American Parkour Forum

Parkour and Freerunning => Parkour And Freerunning => Topic started by: Cody Bolen on December 01, 2010, 11:10:16 PM

Title: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Cody Bolen on December 01, 2010, 11:10:16 PM
Hey everyone. This is just a little heart to heart I'd like to have with you guys. I know a lot of you hold parkour close to your hearts not just as an activity, but along with the philosophies that pertain to the art, but that's not me. I got into movement because it looked like fun, and I was right. Honestly I'm tired of hearing that because you associate a lifestyle with the disicpline that you are somehow superior to those who don't.

In my opion the philosophies you associate with parkour are like religions. Everyone has some sort of belief, but no one belief is considered correct by all. I'm sick of being told the philosophy will come with maturity, and also of hearing that since I don't have a philosophy of my own that I'm a begginer or I am ignorant.

In my humble opinion Parkour was developed by some kids who had some spare time and wanted to have some fun. They ended up enjoying what they did and it spread from there. I know that my little synopsis is over simplified, but meh that's pretty much the jist of what I'm getting at. Not everything has to be about the mental and (I guess) spiritual side of things. I'm sure that there are people like me who do this solely for the fun, not because it's made them a better person, gotten them fame, or made them some money.


Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: daggerx222 on December 01, 2010, 11:27:06 PM
i do it because its stimulating.
I have never felt more alive than when overcoming my "challenges" with only my body and mind.
So many things i have looked at, thinking i have hit my limit. then i would come back to see i can pass that and keep going.
I do it because i feel so accomplished when i do a new movement, jump a new distance, learn a new technique.
I also have never found more fun than just having complete control over my own body.
"Jump from here, flip in this way, land there, on that leg, and so on"

Every new trick is like a new super power, and we can hone them and combine them together and strengthen them just by wanting to and taking the time to get better. Thats what's badass.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 02, 2010, 12:00:29 AM
You mean I can't declare my altruism at your expense?  :-Sarcasm
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Jordan Strybos on December 02, 2010, 12:20:50 AM
Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOYKME-WOZo), if you haven't seen it already. And pay specific attention to what he says around 2:04.

The more you invest in any art form or sport, the more you will see it (or at least certain aspects of it) relate to other things in your life. I'm not saying that it is important to develop your own philosophy and reasoning for your movement (as he says earlier, the monkey would reply simply by saying 'why are you NOT moving?'), but I am saying that there are plenty of mental lessons to also be learned from this discipline. It is simply up to you whether you choose to open your mind up to them or not. The choice is yours, and nobody here has the right to judge you based on your personal ideas.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Alex Melusky on December 02, 2010, 03:19:39 AM
Since everyone is different, we all have different experiences. A lot of people see parkour as something fun to do and do not delve in the the "deeper" side of things. Other people see it as the complete opposite. Personally, I see it as a little of both, for there is always time for play and seriousness.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Macgyver 0. on December 02, 2010, 05:28:50 AM
Quote
Since everyone is different, we all have different experiences. A lot of people see parkour as something fun to do and do not delve in the the "deeper" side of things. Other people see it as the complete opposite. Personally, I see it as a little of both, for there is always time for play and seriousness.

Some people parkour when they dont think its fun but rather for philosophy? Ugh.

I was skeptical when everyone kept explaining about the  philosophy behind this art of movement. I thought I would somehow find it....but I never saw it. I greatly respect parkour, not like other adrenal-junkie activities. I see it more as a great way to stay in shape, be different, and have fun doing it. But due to my training I WOULD consider it a discipline, with constant challenges in the way and consistent training. but to each his own.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam C on December 02, 2010, 06:19:20 AM
Hey everyone. This is just a little heart to heart I'd like to have with you guys. I know a lot of you hold parkour close to your hearts not just as an activity, but along with the philosophies that pertain to the art, but that's not me. I got into movement because it looked like fun, and I was right. Honestly I'm tired of hearing that because you associate a lifestyle with the disicpline that you are somehow superior to those who don't.

In my opion the philosophies you associate with parkour are like religions. Everyone has some sort of belief, but no one belief is considered correct by all. I'm sick of being told the philosophy will come with maturity, and also of hearing that since I don't have a philosophy of my own that I'm a begginer or I am ignorant.

In my humble opinion Parkour was developed by some kids who had some spare time and wanted to have some fun. They ended up enjoying what they did and it spread from there. I know that my little synopsis is over simplified, but meh that's pretty much the jist of what I'm getting at. Not everything has to be about the mental and (I guess) spiritual side of things. I'm sure that there are people like me who do this solely for the fun, not because it's made them a better person, gotten them fame, or made them some money.




Not to be rude, Cody, but why does this thread exist? People aren't going to change their view of parkour simply because you're irritated by something that shouldn't be a big deal. If it bugs you; ignore it.
 
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Travis Graves on December 02, 2010, 08:39:34 AM

In my opion the philosophies you associate with parkour are like religions. Everyone has some sort of belief, but no one belief is considered correct by all. I'm sick of being told the philosophy will come with maturity, and also of hearing that since I don't have a philosophy of my own that I'm a begginer or I am ignorant.

In my humble opinion Parkour was developed by some kids who had some spare time and wanted to have some fun. They ended up enjoying what they did and it spread from there. I know that my little synopsis is over simplified, but meh that's pretty much the jist of what I'm getting at. Not everything has to be about the mental and (I guess) spiritual side of things. I'm sure that there are people like me who do this solely for the fun, not because it's made them a better person, gotten them fame, or made them some money.


That's in interesting philosophy you've developed.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Jordan Strybos on December 02, 2010, 09:10:07 AM
Not to be rude, Cody, but why does this thread exist? People aren't going to change their view of parkour simply because you're irritated by something that shouldn't be a big deal. If it bugs you; ignore it.

I think he just wanted to get other's peoples opinions on the point that he has.

This is just a little heart to heart I'd like to have with you guys.

There's no need to get upset about a thread, if you don't like it, just ignore it! :)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam C on December 02, 2010, 09:26:21 AM
I think he just wanted to get other's peoples opinions on the point that he has.

There's no need to get upset about a thread, if you don't like it, just ignore it! :)

LOL
 Nice, Jordan. XD
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andrew Hull on December 02, 2010, 09:27:31 AM
Hey if you want to get less out of your experiences thats your deal.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Stevie Leifheit on December 02, 2010, 10:33:18 AM
Hey if you want to get less out of your experiences thats your deal.

Andrew don't treat him that way. If thats what he wants, cool. We all should be able to do parkour for the reasons we want to do it, without feeling like we are less than others (or make others fell like they are less).

Cody, do it for the reasons you want to man. If you enjoy parkour for where your at in it, then thats awesome. Remember, we can't please everyone. Just because others say things about how they are getting more out of it than you doesn't mean you have to listen.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Macgyver 0. on December 02, 2010, 11:22:21 AM
Quote
Hey if you want to get less out of your experiences thats your deal.
That was a little uncalled for don't you think?  ;)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Shae Perkins on December 02, 2010, 01:38:53 PM
Hey if you want to get less out of your experiences thats your deal.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself, son. I think this is exactly what he was talking about when he said:
Honestly I'm tired of hearing that because you associate a lifestyle with the disicpline that you are somehow superior to those who don't.


I wish I could like threads.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Alex Melusky on December 02, 2010, 02:22:12 PM
Some people parkour when they dont think its fun but rather for philosophy? Ugh.

I meant that some people train very seriously as compared to people who have "more" fun. For example: Guys from PK Gen. train in nice and structured manners whereas others, like Dante Grazioli, train in a less organized manner. I'm not sure if this is making any sense, but I hope my point got across.

(The people used in the examples were just the first ones that came to mind. Hopefully no one gets offended from it.)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Cody Bolen on December 02, 2010, 03:42:05 PM
I understand everyones viewpoints and I respect them for having them. Travis I guess you're right in saying that my philosophy is fun. And I'm saying I'm "right" with Parkour being about fun, no one is truly "right". I created this thread to get the word out that I'm tired of hearing that my experiences are less than those with their "all knowing" minds. I'm by no means saying I take no lessons from Parkour, but I don't focus on lesson learning as a main focal point of my training.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Jordan Strybos on December 02, 2010, 04:48:21 PM
I meant that some people train very seriously as compared to people who have "more" fun. For example: Guys from PK Gen. train in nice and structured manners whereas others, like Dante Grazioli, train in a less organized manner. I'm not sure if this is making any sense, but I hope my point got across.

(The people used in the examples were just the first ones that came to mind. Hopefully no one gets offended from it.)

Actually, PKGen isn't always structured. Sure, they have some of the most intense and physically demanding training sessions when they want to (I know this because I've been through them), but at the same time, they can still play. They just choose not to call their 'playing' training. When they want to train, they push their bodies to the limit, physically and mentally, for about an hour or so, and then rest. Trust me, goofing off with the guys from UK were some of the funniest memories I have. They know how to have fun, but they also know that when they want to buckle down and be truly productive and hard working, they have some of the best methods of doing so.

Also, I acknowledge your last statement, and I wasn't taking offense to what you said, merely trying to clarify a point that I believe that you were making (that PKGen train seriously and Dante trains in a less serious way, exclusively).
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: WoodlandGhillie on December 02, 2010, 05:17:22 PM
I personally play the soccer season because my friends are on it. I enjoy being with those guys, feeling some sort of "place" when playing the game. I don't get any serious mental thought out of it, (other than how it's comparable to war. People need to relax and enjoy the game, not act like it's the end of the world. /rant) however I do from parkour.

"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."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEOQ6b3waqo

Watch that and tell me what you think man. Best of luck with finding what you need.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: matcauthon12 on December 02, 2010, 06:35:54 PM
I choose not to fall.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: hfksla on December 02, 2010, 07:28:14 PM
Hey if you want to get less out of your experiences thats your deal.
I don't think it was uncalled for at all. It is an honest statement. For many of us, parkour not only brings a physical aspect, but also a mental healing. It sure as hell has changed me for the better, physically and mentally.
I'm gonna take Hull's side on this one ;)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Alec Furtado on December 02, 2010, 08:14:30 PM
I don't think most people think themselves to be superior...

I think the practice of parkour, with some help from the community, creates a strong sense of fulfillment -> fulfillment is usually seen as a good thing and it seems as though many others lack this -> there is a desire to help others reach the same fulfillment that they've experienced (for those people who have) -> possible appearance of a sense of superiority.

Whether you follow that logic at all, I can assure anyone that any real instance of superiority was done with the best intentions.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: G. Will. on December 02, 2010, 09:28:29 PM
I agree with Alec, but you also have to consider something else. If someone is truly passionate about something they're probably not going to warm up to someone who's in it for kicks. The sad brutal truth is that they may just plain not like you.

It really is likely though that you're picking up on a dissapointment that you don't get the what they do out of parkour. If they're blatantly acting superior I'd call them on it if I were you. I'd do it as politely as possible and in a question (easier/safer to make them explain themselves than to accuse them of something).
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: max eisenberg on December 03, 2010, 08:10:28 AM
Hey everyone. This is just a little heart to heart I'd like to have with you guys. I know a lot of you hold parkour close to your hearts not just as an activity, but along with the philosophies that pertain to the art, but that's not me. I got into movement because it looked like fun, and I was right. Honestly I'm tired of hearing that because you associate a lifestyle with the disicpline that you are somehow superior to those who don't.

In my opion the philosophies you associate with parkour are like religions. Everyone has some sort of belief, but no one belief is considered correct by all. I'm sick of being told the philosophy will come with maturity, and also of hearing that since I don't have a philosophy of my own that I'm a begginer or I am ignorant.

In my humble opinion Parkour was developed by some kids who had some spare time and wanted to have some fun. They ended up enjoying what they did and it spread from there. I know that my little synopsis is over simplified, but meh that's pretty much the jist of what I'm getting at. Not everything has to be about the mental and (I guess) spiritual side of things. I'm sure that there are people like me who do this solely for the fun, not because it's made them a better person, gotten them fame, or made them some money.




it will come with time, i used to feel too macho or something to accept it.

you probably already have a philosophy about it all, hence why you continue to move. its not really about using my words to form your own thought, its about asking questions to yourself and honestly answering them. when you really think about questions like why you are doing this truthfully you may come up with other things than "fun".

if anyone acts superior to you because they use someone elses words as their own, they miss the point of it all. and dont act superior because you dont share these views.



Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Shae Perkins on December 03, 2010, 12:05:33 PM
I choose not to fall.

LOL! Ok, this guy wins, every time, forever.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam C on December 03, 2010, 02:52:04 PM
How did I not spot that?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 03, 2010, 05:21:35 PM
then just say you do freerunning and its no big deal.  parkour is a training discipline with a philosophy. if something doesn't fit your ideology then its just not for you. 
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: MThomasfreerun on December 03, 2010, 06:19:04 PM
then just say you do freerunning and its no big deal.  parkour is a training discipline with a philosophy. if something doesn't fit your ideology then its just not for you. 

a) I think this is missing the point of the OP
b) I resent the implication that parkour is somehow superior to free running; even if you subscribe to the idea that they are different (which I don't) neither is superior or inferior.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andrew Hull on December 03, 2010, 07:10:07 PM
a) I think this is missing the point of the OP
b) I resent the implication that parkour is somehow superior to free running; even if you subscribe to the idea that they are different (which I don't) neither is superior or inferior.
I didn't see an implication of superiority, just of variation. I think in this discussion that its the people who don't see a philosophy in parkour putting those who do in a position of superiority. People who practice the philosophy are for the most part being supportive of him doing his own thing.

With the exception of me of course.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Cody Bolen on December 03, 2010, 10:23:23 PM
I didn't see an implication of superiority, just of variation. I think in this discussion that its the people who don't see a philosophy in parkour putting those who do in a position of superiority. People who practice the philosophy are for the most part being supportive of him doing his own thing.

With the exception of me of course.

Well we have that kinda intresting relationship where we're united by movement but seperated in thought.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 04, 2010, 05:35:28 PM
 and me.   if your the kind of person that doesn't take mottos like “to be and to last” or “be strong to be useful to others” to heart, then your not the kind of person i like to associate myself with.  also i find people who are more interested in fun than anything else to be childish.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Jordan Strybos on December 04, 2010, 06:59:56 PM
and me.   if your the kind of person that doesn't take mottos like “to be and to last” or “be strong to be useful to others” to heart, then your not the kind of person i like to associate myself with.  also i find people who are more interested in fun than anything else to be childish.

