or to analyze.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Andy Keller on October 21, 2010, 01:53:15 PM
Dave, just curious: was that addressed to Jordan specifically? Or just to the discussion as a whole? I can't tell based on your wording. Thanks. :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 21, 2010, 02:04:19 PM
It's addressing the points Jordan's raised. His are essentially the only new views in this thread since I last posted :)

(...even though they've come up many times before)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Jordan Strybos on October 21, 2010, 08:03:15 PM
'Just move' is a very simple concept, and it's good for beginners to forget about all the social nonsense that usually fills our minds. However, at some point we will want to improve on that method and to do that we need to think. At some point we need to re-awaken our conscious minds to the real world that movement shows us.

I'll agree with this, but what I was trying to say in my posts is that it is pretty certain (and the length of and discussions in this thread are supporting evidence) that people are not going to agree on what is and isn't parkour. What I am suggesting by saying 'just move' is that we all can have our own personal take on the subject, but the important thing is that we get out and practice what we're talking about.

Going along with this, I now think that what I said in the beginning was partially wrong. You bring up a good point, and I agree with you, analysis is a very essential and large part of learning, and I think that it's great that we are having this discussion. I learned a lot more from reading everyone's personal posts in this thread (although the 11 pages took about three and a half millenia to read).

Whenever you are practicing Parkour you are training. Sometimes you are moving but you're still practicing Parkour when you stop to think or to rest or to analyze.

I agree with this point, and I like the fact that you aren't one of those 'You aren't practicing parkour unless you are being 100% efficient in your movement!' types of guys.

Thanks for your response, and I appreciate the points that you brought up! :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: DaveS on October 22, 2010, 03:31:08 AM
See, I'm pretty certain that the majority will eventually agree on a definition. Already I've seen three major groups come up with essentially the same definition worded only slightly differently. Even if I hadn't, it's part of the nature of Parkour to assume that all obstacles can be passed and the whole discipline is based on us doing things that we haven't done before. Many people disagree now, but that's how everyting starts and there's nothing to suggest that it will always be that way. Understanding improves with time, always.

I hope that also means that explanations can get shorter in time ;)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Jordan Strybos on October 22, 2010, 05:38:49 AM
Dave,
I agree that the majority will agree, what I was trying to say is that there will always be people that disagree, just as there is in essentially everything. As you said, understanding improves with time. What I was getting at is that there will always be people new to parkour who are investigating it for themselves, and they will probably at first have different ideas, but with time, they'll most likely come back to the general concensus that we have reached here.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Scrag on October 22, 2010, 06:35:28 AM
I just have a hard time thinking of parkour and free running as the same thing... "Parkour is the physical discipline of training to overcome any obstacle within one's path by adapting one's movements to the environment." That is APK's definition which i think is good, but a bit general. Even with a somewhat broad definition, "...training to overcome any obstacle within one's path by adapting one's movements..." to me at least, does not involve a corkscrew backflip. That will NEVER help you overcome an obstacle ever. So to go out and train to learn acrobatic flipping and other inefficient movements is NOT consistent to the definition stated above. Therefore, those movements cannot be considered parkour movements. I am not demeaning tricking, after training in parkour for 5 years i needed to expand and learn some new things which definitely fall into the tricking category, but what should i consider those movements? By our definition they are NOT considered parkour.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Adam McC on October 22, 2010, 09:27:04 AM
I just have a hard time thinking of parkour and free running as the same thing... "Parkour is the physical discipline of training to overcome any obstacle within one's path by adapting one's movements to the environment." That is APK's definition which i think is good, but a bit general. Even with a somewhat broad definition, "...training to overcome any obstacle within one's path by adapting one's movements..." to me at least, does not involve a corkscrew backflip. That will NEVER help you overcome an obstacle ever. So to go out and train to learn acrobatic flipping and other inefficient movements is NOT consistent to the definition stated above. Therefore, those movements cannot be considered parkour movements. I am not demeaning tricking, after training in parkour for 5 years i needed to expand and learn some new things which definitely fall into the tricking category, but what should i consider those movements? By our definition they are NOT considered parkour.

Have you read any of the rest of this topic? All those thoughts have been very specifically addressed by many experienced practitioners. :)
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Jordan Strybos on October 22, 2010, 11:23:26 AM
"...training to overcome any obstacle within one's path by adapting one's movements..." to me at least, does not involve a corkscrew backflip.

To play devil's advocate, why not? The definition does not mention anything about efficiency, nor does it offer any restrictions as to what movement is included, it simply states 'by adapting one's movements.' An example of how I would enjoy adapting my movement to overcome a 4 ft. wall could include any sorts of flipping.

But as Adam said, these thoughts have been brought up before...and it's way to easy to talk in circles.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Dan Chalifoux on November 02, 2011, 12:16:22 PM
I actually spoke with David Belle once on the subject of why he started this sport.
He said that mainly he had been interested in tricking since he was just a little boy and went to try to find a teacher. At the age of 15, he had basically perfected his tricking style, but felt as though something was missing. A few years later, he met Sebastian Foucan, a prodigious in-line skater at the time, and they immediately bonded. They both were interested in the other's abilities, and decided to teach eachother what they knew. Through this unlikely combination of tricking and rollerblading, parkour was born.
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: Conrad Moser on November 02, 2011, 03:29:31 PM
This thread was a year old, not a week old. Did you really need to resurrect it?
Title: Re: Parkour Vs. Freerunning: Once and For All Article
Post by: CoolOutsider on November 07, 2011, 11:46:14 AM
i always keep it simple:

Pakour = going from A to B in most efficient way possible

Freerunning = Parkour+creativity

i personally prefer and practice Parkour in it's simplest form, that's just the way i like it.....and i do respect other forms and especially free running and i do enjoy it and i praise who do it :-)...nice article btw.