Easy. I know you most likely didn't intend for it to sound like that, but you're pretty much calling Cody out here. Just be careful as to not wander into the 'personal attack' zone...respectfully agree to disagree :)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Kyle on December 04, 2010, 10:15:36 PM
and me.   if your the kind of person that doesn't take mottos like “to be and to last” or “be strong to be useful to others” to heart, then your not the kind of person i like to associate myself with.  also i find people who are more interested in fun than anything else to be childish.

I consider those who take life too seriously childish. Fair enough? Parkour is and will never be a world changing experience that will end world peace, restore the balance of nature, or do anything useful for that matter. The attempt to make yourself feel self-important by labeling your FUN activity as some sort of spiritual revelation is silly. Do I mind that you take it in a philosphical way? No. Do what you will. But not liking somebody, simply because they don't have the same deep feeling about some quotes about an activity that is FUN by nature and does nothing for the community? Pfft. Some of you guys need to get your priorities straight.

I have a lot of things in life that I must take seriously. Things that both mature and grow me. I don't need parkour to do that, even if it might in some small way. I do it for fun. If it wasn't fun, I wouldn't do it. Either would most of you. Even the one's who claim otherwise.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andrew Hull on December 04, 2010, 10:50:22 PM
Did ANYTHING you just said make sense?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Elet ET on December 05, 2010, 12:15:47 AM
"Shut the f#ck up and Run"
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Alex Melusky on December 05, 2010, 06:25:02 AM
Did ANYTHING you just said make sense?

It made complete sense...

What he is basically saying is this: He considers those who take life seriously to be childish and believes that not liking someone because they think differently about a discipline you both train is not the way to go. He says most people would not do parkour if it was not fun, which I actually agree with. Would someone invest thousands of hours into something they do not find all that interesting?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: max eisenberg on December 05, 2010, 06:51:07 AM
I consider those who take life too seriously childish. Fair enough? Parkour is and will never be a world changing experience that will end world peace, restore the balance of nature, or do anything useful for that matter. The attempt to make yourself feel self-important by labeling your FUN activity as some sort of spiritual revelation is silly. Do I mind that you take it in a philosphical way? No. Do what you will. But not liking somebody, simply because they don't have the same deep feeling about some quotes about an activity that is FUN by nature and does nothing for the community? Pfft. Some of you guys need to get your priorities straight.

I have a lot of things in life that I must take seriously. Things that both mature and grow me. I don't need parkour to do that, even if it might in some small way. I do it for fun. If it wasn't fun, I wouldn't do it. Either would most of you. Even the one's who claim otherwise.

talk to kerbie in iceland about the parkour scene and its history. parkour carries quite a power with it, no matter where it is taken it can change the world.

why do all the people living by their subconscious think we conscious and sometimes deeper thinkers, are holding ourselves in a higher esteem?

you kids have it all wrong, we are not special, we REALIZE THAT. in fact we seek to improve OURSELVES every day. we get stronger to be more useful as a servant to the public when needed, just the other day i helped a struggling mother carry her baby stroller up a few flights of stairs.... why?

because its part of my parkour philosophy, i practice to be able to move swiftly with courage and sensitivity. i train to be strong enough to help someone in need.

oh and life is VERY serious. its quite stupid to think otherwise. if you werent in a man made world you would be watching your back every second to protect what little life you have from 500 pound bears. just because you have the luxury of your species over running the world does not mean the struggle of life is not going on all around you.

Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 05, 2010, 07:14:41 AM
I consider those who take life too seriously childish. Fair enough? Parkour is and will never be a world changing experience that will end world peace, restore the balance of nature, or do anything useful for that matter. The attempt to make yourself feel self-important by labeling your FUN activity as some sort of spiritual revelation is silly. Do I mind that you take it in a philosphical way? No. Do what you will. But not liking somebody, simply because they don't have the same deep feeling about some quotes about an activity that is FUN by nature and does nothing for the community? Pfft. Some of you guys need to get your priorities straight.

I have a lot of things in life that I must take seriously. Things that both mature and grow me. I don't need parkour to do that, even if it might in some small way. I do it for fun. If it wasn't fun, I wouldn't do it. Either would most of you. Even the one's who claim otherwise.

fair enough, but i never said i take anything too seriously.  i have plenty of fun while training parkour and in life in general, but it is not my primary goal. it is a byproduct of self improvement and usefulness.  also parkour is not spiritual for me. maybe you should learn the difference between philosophy and religion.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 05, 2010, 07:32:17 AM
Some of the posts in here are getting a little vicious.  If your philosophy doesn't include respecting those who don't share it, maybe it's not so noble after all.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: BryanG on December 05, 2010, 08:17:08 AM
There's a couple of points I want to share;

-It doesn't matter what is "childish". If a random person from the public was selected, and watched ANY of us train, he'd say we were being childish, because he can only see us jumping around. As long as you have a good reason behind what you do, whether that be enjoyment, self improvement, both, or something different, then you aren't "childish" at all, you're progressing down the path you have chosen.
-No two people practice parkour in the same way. For that reason, people who argue that training differently to them is wrong, is calling the rest of the community wrong. Sure, jumping 20 foot onto concrete a hundred times a day is probably not the right way to go about training physically, and will set you up for massive, massive problems later on, but if there's a more important reason you make those jumps, than IN THEORY you're training isn't wrong. I personally can't think of a good reason to do what I just said, though, it was just an extreme example :P
-What's wrong with "fun", anyway? Being absolutely serious about everything takes away what I'm here to achieve at least; happiness. I wouldn't have had the same good times over the three and a half years of training I've had if I didn't see the fun side of things. At the same time, however, I don't feel content if enjoyment is my only reward, so I do train a bit more seriously. "Fun" is fun, anyway; can't argue with that ;)

Overall, this thread won't get anywhere, because no-one will completely agree on why we should train. So instead of wasting time, thinking of come-backs for people who disagree with you, why not get out and train for whatever you want, whether that be "fun" or "self improvement"?

Just a couple of thoughts :)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: mickeynotmouse on December 05, 2010, 08:53:12 AM
To the poster of the thread: I think you've gotten the wrong idea.  Nobody is saying that if you do parkour you have to join some kind of cult where you believe in all the things traceurs believe... No way! That would be kind of weird :P

All this about the "Parkour philosophy" and etc. Are just another way of saying what has existed for years: When you adopt a physical training regimen that involves discipline, (Like parkour or ANY martial art) it gives more to you than just technique or conditioning or whatever; it makes you grow as a person. You can learn things from your training: You become less agressive, because your energy is being used up in your training, so you don't have any excess in you. You become more goal-oriented, because that's how the training is. You become... Well, there are lots of other things but I don't want to mention them so you don't go tl;dr when you see a giant block of text :P

So, in short what I'm saying is:  It's not that you HAVE to adopt a religion-like set of morals and ideas, it's that there are a few common good things that you may or may not learn from your training :)




AND, let's not forget!  We All do it for fun!  :)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Alec Furtado on December 05, 2010, 10:53:05 AM
Some of the posts in here are getting a little vicious.  If your philosophy doesn't include respecting those who don't share it, maybe it's not so noble after all.
Oh snap.


How 'bout this... read all of the previous posts fully, write what you want to write, and then wait like 15 minutes before you post it. At lot of these responses are actually pretty similar.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Cody Bolen on December 05, 2010, 11:20:58 AM
This thread was not asking for help and wasn't intended to change anyone's own philosophy. It was made to shed light on the fact that in almost every thread someone is attacked because they don't feel the same way you do. I really wish some of you would meet and train with me, maybe then you would stop calling me immature, unexperienced, and short sighted.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: mickeynotmouse on December 05, 2010, 11:27:24 AM
Did you even read the replies??
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Shae Perkins on December 05, 2010, 11:47:58 AM
and me.   if your the kind of person that doesn't take mottos like “to be and to last” or “be strong to be useful to others” to heart, then your not the kind of person i like to associate myself with.  also i find people who are more interested in fun than anything else to be childish.
I didn't see an implication of superiority, just of variation. I think in this discussion that its the people who don't see a philosophy in parkour putting those who do in a position of superiority. People who practice the philosophy are for the most part being supportive of him doing his own thing.

With the exception of me of course.

Minus 10 points from Gryffindor for both of you. Maybe I have misinterpreted these comments, but are both of you insisting that you are looking down on someone for the why they choose to jump around on things???

EDIT- Really??
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andy Keller on December 05, 2010, 12:44:08 PM
Minus 10 points from Gryffindor for both of you. Maybe I have misinterpreted these comments, but are both of you insisting that you are looking down on someone for the why they choose to jump around on things???

EDIT- Really??

From what I understand, Chris's post was not referring to parkour at all.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Cody Bolen on December 05, 2010, 01:39:53 PM
Did you even read the replies??

Yes
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Kyle on December 05, 2010, 01:41:25 PM
because its part of my parkour philosophy, i practice to be able to move swiftly with courage and sensitivity. i train to be strong enough to help someone in need.

oh and life is VERY serious. its quite stupid to think otherwise. if you werent in a man made world you would be watching your back every second to protect what little life you have from 500 pound bears. just because you have the luxury of your species over running the world does not mean the struggle of life is not going on all around you.



First off. You need a parkour philosphy in order to help others? That was me long before I learned parkour. Parkour didn't need to teach me that. I would help others when I can, without parkour. If you need the PARKOUR philosphy in order to obtain this, then you're doing it wrong and are, again, taking parkour far too seriously.

And no, life isn't that serious. It's quite stupid to think it is. You talk about the wild like you know anything about it. I'm a soldier and even I think life is and should be about fun. Otherwise, you're wasting your time. Also, don't bullshit about having to look over your shoulder for 'bears'. That's a joke. Bears are one of the last things you need to worry about and if you knew anything about wilderness survival, you'd realize that - once you knew what you were doing - it can be quite fun. Even relaxing. I sure as hell know it is for me. Even more relaxing than my 'man made' environments, at times, especially with all of the drama we create.

There's very few people in the world that can honestly call their life a struggle. With an obvious exception to being shot at, my life is rarely, if ever, a struggle.

PS. In my post, I did acknowledge that there ARE things in life one must take seriously, only that the things we do take seriously - or too seriously - is ridiculous. Like how we've all been over-dramatizing the purpose of parkour.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: mickeynotmouse on December 05, 2010, 01:50:18 PM
^^

lol, chill
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Kyle on December 05, 2010, 01:53:59 PM
^^

lol, chill

I know. I apologize.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Cody Bolen on December 05, 2010, 05:35:15 PM
I know. I apologize.

Don't apologize, I liked what you said, and it needed to be said. Great addition to the thread if you ask me.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Macgyver 0. on December 05, 2010, 05:40:40 PM
Quote
There's very few people in the world that can honestly call their life a struggle. With an obvious exception to being shot at, my life is rarely, if ever, a struggle.
Quote
I sure as hell know it is for me. Even more relaxing than my 'man made' environments, at times, especially with all of the drama we create.

love this  :P
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Christian Greene on December 05, 2010, 05:56:48 PM
First off. You need a parkour philosphy in order to help others? That was me long before I learned parkour. Parkour didn't need to teach me that. I would help others when I can, without parkour. If you need the PARKOUR philosphy in order to obtain this, then you're doing it wrong and are, again, taking parkour far too seriously.

And no, life isn't that serious. It's quite stupid to think it is. You talk about the wild like you know anything about it. I'm a soldier and even I think life is and should be about fun. Otherwise, you're wasting your time. Also, don't bullshit about having to look over your shoulder for 'bears'. That's a joke. Bears are one of the last things you need to worry about and if you knew anything about wilderness survival, you'd realize that - once you knew what you were doing - it can be quite fun. Even relaxing. I sure as hell know it is for me. Even more relaxing than my 'man made' environments, at times, especially with all of the drama we create.

There's very few people in the world that can honestly call their life a struggle. With an obvious exception to being shot at, my life is rarely, if ever, a struggle.

PS. In my post, I did acknowledge that there ARE things in life one must take seriously, only that the things we do take seriously - or too seriously - is ridiculous. Like how we've all been over-dramatizing the purpose of parkour.


I agree with a lot of this. That being said, I don't think it's necessarily bad to feel enlightened or gain a sense of purpose through parkour - that is why I train, at least. I don't think taking parkour 'seriously' is a bad thing. If nobody took it seriously, I don't think we would be quite where we are today. However, I do think that some people might get their heads up in the clouds at times, and we definitely shouldn't look down on others just because they don't look at parkour the same way as you do - it's different for everyone, and just BECAUSE you gain a sense of purpose or you 'take it seriously' doesn't make you any better than someone who is a little more lighthearted about it or trains because they have fun (i feel silly typing that, because really, WHO doesn't have fun). if parkour doesn't give them that sense of purpose or enlightenment or whatever reason you train for, then that's okay too.

We just need to focus on our own reasons for training, and not hold our reasonings above others' heads and tell them that we're right.

Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: max eisenberg on December 05, 2010, 06:24:46 PM
First off. You need a parkour philosphy in order to help others? That was me long before I learned parkour. Parkour didn't need to teach me that. I would help others when I can, without parkour. If you need the PARKOUR philosphy in order to obtain this, then you're doing it wrong and are, again, taking parkour far too seriously.

And no, life isn't that serious. It's quite stupid to think it is. You talk about the wild like you know anything about it. I'm a soldier and even I think life is and should be about fun. Otherwise, you're wasting your time. Also, don't bullshit about having to look over your shoulder for 'bears'. That's a joke. Bears are one of the last things you need to worry about and if you knew anything about wilderness survival, you'd realize that - once you knew what you were doing - it can be quite fun. Even relaxing. I sure as hell know it is for me. Even more relaxing than my 'man made' environments, at times, especially with all of the drama we create.

There's very few people in the world that can honestly call their life a struggle. With an obvious exception to being shot at, my life is rarely, if ever, a struggle.

PS. In my post, I did acknowledge that there ARE things in life one must take seriously, only that the things we do take seriously - or too seriously - is ridiculous. Like how we've all been over-dramatizing the purpose of parkour.

no, its a part of my philosophy. another reason to add to my motivation to train harder and longer.

and life is a struggle, you cant be thinking about what im saying. just the other week i saw a spider take refuge in the shittiest spot to hang out ever just to escape the pouring rain. obviously your life isnt a struggle, neither is mine but, life ITSELF is a struggle. murphy's law dude, whatever can go wrong will.

i wasnt talking about the "life" you live, or the "life" i live but all life on this planet. thats one thing ive noticed about people who dont think philosophically. they forget to look at the simple big picture sometimes.

oh and parkour has no purpose, just like you or me. its up to us to assign any purpose to it. i think you might misunderstand the words i use, its not some mystical kung fu movie style dramatics. just compared to what ive been doing with my life up until parkour, parkour is special. i decide to take it deeper because im a deep person. in case you havnt noticed parkour is the one thing man has "created" that isnt created by man. it was created by nature, by our bodies evolving to this form.

while everyone plays foot ball with man made rules and goals, parkour is nature at work. thus it is different, it is special and it has more meaning than some other things.

 its not about parkour being a way to a better life, its about realizing through parkour you learn the lessons you need to live a better life.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Important Somebody on December 05, 2010, 06:47:59 PM
This Non-Philosopher business is a non-issue. You have failed to acknowledged something of key importance -- Parkour is at its core a philosophy. If you are indeed doing Parkour, then you are acknowledging this philosophy. Whether you accept or reject the philosophy is of no import: it is not going away, and it is not changing. Furthermore, if you are calling what you do Parkour and are giving it a different philosophy, then what you are doing is not Parkour at all.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Austin "iSHREDbanez" on December 05, 2010, 06:48:42 PM
while everyone plays foot ball with man made rules and goals, parkour is nature at work. thus it is different, it is special and it has more meaning than some other things.

But we still need ways to tell of certain techniques.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Cody Bolen on December 05, 2010, 07:39:08 PM
no, its a part of my philosophy. another reason to add to my motivation to train harder and longer.

and life is a struggle, you cant be thinking about what im saying. just the other week i saw a spider take refuge in the shittiest spot to hang out ever just to escape the pouring rain. obviously your life isnt a struggle, neither is mine but, life ITSELF is a struggle. murphy's law dude, whatever can go wrong will.

i wasnt talking about the "life" you live, or the "life" i live but all life on this planet. thats one thing ive noticed about people who dont think philosophically. they forget to look at the simple big picture sometimes.

oh and parkour has no purpose, just like you or me. its up to us to assign any purpose to it. i think you might misunderstand the words i use, its not some mystical kung fu movie style dramatics. just compared to what ive been doing with my life up until parkour, parkour is special. i decide to take it deeper because im a deep person. in case you havnt noticed parkour is the one thing man has "created" that isnt created by man. it was created by nature, by our bodies evolving to this form.

while everyone plays foot ball with man made rules and goals, parkour is nature at work. thus it is different, it is special and it has more meaning than some other things.

 its not about parkour being a way to a better life, its about realizing through parkour you learn the lessons you need to live a better life.


It's not the one thing, martial arts,  and other sports could say the same things.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Cody Bolen on December 05, 2010, 07:42:21 PM
This Non-Philosopher business is a non-issue. You have failed to acknowledged something of key importance -- Parkour is at its core a philosophy. If you are indeed doing Parkour, then you are acknowledging this philosophy. Whether you accept or reject the philosophy is of no import: it is not going away, and it is not changing. Furthermore, if you are calling what you do Parkour and are giving it a different philosophy, then what you are doing is not Parkour at all.

Says who? Who said parkour is for this or that?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andy Keller on December 05, 2010, 08:15:53 PM
Says who? Who said parkour is for this or that?

The founders say that.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 05, 2010, 08:42:26 PM
The founders say that.

I never find that argument convincing.  In logic it's the "appeal to authority" fallacy.  Yes, they are clearly experts and they have a say and their opinions should be considered more carefully than the opinions of others because of their greater experience.  However, being awesome at the physical side of parkour doesn't mean you're awesome at logic, or philosophy, or writing, or critical thinking. 

Additionally, parkour belongs to all of us, and whether people want it to or not it will evolve and change.  Sometimes for the good, sometimes not.  As it changes, we have the right to re-evaluate things and look at it critically from a new perspective, perhaps not as personally biased as the perspective of the originators.

What I'm saying is I'd think your answer would be more relevant to me if it was "The founders said that, and myself and many of the others here still feel that way."
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: max eisenberg on December 05, 2010, 08:46:08 PM
It's not the one thing, martial arts,  and other sports could say the same things.

not entirely what i was saying. martial arts are techniques designed to get a direct result, usually from another human being.

with parkour, there are no forms, no real techniques, just movement adapting to the obstacle and not yourself. martial arts were designed and thought of and put into place by man. parkour was here when we got here, there was no time taken to develop it, it was with us naturally. and all the sports you think of have a ball, or a man made instrument that is vital to the game.

there is nothing else that compares that comes to mind. i also consider climbing, running and the like to be part of parkour thus is parkour.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andy Keller on December 05, 2010, 08:49:27 PM
I never find that argument convincing.  In logic it's the "appeal to authority" fallacy.  Yes, they are clearly experts and they have a say and their opinions should be considered more carefully than the opinions of others because of their greater experience.  However, being awesome at the physical side of parkour doesn't mean you're awesome at logic, or philosophy, or writing, or critical thinking. 

Additionally, parkour belongs to all of us, and whether people want it to or not it will evolve and change.  Sometimes for the good, sometimes not.  As it changes, we have the right to re-evaluate things and look at it critically from a new perspective, perhaps not as personally biased as the perspective of the originators.

What I'm saying is I'd think your answer would be more relevant to me if it was "The founders said that, and myself and many of the others here still feel that way."

Good call. I should not have been so brief in my response.

I agree that parkour belongs to all of us, and that it evolves with its practitioners. The problems arise when we try to map the borders of what is parkour and what is not. We all can agree on the extremes, but it's when things get so close to those borders, which are created by individual practitioners in their own minds, that disagreements arise.

To some, parkour at its root is a movement-based philosophy, and to others it is purposeful movement, but not philosophy.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 05, 2010, 08:56:23 PM
This Non-Philosopher business is a non-issue. You have failed to acknowledged something of key importance -- Parkour is at its core a philosophy. If you are indeed doing Parkour, then you are acknowledging this philosophy. Whether you accept or reject the philosophy is of no import: it is not going away, and it is not changing. Furthermore, if you are calling what you do Parkour and are giving it a different philosophy, then what you are doing is not Parkour at all.
The founders say that.

yes and yes.
I never find that argument convincing.  In logic it's the "appeal to authority" fallacy.  Yes, they are clearly experts and they have a say and their opinions should be considered more carefully than the opinions of others because of their greater experience.  However, being awesome at the physical side of parkour doesn't mean you're awesome at logic, or philosophy, or writing, or critical thinking. 

Additionally, parkour belongs to all of us, and whether people want it to or not it will evolve and change.  Sometimes for the good, sometimes not.  As it changes, we have the right to re-evaluate things and look at it critically from a new perspective, perhaps not as personally biased as the perspective of the originators.

What I'm saying is I'd think your answer would be more relevant to me if it was "The founders said that, and myself and many of the others here still feel that way."
no, you can't change the definition of something just because you or someone doesn't like it.  if they don't like it they should not use it to define what they do.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Cody Bolen on December 05, 2010, 08:58:05 PM
not entirely what i was saying. martial arts are techniques designed to get a direct result, usually from another human being.

with parkour, there are no forms, no real techniques, just movement adapting to the obstacle and not yourself. martial arts were designed and thought of and put into place by man. parkour was here when we got here, there was no time taken to develop it, it was with us naturally. and all the sports you think of have a ball, or a man made instrument that is vital to the game.

there is nothing else that compares that comes to mind. i also consider climbing, running and the like to be part of parkour thus is parkour.

First of isn't parkour about adapting my body to the obstacles I encounter. We do have techniques and movement does take time to develop just like everything else in the entire world... And I thought running and climbing couldn't be parkour because people don't have that all important parkour mindset when doing it?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Dylan Antonsen on December 05, 2010, 09:11:45 PM
I just got off work and I apologize for not reading this thread fully, I need my sleep and I justw anted to say not knowing if it's been said or not, but
"In my humble opinion Parkour was developed by some kids who had some spare time and wanted to have some fun. They ended up enjoying what they did and it spread from there. I know that my little synopsis is over simplified, but meh that's pretty much the jist of what I'm getting at. Not everything has to be about the mental and (I guess) spiritual side of things. I'm sure that there are people like me who do this solely for the fun, not because it's made them a better person, gotten them fame, or made them some money. "
Is a philosophy.
So you have philosophy already about parkour.
So this thread was completely and fully ironic in one way, you saying you have no philosophy about parkour and then stating a philosophy you hold about parkour.

I personally agree with the comments around the ballpark of 'less of an experience', but I don't agree that a philosophy makes it superior.
IMHO, if you have the philosophy most share, but personalized for you, and you really apply it, you will have a shit load more awesome times and
get more out of it for yourself.

Parkour is a tool, you are the master. Like a paintbrush. You can put your entire heart into a painting, be the Leonardo Da Vinci of parkour, or you can just have some fun, be the Jackson Pollock.

either way, you're you, your movement is yours, and you really have some kind of philosophy somewhere whether you realize it or not.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Cody Bolen on December 05, 2010, 09:17:16 PM
Skateboarding was developed and changed from what the founders of that sport intended, just as almost every other sport or disicpline has changed over time.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 05, 2010, 09:54:43 PM
(If this post is too long for you just skip to the last two lines. That's the bit that's important for you :) )

There are many ways to practice Parkour, just like there are many ways to live your life, and there is no objective way to say which is the best.  Each person finds themselves in their own unique situation and they need to decide for themselves what they want to do. I think it's crazy to try and tell others what to do, especially if you are someone who believes in the idea of going your own way as part of the Parkour philosophy. To someone who truly follows this part of the Parkour philosophy, the important thing is that someone is using their own beliefs and desires to forge a path forwards.

Whether you think of your life as a struggle or not is largely a matter of personal philosophy. Whoever you are, there are some things you can do and some things you can't do. Whether you perceive life as being difficult or not depends entirely on how 'what you can do' compares to 'what you want to do'. Anyone's life can be a struggle if they want more than they can have, and equally anyone's life can be easy if they have more than they want. In the modern western world there are thousands of advertising executives devoting their working lives to making us want things we don't have, and this is conditioning our society to think of itself as living in a constant struggle to get the things we 'need'. It affects practically everyone. Most people in our society believe that they are struggling to some extent.

------

Parkour contains great variety. There are as many ways of practicing Parkour as there are practitioners.

How you experience Parkour depends on two things:

1) Who you are: I.e. Your current state of being, what you can do now.
2) What you do: I.e. How you practice Parkour.

Getting over a 5' wall will be a different experience for a person who is 6'5" than for someone who is 4'5". Equally, getting over a 5' wall is a different experience from getting over a 10' wall.

The experience you get varies not only with physical condition, but also to mental condition. Parkour will be experienced differently by people who start with different desires, or different levels of confidence, or different approaches to tasks, or different perceptions of what improvement means, or just generally people who have faced and currently face different obstacles in their lives. Each person will try different things, they will do them in different ways, and they will notice different things.
Parkour is a varied activity and it requires you to use many different aspects of yourself. We don't notice the bits that are easy, but the hard parts stick out. If you can run but not jump, you'll notice changes more with the jumping. If you're confident but unfit, then you'll notice the fitness benefits long before you notice the confidence benefits.


I agree with Kyle, when he says that life is about fun. I think if you trace the intent of any action back far enough you'll discover that all we're really trying to do is to make our lives a little bit happier.

For this reason I agree with people who say that the goal of Parkour is fun. Parkour can be fun activity. Everyone agrees that can be a fun activity, and every single one of us enjoys practicing Parkour. What is fun for one person is not necessarily fun for someone else, but fortunately Parkour contains enough variety to make it fun for all of us. There is variety in the type of movement, or the type of obstacle, or the type of mental challenge, and variety in difficulty, and all of this means there is great variety in the effects.

If you can enjoy just moving through your environment without needing a philosophy then that's great, I'm truly happy for you. I'm happy for anyone that can enjoy themselves. However, we can acknowledge that there are limits to this enjoyment without denying that this enjoyment exists. As we progress through life we find that the things we enjoy change, it's a natural part of living. Tasks come to an end, and as we complete one task we set our sights on the next one.
Excitement and enjoyment comes from doing new things, and we need to keep on doing new things and moving on to the next task to keep getting fun out of the process. The environment contains great variety, but most people will reach a practical limit with moving around physical obstacles eventually, and at that point they will stop enjoying it for it's own sake. There is only so many places we can visit in our lives, and more importantly there is only so much our bodies can do physically.
Parkour is about getting past obstacles and to continue to enjoy Parkour throughout your life you need to find a path where you can keep making progress, where you can keep finding new obstacles and keep getting past them. For most people finding fun through Parkour in the long term means having to keep finding different types of obstacles.

That's a rational argument for the existence of the philosophy. The empirical argument is simple. There is no experienced practitioner who thinks of Parkour as being without a philosophy. There is no one who was involved in creating Parkour who hasn't consistently explained Parkour as more than just moving through the physical environment. The kids that started it just for fun all became adults that practiced it for fun and practicality.
There are many practitioners (new and old, even in this thread) who have gained far more from Parkour than just an ability to move. There are many people, both practitioners and non-practitioners, who have seen the positive effects on both individuals and communities that Parkour has had when other activities have failed.


It boils down to this: The philosophy of Parkour is the part that enables you to keep practicing when practicing gets harder. When you get to that point you either start to adopt the philosophy or you stop practicing Parkour.

If you haven't got to that point yet, stop worrying about it! Get past the wall that's in front of you before you worry about the wall that's behind it.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 05, 2010, 10:35:10 PM
no, you can't change the definition of something just because you or someone doesn't like it.  if they don't like it they should not use it to define what they do.

It's not so binary.  You're making it into "you agree with the founders or you don't."  Why can't I be heavily influenced by them, but feel free to think for myself?

If you ask the founders, they were influenced by things like Spider Man, Jackie Chan, etc.  Me too.  I'm also influenced by the thousands of books I ever read, from Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree to John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, and David Belle, and Sebastien Foucan, and the Yamakasi, and my life experiences, and all of you guys. 

For the record, I don't share the same "non-philosophy" as the OP.  Never have.  I just agree with him that a lot of people act like not sharing the supposedly altruistic philosophic approach to parkour is a great sin.  People do take it as a license to flaunt their "superiority" and it's happened in this thread.  I don't like that.  We should be able to completely disagree about things and still be nice, friendly, warm, and civil to each other.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andrew Hull on December 06, 2010, 05:07:23 AM
I never understood the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. Some people are experts. We use expert witnesses and trust in professional opinion all the time. If you're debating the philosophy or meaning of an activity and you say "The founders say this..." Well... Those people are the founders. They should be the ones rightly able to determine what they intended the meaning to be.

And skateboarding is VERY different than what it used to be for sure. But is that a good thing? I mean, short of martial arts, you will NEVER find a community MORE connected to a spirituality in a sport than surfers. Skateboarding came out of surf culture. But now its nearly a completely technical activity come to represent anti-social behavior. An image only further reinforced by the BILLION dollar marketing and merchandising campaigns that sprung up around it.

If you want parkour to go the way of skateboarding then... well no, I'm sorry I'm not going to let that happen without a fight.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Macgyver 0. on December 06, 2010, 05:41:28 AM
Quote
If you want parkour to go the way of skateboarding then... well no, I'm sorry I'm not going to let that happen without a fight.

I dont think anyone here stated that they WANT it to turn out like skateboarding...I know I dont.
However, even if it DID, you could still train in your own way, with your own meaning and philosophy. No need to follow.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: max eisenberg on December 06, 2010, 07:05:11 AM
First of isn't parkour about adapting my body to the obstacles I encounter. We do have techniques and movement does take time to develop just like everything else in the entire world... And I thought running and climbing couldn't be parkour because people don't have that all important parkour mindset when doing it?

yes but think harder about this. idk about you but these "techniques" you think you "learned" were with me since the beginning. when running at wall i instinctively knew to plant my foot and step up the wall, this doesnt mean it was clean and efficient, parkour gave me a reason to practice accuracy. i also instinctively knew to roll after a drop with momentum, again it wasnt pretty but it was there from the beginning. or a step over/safety vault, or a speed vault.

every natural movement is parkour to me, i dont really care what the founders or anyone else has to say about it. parkour is both an approach to movement as much as the movement/s itself. inbetween every obstacle there is open space, thus running is needed. its the fastest point from A to B, its the most efficient way as well. climbing is certainly a part of parkour, without it climb ups (durr) and things of that nature wouldnt exist.

you really arnt thinking about my original points at all before you post. if it took parkour for you to know to roll and vault and run and jump then thats something else, as for me it was with me from the beginning. i never took a class, i never saw a coach, i never had to go to the store to buy equipment (though i chose to buy shoes). martial arts is close to what im talking about but, it was developed. you dont know how to naturally put someone in an arm bar do you?

seriously though, if you continue to move you already have a philosophy. you have a way of looking at the world, thats all you need. im not sure how you could rightfully deny that to be honest...
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Skills on December 06, 2010, 07:49:02 AM
Just to repeat what has been said many times over in this post...IT IS DIFFERENT FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL!!
That is why we all come up with different movements to overcome a obstacle, by different movement I do not mean "twisty move" rather than "kong" I mean...things like foot placement that aid in YOUR PERSONAL overcoming of obstacles. We all vary in many ways...it may be more proficient for one person and detrimental to another.

and to those silly enough to think or believe that Freerunning is devoid of philosophy are silly, honestly thats sad to hear.

If you read this then the next thing you should do is warmup and then put on those training shoe and go move around!!
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Hopscotch on December 06, 2010, 08:21:51 AM
Hey everyone. This is just a little heart to heart I'd like to have with you guys. I know a lot of you hold parkour close to your hearts not just as an activity, but along with the philosophies that pertain to the art, but that's not me. I got into movement because it looked like fun, and I was right. Honestly I'm tired of hearing that because you associate a lifestyle with the disicpline that you are somehow superior to those who don't.

In my opion the philosophies you associate with parkour are like religions. Everyone has some sort of belief, but no one belief is considered correct by all. I'm sick of being told the philosophy will come with maturity, and also of hearing that since I don't have a philosophy of my own that I'm a begginer or I am ignorant.

In my humble opinion Parkour was developed by some kids who had some spare time and wanted to have some fun. They ended up enjoying what they did and it spread from there. I know that my little synopsis is over simplified, but meh that's pretty much the jist of what I'm getting at. Not everything has to be about the mental and (I guess) spiritual side of things. I'm sure that there are people like me who do this solely for the fun, not because it's made them a better person, gotten them fame, or made them some money.




I don't understand. You seem to be touting intentional ignorance as a virtue. It's fine if you don't (---Edited for clarity) understand the philosophy, but don't say it's not for lack of trying. Philosophy =/= religion; disagreement is caused by lack of understanding, not by actual philosophical inconsistencies. If there is a contradiction, it's in the premises you hold the philosophy to.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 06, 2010, 08:37:50 AM
I never understood the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. Some people are experts. We use expert witnesses and trust in professional opinion all the time. If you're debating the philosophy or meaning of an activity and you say "The founders say this..." Well... Those people are the founders. They should be the ones rightly able to determine what they intended the meaning to be.

I see what you mean.  It's hard to draw the line between what's valid evidence, such as an expert opinion, and what's an appeal to authority fallacy.  To me the difference is that if the argument is simply "they said so" and isn't based on logic, or ignores logical arguments, then it's the fallacy.  For example if you quote a dairy farmer that says "cheese isn't dairy" and that's your only evidence that cheese isn't dairy, it's the fallacy.  You still need logical proofs to back up a statement, even if that statement was made by an expert.

Logical fallacies are arguments that are convincing but not logically sound.  

Also, if you look again, I didn't argue that "the founders'" opinions didn't matter, I just said relying on them alone fails to meet my standard of convincing evidence.

And skateboarding is VERY different than what it used to be for sure. But is that a good thing? I mean, short of martial arts, you will NEVER find a community MORE connected to a spirituality in a sport than surfers. Skateboarding came out of surf culture. But now its nearly a completely technical activity come to represent anti-social behavior. An image only further reinforced by the BILLION dollar marketing and merchandising campaigns that sprung up around it.

If you want parkour to go the way of skateboarding then... well no, I'm sorry I'm not going to let that happen without a fight.

Red herring, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

We're not talking about skateboarding.  Parkour isn't skateboarding.  Skateboarding is the ultimate red herring in any parkour discussion, all it does is pull us off topic.

As to the post hoc, ergo propter hoc: You're assuming that the spiritual disconnect is what caused the consequences you list merely because they happened afterward, although honestly to me you're making a novel claim about all that.  I've never heard the argument before that skateboarding initially had a spiritual component derived from it's roots in surfing.

Is this thread going anywhere?

Cody doesn't think he needs to believe in the same things as everyone else.  You guys say if he doesn't, it's not parkour.  I think everyone knows where everyone stands.  Good points have been made on all sides.  I'm not saying that there's nothing else to say about this, it just seems that people are frustrated right now.  Maybe if everyone stops and thinks for a bit, takes a deep breath before posting, we can all bring some more freshness to this, instead of trying to go point-counterpoint.  

Lol... even I went for the counterpoint thing in this post, so I trust me that I understand wanting to converse and get things right.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andrew Hull on December 06, 2010, 08:53:39 AM
I mentioned skateboarding in direct response to Cody mentioning skateboarding.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 06, 2010, 09:51:48 AM
I mentioned skateboarding in direct response to Cody mentioning skateboarding.

My bad, sorry.

Regardless of who brought it up, let's keep skateboarding (and other horror stories) out of this from here on out.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Dan Elric on December 06, 2010, 01:15:04 PM
I don't know if I consider parkour to have a philosophy after studying philosophy.  Philosophy seeks to answer fundamental problems, typically very hard ones.  I fail to see how parkour is a direct answer to any sort of fundamental problem.

One could retort and say, "But we're asking how to travel from X to Y."  That's really not a philosophical question, but an engineering/physics question.  One could explain in terms of mathematics and bio-mechanics exactly how you should travel from X to Y.  If anything we're disciples of motion and efficiency.

I find traceurs trying to be deep and profound, when philosophy is concerned with neither; it is only concerned with answered fundamental problems.  Instead of an answer, I find many of the "philosophical" points being brought up simple matters of opinion rather than objective truths.  The basis on which they're brought up isn't a rational argument, it is a feeling or instinct about the subject (and therefore a matter of opinion).  Trying to discuss the philosophy of parkour in this manner is like trying to discuss which color is the best color.

In this respect, most of you are not philosophers, you are merely insightful about your relationship with the discipline..

Despite this, there are still some philosophers existing in parkour: the most notable being Châu Belle.  He attempts to answer the fundamental problem of what parkour is by claiming it is a state of mind.  This is only borderline philosophy since no arguments exist to support his conclusion.  However, I believe him to be right, and will attempt to answer the question about what parkour is philosophically later.

----

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy because it asserts that a claim is valid because a figure in authority said so.  An example were to be that if Stephen Hawking claimed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, then it must be true because Stephen Hawking is an authority on the subject.  This doesn't follow so the claim is invalid (not false, invalid).  If Stephen Hawking claimed the opposite (that the Earth revolves around the Sun), then his conclusion is equally invalid, despite being true.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Elet ET on December 06, 2010, 01:38:14 PM
I would like to be someone with whom no one would be ashamed of any part of their self. I would like to be able to regard the actions of others without feeling threatened or becoming defensive, even when they are defensive with me—to see others in the context of their own lives, not my own. I would like to know how to set the right limits on how far i trust others, so i never risk losing my respect for them or my ability to trust. I would like to be able to look those adversaries who should be allies in the eyes and say:
"Like it or not, this is who i am. This is what the world has made of me, and we all must live with the consequences. I cant change the decades of life behind me that have wrought this, only take responsibility for what i am and what i do. I dont want to compete for your moral high ground or anything else. Unless you're prepared to kill everyone who doesnt live up to your standards or else endure this impasse indefinitly, you're going to have to accept me on my own terms, as i hope to accept you. YOU ARE AS RESPONSIBLE AS I AM FOR MAKING WHAT GOES ON BETWEEN US POSITIVE FOR US BOTH--OR FOR THE WORLD OF STRIFE WE WILL SUFFER IN OTHERWISE.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Jordan Strybos on December 06, 2010, 03:14:53 PM
Note: The (total, not just from the quotations on) above post is a direct quote from A Ransom Note About Your Life (http://www.crimethinc.com/tools/downloads/pdfs/harbinger4.pdf), for anyone who was curious like I was ;)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Cody Bolen on December 06, 2010, 03:16:04 PM
I would like to be someone with whom no one would be ashamed of any part of their self. I would like to be able to regard the actions of others without feeling threatened or becoming defensive, even when they are defensive with me—to see others in the context of their own lives, not my own. I would like to know how to set the right limits on how far i trust others, so i never risk losing my respect for them or my ability to trust. I would like to be able to look those adversaries who should be allies in the eyes and say:
"Like it or not, this is who i am. This is what the world has made of me, and we all must live with the consequences. I cant change the decades of life behind me that have wrought this, only take responsibility for what i am and what i do. I dont want to compete for your moral high ground or anything else. Unless you're prepared to kill everyone who doesnt live up to your standards or else endure this impasse indefinitly, you're going to have to accept me on my own terms, as i hope to accept you. YOU ARE AS RESPONSIBLE AS I AM FOR MAKING WHAT GOES ON BETWEEN US POSITIVE FOR US BOTH--OR FOR THE WORLD OF STRIFE WE WILL SUFFER IN OTHERWISE.


<3 <3 <3
Where have you been all my life?!?
You're definatly right.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 06, 2010, 04:18:34 PM
I don't think ways of thinking need to be about fundamental issues to count as philosophy, fundamental ideas are just the most commonly portrayed forms of philosophy. Regardless, I consider the philosophy of Parkour to be concerned with one of the more fundamental aspects of life: Problem solving.

Whatever you think about the general principle of referring to authority, when you are talking about man-made concepts the creator of the concept is the definitive authority. It doesn't work in most other situations, but in this type of situation it is the definitive answer. We have this definitive answer to the question in this thread. Parkour has a philosophy.

We can all discover new things about Parkour, after all each of us has a unique experience of Parkour. What we can't do is 'un-discover' old things we already know about Parkour. :)

The philosophy of Parkour is simple: There is always a way forwards.

This is just a logical expression of the idea of getting past obstacles. It is necessary for Parkour practitioners to think in this way. If you don't think this way then you simply stop when you are faced with difficulties, faced with obstacles. To practice Parkour, you need to get past obstacles, and to get past obstacles you need to believe that you can get past them, otherwise you don't try.
It's also a fundamental lesson of life. Learning doesn't stop, improvement doesn't stop, whatever area you're concerned with. A positive attitude to a problem helps us solve that problem whatever that problem is. The longer we train the more fundamental our training becomes, and the more we see the connections between different types of problem.

The thing that some people seem to miss is that fun is a form of practicality. We all need happiness and enjoyment in our lives, just as much as we need health and fitness. There are those of us who practice just for the immediate fun, there are those of us who practice for the health and fitness. We're all trying to use Parkour in the way that it is useful to us as individuals. We all practice Parkour because it is practical.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 06, 2010, 08:04:32 PM
I don't know if I consider parkour to have a philosophy after studying philosophy.  Philosophy seeks to answer fundamental problems, typically very hard ones.  I fail to see how parkour is a direct answer to any sort of fundamental problem.

One could retort and say, "But we're asking how to travel from X to Y."  That's really not a philosophical question, but an engineering/physics question.  One could explain in terms of mathematics and bio-mechanics exactly how you should travel from X to Y.  If anything we're disciples of motion and efficiency.

I find traceurs trying to be deep and profound, when philosophy is concerned with neither; it is only concerned with answered fundamental problems.  Instead of an answer, I find many of the "philosophical" points being brought up simple matters of opinion rather than objective truths.  The basis on which they're brought up isn't a rational argument, it is a feeling or instinct about the subject (and therefore a matter of opinion).  Trying to discuss the philosophy of parkour in this manner is like trying to discuss which color is the best color.

In this respect, most of you are not philosophers, you are merely insightful about your relationship with the discipline..

Despite this, there are still some philosophers existing in parkour: the most notable being Châu Belle.  He attempts to answer the fundamental problem of what parkour is by claiming it is a state of mind.  This is only borderline philosophy since no arguments exist to support his conclusion.  However, I believe him to be right, and will attempt to answer the question about what parkour is philosophically later.

----

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy because it asserts that a claim is valid because a figure in authority said so.  An example were to be that if Stephen Hawking claimed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, then it must be true because Stephen Hawking is an authority on the subject.  This doesn't follow so the claim is invalid (not false, invalid).  If Stephen Hawking claimed the opposite (that the Earth revolves around the Sun), then his conclusion is equally invalid, despite being true.

I thought I heard once that philosopher translates to friend of thought or something like that. Please correct me if I heard wrong. If I did hear correctly, you seem to be overcomplicating it quite a bit.  If self improvement isn’t a philosophy then I don’t know what is.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: matcauthon12 on December 07, 2010, 06:29:48 AM
I thought I heard once that philosopher translates to friend of thought or something like that. Please correct me if I heard wrong. If I did hear correctly, you seem to be overcomplicating it quite a bit.  If self improvement isn’t a philosophy then I don’t know what is.

Philosophy translates directly from Greek to love of wisdom. Philos=love Sophia=wisdom
P.S. I stand by my previous post in this thread.  ;)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 07, 2010, 07:32:54 AM
ah thats what it was. i knew it was something like that.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Skills on December 07, 2010, 09:16:30 AM
To be honest this is getting really interesting, I thought that I should share this with you. These are my views of what Parkour and Freerunning are to me..
The Motion Arts (Parkour and Freerunning) are two prong, “training for movement through the environment and application thereof”. They are considered as arts, lifestyles, disciplines, scientific pursuits and ways of thinking.

Freerunning is associated with the use of more creative, expressive and explorative movement through the environment to overcome and/or interact with obstacles.

Parkour is related to the idea of fast and forward movement through the environment to overcome obstacles.

Whenever I say training for movement I mean mentally aswell as physically.

The idea of the Motion Arts is to move through the environment letting nothing stop you, to do this you must have physical training to develop the natural skills you already have, in the same manner you need mental training to keep your mind on the objective which is to move past obstacles. If you have no mental training and no adaptation of the philosophy of getting past each obstacle and learning from them you will one day soon come up against a object that you cannot overcome and then BAM what was all the physical stuff for.

If you have no philosophy behind your movement, then the movement is some rate, pointless.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Jordan Strybos on December 07, 2010, 12:03:19 PM
If you have no philosophy behind your movement, then the movement is some rate, pointless.

I wouldn't say pointless. I would say that if there are no thoughts or mental ideals backing your movement, then it is just that, simply movement. But if you do have some sort of mental training behind it, then it means something else to you.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Dan Elric on December 07, 2010, 12:13:21 PM
I don't think ways of thinking need to be about fundamental issues to count as philosophy, fundamental ideas are just the most commonly portrayed forms of philosophy. Regardless, I consider the philosophy of Parkour to be concerned with one of the more fundamental aspects of life: Problem solving.

Whatever you think about the general principle of referring to authority, when you are talking about man-made concepts the creator of the concept is the definitive authority. It doesn't work in most other situations, but in this type of situation it is the definitive answer. We have this definitive answer to the question in this thread. Parkour has a philosophy.

We can all discover new things about Parkour, after all each of us has a unique experience of Parkour. What we can't do is 'un-discover' old things we already know about Parkour. :)

The philosophy of Parkour is simple: There is always a way forwards.

This is just a logical expression of the idea of getting past obstacles. It is necessary for Parkour practitioners to think in this way. If you don't think this way then you simply stop when you are faced with difficulties, faced with obstacles. To practice Parkour, you need to get past obstacles, and to get past obstacles you need to believe that you can get past them, otherwise you don't try.
It's also a fundamental lesson of life. Learning doesn't stop, improvement doesn't stop, whatever area you're concerned with. A positive attitude to a problem helps us solve that problem whatever that problem is. The longer we train the more fundamental our training becomes, and the more we see the connections between different types of problem.

The thing that some people seem to miss is that fun is a form of practicality. We all need happiness and enjoyment in our lives, just as much as we need health and fitness. There are those of us who practice just for the immediate fun, there are those of us who practice for the health and fitness. We're all trying to use Parkour in the way that it is useful to us as individuals. We all practice Parkour because it is practical.

That's simply insight and opinion rather than any logical or rational arguments.


To be honest this is getting really interesting, I thought that I should share this with you. These are my views of what Parkour and Freerunning are to me..
The Motion Arts (Parkour and Freerunning) are two prong, “training for movement through the environment and application thereof”. They are considered as arts, lifestyles, disciplines, scientific pursuits and ways of thinking.

Freerunning is associated with the use of more creative, expressive and explorative movement through the environment to overcome and/or interact with obstacles.

Parkour is related to the idea of fast and forward movement through the environment to overcome obstacles.

Whenever I say training for movement I mean mentally aswell as physically.

The idea of the Motion Arts is to move through the environment letting nothing stop you, to do this you must have physical training to develop the natural skills you already have, in the same manner you need mental training to keep your mind on the objective which is to move past obstacles. If you have no mental training and no adaptation of the philosophy of getting past each obstacle and learning from them you will one day soon come up against a object that you cannot overcome and then BAM what was all the physical stuff for.

If you have no philosophy behind your movement, then the movement is some rate, pointless.

Again, I wouldn't consider it philosophy, what you're describing is desire.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Elet ET on December 07, 2010, 01:32:28 PM
Note: The (total, not just from the quotations on) above post is a direct quote from A Ransom Note About Your Life (http://www.crimethinc.com/tools/downloads/pdfs/harbinger4.pdf), for anyone who was curious like I was ;)

Read those books.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 07, 2010, 03:00:40 PM
That's simply insight and opinion rather than any logical or rational arguments.
No, it is an opinion based on rational argument as well as experience and insight. We have a series of premises, a series of conclusions, and a series of logical connections between them.

You don't try and get past obstacles if you don't believe you can get past them, therefore you need to believe you can get past a obstacle in order to get past it.
You need to believe you can get past a obstacle in order to get past it, and Parkour is a discipline based on the idea of getting past obstacles, therefore the basis of this discipline relies on believing that you can get past obstacles.

Getting past obstacles requires the philosophy. Parkour involves getting past obstacles. Therefore, Parkour requires the philosophy.

Where do you think the problem lies?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: matcauthon12 on December 07, 2010, 06:44:55 PM
Parkour is life.

Chew on that one.  :o
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sam Zytka on December 07, 2010, 09:37:38 PM
parkour is death....
your move matcauthoon

but seriously, i know this thread has helped some but if you choose not to associate philosophy then you dont have to.  do what you want to do because you want to do it and that is about all
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Dan Elric on December 07, 2010, 10:30:50 PM
I don't think ways of thinking need to be about fundamental issues to count as philosophy, fundamental ideas are just the most commonly portrayed forms of philosophy. Regardless, I consider the philosophy of Parkour to be concerned with one of the more fundamental aspects of life: Problem solving.

Engineering tends to be more of a problem solver than philosophy imo.

Quote
Whatever you think about the general principle of referring to authority, when you are talking about man-made concepts the creator of the concept is the definitive authority. It doesn't work in most other situations, but in this type of situation it is the definitive answer. We have this definitive answer to the question in this thread. Parkour has a philosophy.

An appeal to authority is never correct, creator or no.  Saying that he made it and therefore has a right to make the assertion what he says is true  because he is the creator, and thus an authority, is exactly what an appeal to authority is.

Quote
We can all discover new things about Parkour, after all each of us has a unique experience of Parkour. What we can't do is 'un-discover' old things we already know about Parkour. :)

Kay.

Quote
The philosophy of Parkour is simple: There is always a way forwards.

More of a insightful assertion than philosophy.  This is where I think the term philosophy is being misused.  Philosophy is the study of fundamental problems, what problem are you answering or studying?  You're simply making a statement.

Quote
This is just a logical expression of the idea of getting past obstacles. It is necessary for Parkour practitioners to think in this way. If you don't think this way then you simply stop when you are faced with difficulties, faced with obstacles. To practice Parkour, you need to get past obstacles, and to get past obstacles you need to believe that you can get past them, otherwise you don't try.

Let me try to put this into philosophical terms...

1) In order to overcome obstacles people must believe that they can overcome them.
2) Parkour requires us to overcome obstacles.
3) If we did not believe this then we could not do parkour. (reductio ad absurdum)
4) Therefore, to practice parkour people must believe that they can overcome obstacles.
---
Okay, I grant you that this is logical, but not without flaws.  Who's to say that you can't overcome obstacles without believing you can?  I'm not so sure that first premise is as strong as one may think.  It doesn't mean your conclusion is "a philosophy" either, all it means is that your statement is true.

Quote
It's also a fundamental lesson of life. Learning doesn't stop, improvement doesn't stop, whatever area you're concerned with. A positive attitude to a problem helps us solve that problem whatever that problem is. The longer we train the more fundamental our training becomes, and the more we see the connections between different types of problem.

The thing that some people seem to miss is that fun is a form of practicality. We all need happiness and enjoyment in our lives, just as much as we need health and fitness. There are those of us who practice just for the immediate fun, there are those of us who practice for the health and fitness. We're all trying to use Parkour in the way that it is useful to us as individuals. We all practice Parkour because it is practical.

Insight, experience, and opinion.

---

The reason I think there is a problem is because people are misunderstanding what philosophy is.  By definition, a philosophy isn't just someone's outlook, it is a belief or system of beliefs that is accepted as authoritative by a group.  I am arguing that a philosophy means something more than a belief; it requires that people do philosophy to achieve it, and I don't see very much philosophy going on.  All I see is a bunch of beliefs and opinions being thrown around.

Parkour is life.

Chew on that one.  :o

You kids and your gibberish.  That statement makes as much sense as this: there is a fish in that purple.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 07, 2010, 10:34:02 PM
Since the fish created that purple, he has the right to say whether or not there is snurf in the gurfel.  ;D
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Jordan Strybos on December 07, 2010, 11:08:00 PM
More of a insightful assertion than philosophy.  This is where I think the term philosophy is being misused.  Philosophy is the study of fundamental problems, what problem are you answering or studying?  You're simply making a statement.

There is always a way forwards.
Or, in question form, how can I find the best way to keep moving?
Or, what is the best way forwards?
Or, what is the way past this barrier?

Granted, as you stated, this deals with mainly problem-solving and observations, which (technically speaking) is closer to engineering, but I think we can all accept the fact that parkour is not engineering.

I stand by what I said at the start of this thread. No one can tell someone whether the movement of parkour needs to be accompanied with philosophy/insightful assertions/ideals. If someone chooses to move, simply to move, that is their choice. Sure, they may be completely missing out on some of the more rewarding parts of training, but to that they are blissfully ignorant. Let people do what they choose, and don't worry yourself if someone doesn't want to view parkour in the same light as you. Concern yourself with your progression, your training, and your life.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: WillPK on December 08, 2010, 05:56:38 AM
No, it is an opinion based on rational argument as well as experience and insight. We have a series of premises, a series of conclusions, and a series of logical connections between them.

You don't try and get past obstacles if you don't believe you can get past them, therefore you need to believe you can get past a obstacle in order to get past it.
You need to believe you can get past a obstacle in order to get past it, and Parkour is a discipline based on the idea of getting past obstacles, therefore the basis of this discipline relies on believing that you can get past obstacles.

Getting past obstacles requires the philosophy. Parkour involves getting past obstacles. Therefore, Parkour requires the philosophy.

Where do you think the problem lies?

Hey Dave this isn't true. I try and do jumps I can't do all the time, I call it training. The second bold line is nonsense as well, a lot of the time I will do something I didn't believe I could do.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Jordan Strybos on December 08, 2010, 06:43:12 AM
Hey Dave this isn't true. I try and do jumps I can't do all the time, I call it training. The second bold line is nonsense as well, a lot of the time I will do something I didn't believe I could do.

I think the point he was getting at (which you sort of re-emphasized) is that you need to believe that you can eventually do the jump. If it is way past impossible for you, why else would you train it?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Skills on December 08, 2010, 07:43:01 AM
At some point in time you will all have a philosophy on movement...even if that philosophy behind your movement is so lose that it can be adapted to movement and anything else you are involved in. The philosophy of "none" is one that Bruce Lee used in his fighting, your philosophy may be reactionary, for instance "OOO there is a rail and now i'm going to move around on it"

Your philosophy is there, just because you choose not to acknowledge it doesn't say anything other than you trying your hardest to avoid it because it may be out of your "realm of thinking", maybe you are scared to acknowledge the thinking power that you have and thus you disguise it behind planned movement.

answer this...Do you stand on a object and plan you next move or do you think of the movements as you go?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 08, 2010, 07:47:05 AM
but seriously, i know this thread has helped some but if you choose not to associate philosophy then you dont have to.  do what you want to do because you want to do it and that is about all
You can choose not to think about the philosophy, certainly, but it is still there. In the same way, you can choose not to think about your movement, but you still move.

More of a insightful assertion than philosophy.  This is where I think the term philosophy is being misused.  Philosophy is the study of fundamental problems, what problem are you answering or studying?  You're simply making a statement.
...
The reason I think there is a problem is because people are misunderstanding what philosophy is.  By definition, a philosophy isn't just someone's outlook, it is a belief or system of beliefs that is accepted as authoritative by a group.  I am arguing that a philosophy means something more than a belief; it requires that people do philosophy to achieve it, and I don't see very much philosophy going on.  All I see is a bunch of beliefs and opinions being thrown around.
The word 'philosophy' has more than one meaning. In a formal, academic sense it is the name of the study of fundamental problems, but in other contexts it is also a noun describing a way of thinking, a way of approaching life. 'A philosophy' instead of 'Philosophy'. We're not saying 'Parkour is Philosophy', we're saying 'Parkour has a philosophy'.

Let's not get bogged down in semantics though. The important point that we are discussing is the idea that practicing Parkour requires that part of your thoughts operate in a certain way. It's not that important (at least in this discussion) whether you call it a philosophy, or an approach, or a way of thinking, or a belief, or a way of life, or whatever else.

An appeal to authority is never correct, creator or no.  Saying that he made it and therefore has a right to make the assertion what he says is true  because he is the creator, and thus an authority, is exactly what an appeal to authority is.
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my last post. I should have made it clear that I was describing that the creator of the concept is the definitive authority on what that concept is, not on anything else. It's like saying that Ford is the definitive authority on the what it names the cars that it makes.

I think maybe we have a tendency to be lazy when we're trying to support points in discussions like these. I admit, it does often look as though people are trying to claim that the creators are infallible (and often that is what some people try and claim) and that is clearly nonsense. However, I think in this instance the full point people are trying to make is simply that Parkour was created with an associated way of thinking.

Parkour is an active, personal discipline. The evidence is in people's words and actions, and they are all consistent on this point.

Who's to say that you can't overcome obstacles without believing you can?  I'm not so sure that first premise is as strong as one may think.
I think it follows on from the premises that we are rational beings and that we enjoy success and don't enjoy failure. We want to enjoy ourselves as much as possible, therefore we want to succeed as much as possible, therefore we want to focus ourselves, as much as possible, on doing the things we can succeed at.

Hey Dave this isn't true. I try and do jumps I can't do all the time, I call it training. The second bold line is nonsense as well, a lot of the time I will do something I didn't believe I could do.
I think the point he was getting at (which you sort of re-emphasized) is that you need to believe that you can eventually do the jump. If it is way past impossible for you, why else would you train it?
Hi Will. Yes, as Jordan said, the process of getting past obstacles is not an instantaneous one. The definition of 'obstacle' is something that is difficult to get past. To complete easy tasks all you need to do is try once, but to get past difficult obstacles (i.e. obstacles that actually are obstacles), you invariably have to try a number of times. It's the repetition of the attempt that enables you to eventually get past it. No obstacle that is actually an obstacle can be passed immediately.
You don't have to believe that you can get past an obstacle now, just that you can get past it.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andrew Hull on December 08, 2010, 08:12:13 AM
Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

Its the appeal to FALSE authority people. Suck it, nerds!
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 08, 2010, 09:19:33 AM
Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

Its the appeal to FALSE authority people. Suck it, nerds!

Source?  I'm assuming it's this (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html).  That article establishes 6 prerequisites which must all be true to establish the Appeal to Authority as non-fallacious:
"1) The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question
2) The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise
3) There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question
4) The person in question is not significantly biased
5) The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline
6) The authority in question must be identified"

Clauses 2, 3 & 4 often apply as exceptions in discussions about parkour.

Clause 2: Being a founder qualifies one as a witness to and actor in history, a primary source.  These people can testify as to what happened and why they thought x or y, but being a founding traceur is not equivalent to a degree in exercise psychology or physiology or philosophy.  Therefore David Belle's opinions on the best workout methods are not expert opinions.

Clause 3: The existence of so many threads like this one, and the variety of strong opinions exhibited within them for so many years now, is adequate example that many of the questions about what exactly is parkour/freerunning prove that a significant degree of controversy is the dominant paradigm, not "an adequate degree of agreement."  Not just for this specific topic, but many others as well.

Clause 4: There exists clear bias and also either current or past economic incentive for many of the various experts (Parkour Gens, Yamakasi, David Belle, Sebastien Foucan, etc.) who have all worked professionally within parkour/freerunning contexts as instructors, stuntmen, etc.  The documented, but secretive, falling out between various members of the founding generation, and their conflicting accounts of who really started everything and taught everyone also indicate reason to suspect bias.

I've lost track of what specific case is or is not in question here (though I recognize that I brought it up.)  The thing is basically this: if an expert makes a claim, it's valid evidence within certain parameters, however it's not true just because they say it's true, and proficiency and expertise at one thing (i.e. moving) does not equal proficiency and expertise at another (i.e. philosophy).  Just saying "Sebastien Foucan said x" does not always make it true.  Broad statements of opinion should not be accepted without further evidence to support them.

That doesn't mean we should ignore the founders, or turn our back on the roots of the discipline.  It just means we should treat the people who came up with parkour/freerunning/ADD like they were people, not infallible deities.  For the record, I think they were awesome people worthy of emulating in many ways.

Also, here are some other sources on the appeal to authority:
 "In an appeal to authority, something is claimed to be true based on the expertise of an authority rather than objective facts." -http://info-pollution.com/appeal.htm (http://info-pollution.com/appeal.htm) "In an appeal to authority, something is claimed to be true based on the expertise of an authority rather than objective facts."

 "Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true." -http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/ (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/)

"There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you're discussing. Second, rather than just saying "Dr. Authority believes x, so we should believe it, too," try to explain the reasoning or evidence that the authority used to arrive at his or her opinion."-http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html (http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andrew Hull on December 08, 2010, 09:34:26 AM
Bullshit. Im out training and on my phone but I'll deal with this later.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Leland on December 08, 2010, 12:19:39 PM
Basically, if you're gonna use some authority's view point on a particular subject, you really should state the reason the authority believes it's so (John saw Jane stealing the apple, so John believes Jane stole the apple) rather than appealing to authority and saying it's right because John said so (Jane stole the apple because John believes so). See the difference?

Another example: Freerunning is a way to express yourself with your body as there is no other factors involve other then your body, thus it is the ultimate form of expression through movement.
Appeal to authority: Freerunning is a form of self-expression because Sebastien Foucan SAID so.



Anyways, I've been following this topic for a while, and thought I'd chip in my 2 cents.

As a fairly new practitioner, I am definitely one of those who are more appreciative of the philosophy of parkour. I think the OP is just annoyed at the superiority complex about the philosophy that a lot of traceurs have. I also think that whether you realize it or not, if you are a dedicated parkour practitioner, sooner or later you've embraced the philosophy. Yes, I do think the OP has a philosophy regarding parkour, even though he might not admit it.

First off, I want to clarify the differences between parkour and other activities to distinguish between them. A lot of people seem to think that the only "philosophical" part of training in parkour is the training involved, which can be done in any other form of physical activity (basketball, football, soccer, martial arts..). While the training part certainly carries a certain spiritual side to it, it is not unique to parkour and therefore I do not think it can be considered a part of parkour philosophy. I also think that having fun when doing parkour is not unique to parkour, as people can have fun doing anything from badminton to boxing.

1) Difference between parkour and competitive sports: Reason
In competitive sports (MMA, ball games, whatever), the main reason you train is to be good at the sport you are good at. For example, you train in basketball to compete in basketball games, whether in official competitions or at your neighborhood court, the reason is the same, you want to be better then other people. Furthermore, those that don't really train and just play for fun in backyard games will not improve beyond a certain point.

This is different in parkour, in parkour, we train for no other reason then be better then we were yesterday. We train for self-improvement. Even the more "casual" practitioners will improve, just at a much slower pace then those who train more. Also, there is no "moment" to use your training in parkour. There is no on season or off season in parkour, you don't train to play in the Spring season, you don't train to play every afternoon at 5 with the guys. You train for the sake of self-improvement, you train for the enjoyment you get from training (fun :D). In other words, you can say a traceur trains for the sake of training.

Hence, we can say that self-improvement and enjoyment are very important in any parkour philosophy.

2) Difference between parkour and traditional martial arts: usefulness and efficiency
TMAs focus on self-improvement as well, they train in very similar ways to traceurs, excluding the competitive side (which can be said to fall in above category), one might think that parkour philosophy is almost similar to TMA. Furthermore, there are usually strict forms in TMA that are unquestionable in TMAs. A stance is a stance is a stance, it is either correct or incorrect, even though it might not be useful, it is still around.

A key difference, however, is that parkour is always efficient. No offense to TMA practitioners, but in TMA, a lot of moves are kept around for the sake of keeping them around, even though they might not be useful (for example, anyone following the martial art thread can say that blocking is arguably useless in a real fight, but is taught in many TMAs). In parkour, if a movement is inefficient, it is not used. We have a set of common movements, for sure, but they stuck around because they are useful, not because of any other reason. You might say that in freerunning is by it's nature inefficient, but think about it, all the techniques used in freerunning are actually very efficient in achieving their purpose, which is to have fun and look cool. For example, a front flip has a certain way to jump and a certain way to land, the correct way to do it is simply the way to do it efficiently with as little strain on the body as possible.

Therefore, we can say that efficiency and usefulness are important parkour philosophies.

3. Difference between parkour and skateboarding/BMX/surfing: Freedom
In parkour, we only use our bodies, there is no other form of equipment. The focus on parkour is adapting your body to the environment, this is a key difference between parkour and anything else. Even rock climbers have equipment, thrill-seeking activities like sky-diving or bungee jumping obviously require them as well.

Hence, parkour is about the human body and mind, about your own body, and what you can do with it.



If we combine the above ideas, we can have a fairly fleshed out parkour philosophy: Parkour is about constantly trying to improve your body and mind in an efficient and useful manner for no other reason than to be useful, to improve yourself and for enjoyment.

Even if you do not believe you have a philosophy in your movements, you still do the things above, simply by training in parkour, thus even if you are "just having fun", it applies to you as well. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not is another matter..

As for the superiority complex that many have, I think it's more a matter of humility then anything else. i'm sure every one of us is good at something, and if you're arrogant about it, it's your personality's fault, whatever you're good at is not to blame.

My 2 cents (or more like a dollar, phew)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: matcauthon12 on December 08, 2010, 12:23:57 PM
^He wins. Please stop arguing now folks :)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Dan Elric on December 08, 2010, 12:41:51 PM
^He wins. Please stop arguing now folks :)

No.  Why would I want to stop when we finally have some good discussion starting?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Jordan Strybos on December 08, 2010, 01:36:41 PM
Leland, nice post. Here's my critique:
1) Difference between parkour and competitive sports: Reason
In competitive sports (MMA, ball games, whatever), the main reason you train is to be good at the sport you are good at. For example, you train in basketball to compete in basketball games, whether in official competitions or at your neighborhood court, the reason is the same, you want to be better then other people.

It's actually better than other people ;)

Furthermore, those that don't really train and just play for fun in backyard games will not improve beyond a certain point.

This is different in parkour, in parkour, we train for no other reason then be better then we were yesterday. We train for self-improvement. Even the more "casual" practitioners will improve, just at a much slower pace then those who train more. Also, there is no "moment" to use your training in parkour. There is no on season or off season in parkour, you don't train to play in the Spring season, you don't train to play every afternoon at 5 with the guys. You train for the sake of self-improvement, you train for the enjoyment you get from training (fun :D). In other words, you can say a traceur trains for the sake of training.

The point that you make initially I disagree with, and I believe that you almost directly contradict yourself as well, immediately after making the point. If someone plays basketball for fun, that doesn't mean that they will not progress past a certain point. Have you ever seen street/freestyle basketball videos/games? Ever watched videos of the Harlem Globetrotters? These people weren't interested in becoming the all-time best basketball players (at least most of them weren't), they simply wanted to have fun. Their skills have come an incredible way, and I would say, they are more skilled than most 'casual trainers.'

In addition, as you said with parkour, people train at different intensities and for different reasons. If someone doesn't train as often as they could, they will certainly progress at a slower rate than others, but they will still undoubtedly progress, and continue progressing. The same goes for basketball, or any other sport. As long as you continue playing and working, regardless of how hard you try, you will still progress.

2) Difference between parkour and traditional martial arts: usefulness and efficiency
TMAs focus on self-improvement as well, they train in very similar ways to traceurs, excluding the competitive side (which can be said to fall in above category), one might think that parkour philosophy is almost similar to TMA. Furthermore, there are usually strict forms in TMA that are unquestionable in TMAs. A stance is a stance is a stance, it is either correct or incorrect, even though it might not be useful, it is still around.

A key difference, however, is that parkour is always efficient. No offense to TMA practitioners, but in TMA, a lot of moves are kept around for the sake of keeping them around, even though they might not be useful (for example, anyone following the martial art thread can say that blocking is arguably useless in a real fight, but is taught in many TMAs). In parkour, if a movement is inefficient, it is not used. We have a set of common movements, for sure, but they stuck around because they are useful, not because of any other reason. You might say that in freerunning is by it's nature inefficient, but think about it, all the techniques used in freerunning are actually very efficient in achieving their purpose, which is to have fun and look cool. For example, a front flip has a certain way to jump and a certain way to land, the correct way to do it is simply the way to do it efficiently with as little strain on the body as possible.

Why (according to your reasoning as to why front flips can still be considered efficient) is blocking not effecient? Sure, it may not be the best thing to do in a fight, but if your goal is to block your opponent's oncoming kick/punch, a block is most definitely the most efficient way to block it. In a sense, anything can be considered efficient for it's purpose, that is why the movement/idea/thing was created or thought of in the first place. I'm not saying that blocking is incredibly helpful, and I'm not saying that front flips are awesome, I'm merely pointing out that with your reasoning and bending of words, pretty much anything can be justified with a few simple changes.

As for your statement about freedom and the human body, I totally agree. This has always been one of my favorite things about parkour, and one of the things that I like to talk about the most with curious onlookers. Exploring the capabilities and control of the body is a very interesting idea, and parkour is one of the only disciplines that does exactly that.

I don't exactly disagree with your post in general, I just had a few clarification points that I wanted to bring up :)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: NMPK on December 08, 2010, 02:42:03 PM
Wow this thread got pretty hefty, I like the depth this discussion reached. I can't really add much that hasn't already been covered by some people but I would like to throw my support behind a few of the opinions I've seen on the most recent pages.

Brett's post about the appeal to authority fallacy is spot on, and this one comes up often enough in parkour discussions in general that I almost wanna keep it around to copy paste at people.

Dan is totally correct as far as parkour's philosophy not really being a philosophy in a strict sense. Certainly parkour can have positive changes in your mental outlook, even affect how you see the world, and even though it's a stretch I'll even accept the argument that for some of you this outlook change is something you could only achieve through parkour (though even if I do buy this, I don't think that's very common). But a philosophy? You ask an academic philosopher whether that constitutes a philosophy and I bet you they'd probably just laugh and shake their heads.  By the same token I often describe parkour as being similar to a science. If I actually told a physicist that parkour was a real branch of the sciences I'd get laughed out of the lab.

I really like Leland's post as well as a general sum up of what's in the thread, though I'd probably replace his use of "philosophy" with something like "mindset", and not everyone trains for the reason listed in point one.

Jordan anything can be considered "effecient" if it's its own purpose. If your point is to block something than yes blocking achieves that, surprisingly enough but if you're purpose is to defend yourself against an incoming attack, avoidance ithrough footwork and head movement is a much more effective tactic. Your logic there is a bit circular.  I'm totally with you on the people train for different reasons though, and the Globetrotters are a fun example I wouldn't have thought of.

That being said, carry on people, this thread is fun to read at work  :)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Leland on December 08, 2010, 03:12:29 PM
Quote
The point that you make initially I disagree with, and I believe that you almost directly contradict yourself as well, immediately after making the point. If someone plays basketball for fun, that doesn't mean that they will not progress past a certain point. Have you ever seen street/freestyle basketball videos/games? Ever watched videos of the Harlem Globetrotters? These people weren't interested in becoming the all-time best basketball players (at least most of them weren't), they simply wanted to have fun. Their skills have come an incredible way, and I would say, they are more skilled than most 'casual trainers.'

In addition, as you said with parkour, people train at different intensities and for different reasons. If someone doesn't train as often as they could, they will certainly progress at a slower rate than others, but they will still undoubtedly progress, and continue progressing. The same goes for basketball, or any other sport. As long as you continue playing and working, regardless of how hard you try, you will still progress.

Well, for any sport, simply playing it won't get you pass a certain level. That is why basketball coaches tell their players to do weights, agility drills, etc etc, if doing any particular sport is good enough to make you continuously  progress, then all you would see players do at basketball training is play basketball, but that is clearly not the case. In parkour, however, the majority, or you can even say all of our time is spent training. Maybe i did not word it clearly, but I believe my point that we train for the sake of training. That is you are only really competing with yourself.

Also on the training hard part, i do believe a certain level of commitment is needed to improve, if you goof off every time you're out training you aren't going to get anywhere, and I would hesitant to call someone that can barely do a lazy vault after half a year of training a traceur. I simply meant that in parkour, even casual practitioners continuously aim to improve themselves.

I had to look up the harlem globetrotters, they clearly were skilled, but I doubt they don't train like other teams do and just play ball all day.
Quote
Why (according to your reasoning as to why front flips can still be considered efficient) is blocking not effecient? Sure, it may not be the best thing to do in a fight, but if your goal is to block your opponent's oncoming kick/punch, a block is most definitely the most efficient way to block it. In a sense, anything can be considered efficient for it's purpose, that is why the movement/idea/thing was created or thought of in the first place. I'm not saying that blocking is incredibly helpful, and I'm not saying that front flips are awesome, I'm merely pointing out that with your reasoning and bending of words, pretty much anything can be justified with a few simple changes.

Because a front flip does not aim to be more then a front flip, while a block is taught as a way of defending oneself against a punch. However, learning the front flip can bring many benefits to a parkour practitioner like aerial awareness and what not. Does anyone claim that a front flip is more efficient than a vault?  Blocking, however, is taught as a way to defend oneself against strikes, which (again, no offense to TMA practitioners) I don't think it's very good at. The point i'm trying to make is parkour is a practical philosophy, if does not cling on to traditions simply because. We don't speed vault because people have been doing it for x amount of time, we do it because it's the fastest way to get over obstacles.

This is different is we compared to say.. Wing chun, which is often described as a practical art. As much as I wish it were possible to fight like Donnie Yen in Ip Man, it ain't gonna happen in real life.

Quote

I really like Leland's post as well as a general sum up of what's in the thread, though I'd probably replace his use of "philosophy" with something like "mindset", and not everyone trains for the reason listed in point one

Well if you don't train for fun or improvement (and it gets more fun as you improve :P), what else could you be training for?
The only other reason I could think of is to show off (which if one does that it's unlikely for them to train for long) or to be a fireman or something (which would be to be useful). Maybe even to be a stuntman, but AFAIK, I think it's more likely to be the other way around (someone deciding to be a stuntman because he/she loves parkour).
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andrew Hull on December 08, 2010, 03:47:50 PM
I'm sorry Bret, but trying to assert that David Belle is not an authority on the intentions and inherit methodology of parkour is jumping the shark. The question of whether parkour contains within it an inherent philosophical aspect was answered by the founders a long time ago. If you want to talk about an appeal to false authority:
 
Quote
"Clause 3: The existence of so many threads like this one, and the variety of strong opinions exhibited within them for so many years now, is adequate example that many of the questions about what exactly is parkour/freerunning prove that a significant degree of controversy is the dominant paradigm, not "an adequate degree of agreement."  Not just for this specific topic, but many others as well."
SERIOUSLY?! The founders agree that parkour is a lifestyle and contains a mentality and philosophy beyond the movements, and you're calling whether THEY, The FOUNDERS AND ORIGINATORS OF THE ENTIRE DISCIPLINE, are authorities into question because of squabbles by american kids on an internet message board? No. I don't think so.
Quote
Clause 2: Being a founder qualifies one as a witness to and actor in history, a primary source.  These people can testify as to what happened and why they thought x or y, but being a founding traceur is not equivalent to a degree in exercise psychology or physiology or philosophy.  Therefore David Belle's opinions on the best workout methods are not expert opinions.
And where is this supported at all? You say being a founding traceur isn't equivalent to a degree in blah dee blah... okay... who is saying they need to have a degree? They made it up. They named it. They trained it. They dispersed it. Its THEIR work. Why do they need to have a degree when there is NO ONE more informed in its creation and intention than them?

Lets try this: Say I invent a ball scratcher. Its the best damn ball scratcher ever. However when I put it out into the market people find that they like to use it as a back scratcher instead. It may very well be a top notch back scratcher, but its original intention is and always will be a ball scratcher. The consumers do not determine the intentions of a product. Whatever we take parkour as now, we have no right to discard what the people that created it say.

Quote
Clause 4: There exists clear bias and also either current or past economic incentive for many of the various experts (Parkour Gens, Yamakasi, David Belle, Sebastien Foucan, etc.) who have all worked professionally within parkour/freerunning contexts as instructors, stuntmen, etc.  The documented, but secretive, falling out between various members of the founding generation, and their conflicting accounts of who really started everything and taught everyone also indicate reason to suspect bias.

Bullshit. Flat out.  Parkour Gens, Yamakasi, David Belle, Sebastien Foucan have each and all stated that parkour AND freerunning extend far beyond the physical movements. They ALL train heavily in the to be and to last mentality regardless of rival groups.

Not to mention that the philosophy angle is distinctly NOT advantageous to commercial bias. There have been SEVERAL projects that the founders and many MANY other high level traceurs have passed on due to principle. If there was no inherent worth and philosophy of personal development and communal usefulness, then what is there to protect? Why bother ever not participating in commercial projects regardless of the image or message it portrays? Acknowledging that parkour is more than something flashy and fun and is ACTUALLY IMPORTANT on a personal and communal level is detrimental to commerce. 
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: NMPK on December 08, 2010, 03:49:13 PM

Well if you don't train for fun or improvement (and it gets more fun as you improve :P), what else could you be training for?
The only other reason I could think of is to show off (which if one does that it's unlikely for them to train for long) or to be a fireman or something (which would be to be useful). Maybe even to be a stuntman, but AFAIK, I think it's more likely to be the other way around (someone deciding to be a stuntman because he/she loves parkour).

You stated in your other posts that unlike other sports where you train to be good at the sport parkour is only trained for self improvement. I was disagreeing, because that's exactly why I train, to be better at moving through my environment from A to B quickly and efficiently i.e. to be better at parkour. Certainly it's fun and the self improvement thing is nice but if I didn't move quicker because of it I wouldn't train it. I got into parkour as an extension of my martial arts training because quite honestly even if you're a badass at fighting the safer alternative in most serious self defense situations is flight, therefore parkour.

This quote even mentions other possibilities too, fireman, stuntman, ego etc. Basically I'm just pointing out that trying to make a blanket statement about why humans do anything is a losing battle. We don't deal in absolutes well, as a species.
I'm sorry Bret, but trying to assert that David Belle is not an authority on the intentions and inherit methodology of parkour is jumping the shark.

Lets try this: Say I invent a ball scratcher. Its the best damn ball scratcher ever. However when I put it out into the market people find that they like to use it as a back scratcher instead. It may very well be a top notch back scratcher, but its original intention is and always will be a ball scratcher. The consumers do not determine the intentions of a product. Whatever we take parkour as now, we have no right to discard what the people that created it say.

Bullshit. Flat out.  Parkour Gens, Yamakasi, David Belle, Sebastien Foucan have each and all stated that parkour AND freerunning extend far beyond the physical movements. They ALL train heavily in the to be and to last mentality regardless of rival groups.

He's not saying Belle isn't an authority on parkour, rather he's not one on philosophy. Whatever the intentions of your ball scratcher when it is being used as a back scratcher it is by definition a back scratcher. Though there are certainly mental aspects that can be tied to parkour, and indeed were by the "founders", not everyone does or should be treated like a second class practitioner because they do not. Also Belle and co didn't damn well invent movement they codified a set of them and applied a set of "ideals" to them. These ideals do not (academically) constitute a philosophy whatever you'd like to believe.

Incidentally this is why I think Teg has the right idea with rage froobling. I don't do parkour either. From here on out I'm doing Kour Par a self defense movement art I just founded and am therefore the be all and end all expert about it. Kour Par >>> you noobs.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Jordan Strybos on December 08, 2010, 04:11:04 PM
First of all, lol @ how there are two conversations going on now.

Leland, for your point about training sports, you sort of avoided (althought probably unintentionally) the original point that I was trying to make. By bringing up the Globetrotters and other street style players, I was displaying a different side of basketball. While I acknowledge your point that professional basketball players do train in other ways than simply playing, I was trying to make the point that (at least some of) the freestyle players are results of exactly what I was describing; someone who had all sorts of free time, a basketball hoop, and a buttload of creativity.

As for the point about front flips, I completely agree with you. I was merely pointing out that if you put things against their original purposes, then you will see that they are all highly efficient. As NMPK pointed out, this method of thinking is very circular.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: John "Cras" Morrow on December 08, 2010, 04:32:05 PM
Quote
And where is this supported at all? You say being a founding traceur isn't equivalent to a degree in blah dee blah... okay... who is saying they need to have a degree? They made it up. They named it. They trained it. They dispersed it. Its THEIR work. Why do they need to have a degree when there is NO ONE more informed in its creation and intention than them?

Lets try this: Say I invent a ball scratcher. Its the best damn ball scratcher ever. However when I put it out into the market people find that they like to use it as a back scratcher instead. It may very well be a top notch back scratcher, but its original intention is and always will be a ball scratcher. The consumers do not determine the intentions of a product. Whatever we take parkour as now, we have no right to discard what the people that created it say.

Arent we all trying to say that everyone will have their own opinions on Parkour. In fact thats exactly what Parkour is: there are the tools out there for you, but you yourself choose which tools to use in a situation. Each obstacle could be appoached in many many different ways. Thats just the beauty of Parkour. So wouldnt it be logical to say that the philosophy of Parkour is in the eye of the beholder?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Leland on December 08, 2010, 05:06:47 PM
You stated in your other posts that unlike other sports where you train to be good at the sport parkour is only trained for self improvement. I was disagreeing, because that's exactly why I train, to be better at moving through my environment from A to B quickly and efficiently i.e. to be better at parkour. Certainly it's fun and the self improvement thing is nice but if I didn't move quicker because of it I wouldn't train it. I got into parkour as an extension of my martial arts training because quite honestly even if you're a badass at fighting the safer alternative in most serious self defense situations is flight, therefore parkour.

This quote even mentions other possibilities too, fireman, stuntman, ego etc. Basically I'm just pointing out that trying to make a blanket statement about why humans do anything is a losing battle. We don't deal in absolutes well, as a species.

I get what you're saying, my point was that traceurs train to improve themselves without competition. Of course we all train to get better at parkour, the difference I was trying to point out is that we don't train to be better at parkour to compete with others, as oppose to basketball, soccer, or even starcraft. Which is why we train to get better at parkour for ourselves, ergo self-improvement/enjoyment.

I don't believe I'm generalizing as well, to say that humans do things they enjoy isn't a blanket statement. My meaning (once again) is that traceurs train because of 2 reasons, 1, they enjoy it, 2, to improve themselves.

The difference is competing with others and competing with oneself.

First of all, lol @ how there are two conversations going on now.

Leland, for your point about training sports, you sort of avoided (althought probably unintentionally) the original point that I was trying to make. By bringing up the Globetrotters and other street style players, I was displaying a different side of basketball. While I acknowledge your point that professional basketball players do train in other ways than simply playing, I was trying to make the point that (at least some of) the freestyle players are results of exactly what I was describing; someone who had all sorts of free time, a basketball hoop, and a buttload of creativity.

As for the point about front flips, I completely agree with you. I was merely pointing out that if you put things against their original purposes, then you will see that they are all highly efficient. As NMPK pointed out, this method of thinking is very circular.
I just want to clarify again, like above, my point was that the intent of training is different. I acknowledge that it is possible (or maybe even probable) that people like Globetrotters train for fun and self-improvement and not (mainly) competition, thus it is possible for them in this case to be similar to parkour, but I think we can agree that the majority of other sports players are not like that. Even if this point applies to parkour and some people who practice other stuff, parkour is unique because of (I believe) all the elements I described together, so it doesn't matter :)

Quote
Lets try this: Say I invent a ball scratcher. Its the best damn ball scratcher ever. However when I put it out into the market people find that they like to use it as a back scratcher instead. It may very well be a top notch back scratcher, but its original intention is and always will be a ball scratcher. The consumers do not determine the intentions of a product. Whatever we take parkour as now, we have no right to discard what the people that created it say.
I disagree with this. If your ball scratcher works better as a back scratcher then a ball scratcher, that means in function it is more of a back scratcher then a ball scratcher. If David Belle created parkour because he was a ninja assassin to carry out his murders, it doesn't mean that if we practice parkour we are practicing ninja assassins techniques, it simply means we are training in the art of moving from one point to another, because that's what it is. That being said, I do not agree that the founders have absolute authority over the mindset/philosophy of parkour as well. I believe an activity is defined by it's community. Things always evolve.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 08, 2010, 05:19:59 PM
@Andrew Hull:
I explained something because you asked for an explanation.  You made a counter-point based on a source, then I pointed out that taken in it's entirety the source didn't support your claim.  Up till that point, we were engaging in discourse, conversing about a subject in a mutual search for the truth.

You're being rude now, so I'm done responding to you.  You can disagree with me without spelling my name wrong and basing your entire argument around the word "bullshit."  Also, in the future please respond to what I actually write instead of inventing assertions on my behalf.

Any further discussion on logical fallacies should go in a separate thread.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 08, 2010, 06:56:26 PM
He's not saying Belle isn't an authority on parkour, rather he's not one on philosophy.
He is, though, an expert on the philosophy of Parkour. He helped define what the philosophy is, and he's been learning about it and living it and teaching it for far longer than anyone else in the Parkour community. He's not infallible, no one is, but he is the leading authority on Parkour, and he happens to agree with all of the other leading authorities on Parkour.

Arent we all trying to say that everyone will have their own opinions on Parkour. In fact thats exactly what Parkour is: there are the tools out there for you, but you yourself choose which tools to use in a situation. Each obstacle could be appoached in many many different ways. Thats just the beauty of Parkour. So wouldnt it be logical to say that the philosophy of Parkour is in the eye of the beholder?
An individual's own philosophy is up to them, sure, but the tool itself doesn't change if you use it for a different purpose. The philosophy of Parkour remains the same, whatever a practitioner uses it for.

If David Belle created parkour because he was a ninja assassin to carry out his murders, it doesn't mean that if we practice parkour we are practicing ninja assassins techniques, it simply means we are training in the art of moving from one point to another, because that's what it is.
It's the art of getting past obstacles, not the art of moving from one point to another. That is an important difference, because Parkour is concerned with more obstacles than just those that stop you getting from one place to another. Parkour is concerned with helping you get past all obstacles that you face.

That being said, I do not agree that the founders have absolute authority over the mindset/philosophy of parkour as well. I believe an activity is defined by it's community. Things always evolve.
I think that it's true that a discipline is defined by the thoughts and actions of the entire body of practitioners, not just a few of them. A discipline has to include everyone that practices it.
However it is not defined by the understanding of the entire body of practitioners, because I think it is obvious that there will always be more beginners than experienced practitioners. There will always be more people with a poor understanding of Parkour than have a good understanding, and I think we all agree that experienced practitioners are far more likely to have a good understanding than beginners.

The only evidence to support the idea that Parkour doesn't have a specific mindset comes from the views of a handful of beginners. The evidence to support the idea that Parkour does have a specific mindset comes from the views of the creators, the views of every experienced practitioner, rational analysis, a number of non-practitioner observers and a similar number of beginners to those that feel differently.

Whether you want to call it something else other than 'a philosophy' is irrelevant to this discussion. The important point is that there is really no credible evidence to dispute the fact that to practice Parkour you need to think a certain way.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: max eisenberg on December 08, 2010, 07:14:15 PM
if you dont follow the philosophy of parkour you are jumping around. otherwise your goal is to pass obstacles with grace and efficiency. there is no "option B", you dont get to pick or choose what the art is and what you want it to be.

parkour IS something, if you fail to understand what it is you need to train more. probably by yourself and for the next few years. you dont just wake up one day and go "i understand it all".

im a post hog, and im the one saying go out and train more... really now?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 08, 2010, 07:17:50 PM
Yes, that's a good point that I've not seen mentioned yet. The philosophy does become more obvious the more time you spend training alone.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Leland on December 08, 2010, 07:27:20 PM
if you dont follow the philosophy of parkour you are jumping around. otherwise your goal is to pass obstacles with grace and efficiency. there is no "option B", you dont get to pick or choose what the art is and what you want it to be.

parkour IS something, if you fail to understand what it is you need to train more. probably by yourself and for the next few years. you dont just wake up one day and go "i understand it all".

im a post hog, and im the one saying go out and train more... really now?
Some people might say they want to have fun and express themselves and call it freerunning :P

Agree with the it comes with you as you train thing. I believe after a certain amount of time and effort is spent training, the philosophy will gradually shape itself..
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 08, 2010, 07:34:26 PM
Has it ever occurred to some of you that if you spend a bunch of time telling people that they're doing it wrong and generally disparaging them, they might quit before they get the chance to develop that philosophy through long-term practice?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 08, 2010, 08:26:33 PM
Has it ever occurred to some of you that if you spend a bunch of time telling people that they're doing it wrong and generally disparaging them, they might quit before they get the chance to develop that philosophy through long-term practice?

nah.  it happened to me when i was ignorant and im better for having heard it.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: max eisenberg on December 08, 2010, 09:24:49 PM
nah.  it happened to me when i was ignorant and im better for having heard it.

while i agree...

Has it ever occurred to some of you that if you spend a bunch of time telling people that they're doing it wrong and generally disparaging them, they might quit before they get the chance to develop that philosophy through long-term practice?

there are certain parts of the art that should be taken seriously. there is a time for play and a time for work, the people who have been in it for longer always want to make a big deal about the important stuff.

dont play on rooves, dont take large drops, stretch and condition properly and enough and stay in the moment. sometimes we all get carried away, i heard kerbie say to seb once that seb would say "this is not the way" back in the beginning of the UK scene. seb left them alone though, he let them do their own thing and a lot of the original people are starting to understand the way.

we forget to let them find their way sometimes and this thread and others are perfect examples. its like a father wanting to live through his son. we just become worried that the younger newer people wont see it in the right light. i personally get carried away because i feel its too dangerous to let people do it their own way sometimes.

just treat parkour properly, however you practice it remember you have one body and one life. regardless of what you call yourself or your movements just treat it properly with the respect it deserves. if it feels good keep doing it, you never know how you will adapt.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 08, 2010, 11:17:25 PM
Dan is totally correct as far as parkour's philosophy not really being a philosophy in a strict sense. Certainly parkour can have positive changes in your mental outlook, even affect how you see the world, and even though it's a stretch I'll even accept the argument that for some of you this outlook change is something you could only achieve through parkour (though even if I do buy this, I don't think that's very common). But a philosophy? You ask an academic philosopher whether that constitutes a philosophy and I bet you they'd probably just laugh and shake their heads.  By the same token I often describe parkour as being similar to a science. If I actually told a physicist that parkour was a real branch of the sciences I'd get laughed out of the lab.


after much thought i am actually starting to change my views on this subject quite a bit.  another question i have been asking myself for some time has actually given me some insight into this topic that i never really thought about until now.  i agree with the above.  i think parkour was created with a "philosophy" and i stick with the theory that once someone creates something their definition is final unless they change it, but im beginning to realize that the parkour "philosophy" is by definition not a philosophy at all and to argue that would be to argue against the person who first defined philosophy.   so i have come to realize the founders were wrong by labeling it a philosophy because it is actually just a physical activity with an associated mindset.  this mindset however is associated with many other activities including sports, fitness, religion and it is at its core self improvement.  depending on the answer to my next post even parkour without the "philosophy" is an incomplete physical discipline if the goal is self improvement.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 08, 2010, 11:18:10 PM
Ok so there is some good discussion finally happening in these threads so I figured I would bring up a subject that hasn’t been discussed on these forums in a long time and that I am still a little uncertain about.   First of all this thread is about parkour and nothing else. Parkour is a physical activity supposedly linked with a mental/ philosophical improvement.  With that said my thesis is: Parkour if practiced without strength training, air awareness, flexibility, and or proper nutrition is physically incomplete, yet it is too broad to be considered a specific discipline if it includes the practice of those things.
the definition of parkour although a lame one is: “Parkour (or le parkour) is the physical practice of traversing elements in both urban and rural settings, although it is sometimes seen as a philosophy. The goal is to move from one point to another as quickly and efficiently as possible”  -wiki. 
This definition does not explain the philosophical motive behind parkour which is for the most part self improvement.  A better definition I have heard from the founders is:
 “parkour is a discipline of overcoming physical obstacles to prepare for any obstacle one may face in life”.
 This includes mental, physical, and emotional hardships and thus is considered by many a philosophy, way of life, and or a belief system.  my question is is parkour limited to physically overcoming obstacles with efficient movement or does it include training for overcoming obstacles with efficient movement?  And either way would this have any impact on your ability to overcome mental or emotional obstacles?
If it is purely efficient movement from one point to another then does running from a lion make you a better at parkour? To a certain extent just running from one point to another without technical work or training would not even make you better at overcoming physical obstacles let alone yield any significant form of mental/ emotional self improvement.  It would be just running and jumping around and without training it would not make you more useful to yourself or others, you would not progress past a certain point, and you would not last physically.  Without training is parkour an incomplete philosophy and physical discipline?
On the other hand, If it does include training for overcoming obstacles with efficient movement (popular example: repetition, technical work, flow training (all technically overcoming obstacles)) then would striving to achieve a 3x BW squat be considered parkour?  would tricking, power lifting, ballet, yoga, hand balancing, dieting, basket ball, practicing Buddhism, you name it as long as the end goal was self improvement? If so do you believe it is too unspecific to be looked at as a specific discipline, philosophy, or mindset?

im not sure.  maybe becaue there isn't an answer or maybe its becaue its almost 1:30 and im about to fall asleep.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andy Keller on December 08, 2010, 11:46:58 PM
[Shameless Moderator plug to everyone]

**Please remember to be respectful and leave personal attacks out of serious discussion.**

Little quarrels like the ones happening here really take away from the quality of this thread. I know many of us feel passionate about our views, but please refrain from degrading this thread [and the forum as a whole] by posting harsh remarks and personal attacks. The sly, coarse, bitter, and smart-ass remarks that I see in this thread are really a let-down. We finally get a good, "deep" discussion going, only to see it go down the drain thanks to immaturity and lack of respect. Some of the participants of this thread really suck at mature discussion of viewpoints.

Offended? Maybe that means you need to change your attitude.

From this point on, immaturity is not going to be tolerated.

[/Shameless Moderator plug to everyone]


I do not usually get like this, but I cannot let one of the few good threads left on this forum spiral into a middle school cat fight. ::)

Now let's all act like the educated, mature grown-ups that we are and keep this discussion exactly that - a discussion.


[Or just STFU and train. 8) ]
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 09, 2010, 04:35:28 AM
Has it ever occurred to some of you that if you spend a bunch of time telling people that they're doing it wrong and generally disparaging them, they might quit before they get the chance to develop that philosophy through long-term practice?
In the short term yes, there are negative effects of pointing out mistakes. Nobody like failure, and if they perceive themselves as having failed there is a possibility they might simply give up. However, in the long term it's far better that their understanding is accurate. Good or bad feelings don't last very long on their own, if you want to feel good for longer you need to keep doing things that make you feel good. For that you need good understanding, to make good choices.

It is important to find your own way through Parkour, just as it's important to find your own way through life. However, everyone needs help sometimes. If people are asking questions, starting or taking part in discussions, or even reading discussions, it means they are looking for help.
Part of following your own path means choosing to follow your own path, and you can't force someone to think independently. It happens as a natural part of the learning process, but before it happens everyone goes through a stage of having to listen to other people and use the thoughts of others. Before you can stand on your own you need to stand with the help of others.

When people need help they look for it. When people don't need help they don't look for it. Making help available doesn't force people to use it. When a person is ready to think for themselves, they do. However a person doesn't start off strong and independent. A person needs to be given the tools before they can use them.

my question is is parkour limited to physically overcoming obstacles with efficient movement or does it include training for overcoming obstacles with efficient movement?  And either way would this have any impact on your ability to overcome mental or emotional obstacles?
The method part of Parkour (the part you, your actions) involves trying to move past the obstacles in your environment. Lifting weights, tricking, power lifting, ballet, yoga, hand balancing, dieting, basket ball, practicing Buddhism, none of these things are part of Parkour.
They might have the same goal of self-improvement, but they are another way of achieving it. Objectively, sure, it's good to try different things, however you do not need to practice anything else like this to practice Parkour.

The important thing for us to get our heads around is that it is the process of trying to move past the obstacles in your environment which is the training. We get better at what we practice, and to get better at moving past obstacles we don't need to lift weights, or practice Yoga, or do any of those other things. All we need to do is to try and move past the obstacles in our environment. That's how David Belle trained, that's how Raymond Belle trained, and that's the definition of how Parkour practitioners train.

There's no law which says 'you must train Parkour', but if you train in a different way you won't get the same benefits. To use all the physical and mental skills we associate with Parkour you need to be using movement (to move yourself from one place to another), to develop these skills we need to use difficult movement (it needs to be difficult for us), to develop the positive attitude and philosophy you need to be constantly facing obstacles (things that are difficult), to develop independence you need to be trying to face these obstacles on your own, to develop practical skills you need to be facing obstacles that exist already in your environment (i.e. obstacles that are limiting YOU, and not something that you create yourself).
Every part of Parkour is important. You can't skip bits and still get the same effect.

Trying to move past the obstacles in your environment is the training. It is very effective training, if done correctly.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 09, 2010, 08:18:39 AM
"you do not need to practice anything else like this to practice Parkour." - DaveS

i strongly disagree with this statement. parkour without conditioning or proper flexibility is a dangerous activity.  most people on these forums have so many major muscle imbalances its a mirical that they are still training. if you don't believe me then check out the injury section and take note of how many are not trauma related injuries. parkour creates dominant quads in most people and without flexibility and posterior chain strengthening then its just a matter of time before you get tendonitis. also if you plan to overcome an obstacle, say a 17' arm jump, and your current maximum arm jump is 11' with perfect technique then depending on your genetics you will most likely never get there without some form of load training.  ex: squat, powerclean, plyometrics.  any expert would agree that plyometric training (90% of parkour) is dangerous without a high base strength and without a base strength your plyometric capabilities will plato significantly faster.   
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Skills on December 09, 2010, 09:16:34 AM
@ Chris...
I think that Dave as well as alot of others consider Parkour and Freerunning to encompass "training for movement through the environment" aswell as "Movement through the environment" itself. Indeed the conditioning that we use is not directly related to the philosophy but there is a quote somewhere that says "To be and to last".

The best preparation for Parkour and Freerunning is body weight conditioning since the muscle that you build will be enough to help your movement step by step.
Weight lifting is sometimes problematic because we can gain more muscle than we need to use for each movement, and we may end up "over doing" a move.

When I Freerun I usually give each movement "just enough", this is my attempt at conserving energy and easing stress. Weight lifting may affect they way you move since your body has been pulling and pushing instead of climbing. Someone told me that the proper way to learn climb-ups is to "get out and do them" this means that more than often the strength that you learn in the gym cannot always be applied to movement.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Dan Elric on December 09, 2010, 09:36:43 AM
@ Chris...
I think that Dave as well as alot of others consider Parkour and Freerunning to encompass "training for movement through the environment" aswell as "Movement through the environment" itself. Indeed the conditioning that we use is not directly related to the philosophy but there is a quote somewhere that says "To be and to last".

Appeal to popularity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html).  I'm not concerned with what most traceurs consider, I'm concerned with what is true.


Quote
The best preparation for Parkour and Freerunning is body weight conditioning since the muscle that you build will be enough to help your movement step by step.
Weight lifting is sometimes problematic because we can gain more muscle than we need to use for each movement, and we may end up "over doing" a move.

Untrue.  Body weight training is preferable for greater proprioception, not from being too strong.  Strength translates to endurance and greater ease of movement, if you're having problems "overdoing" a move then the issue is with your control and technique, not strength.

Quote
When I Freerun I usually give each movement "just enough", this is my attempt at conserving energy and easing stress. Weight lifting may affect they way you move since your body has been pulling and pushing instead of climbing. Someone told me that the proper way to learn climb-ups is to "get out and do them" this means that more than often the strength that you learn in the gym cannot always be applied to movement.

Climbing is only pulling/pushing...  So is any movement you do, so I don't know what your point is.  Climb-ups are a parkour specific movement, weighted muscle ups have an incredibly high translation to climb-ups.  If you really want to debate this you can take it up in the gen fit forums.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: NMPK on December 09, 2010, 10:45:42 AM
On the other hand, If it does include training for overcoming obstacles with efficient movement (popular example: repetition, technical work, flow training (all technically overcoming obstacles)) then would striving to achieve a 3x BW squat be considered parkour?  would tricking, power lifting, ballet, yoga, hand balancing, dieting, basket ball, practicing Buddhism, you name it as long as the end goal was self improvement? If so do you believe it is too unspecific to be looked at as a specific discipline, philosophy, or mindset?
 

This right here is why I think you have to consider parkour (overcoming physical obstacles) and training as separate things. If you include "anything that could be used to improve your ability to pass obstacles later" you end up including just about any physical discipline under the parkour tagline. By comparison, I bet you'd be hard pressed to find any major professional athlete who didn't lift weights extensively. But does that mean lifting weights is basketball or football or gymnastics or whatever? No. Certainly it's part of training for the mentioned activity but it is not the activity itself.

That being said I 100% agree that you need to train for parkour. Is it possible to only ever train by tracing some A to B? Probably. Is it the most efficient method in terms of time spent training vs improvement seen? You'd have a very hard time convincing me of that.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 09, 2010, 11:42:27 AM
@ Chris...
I think that Dave as well as alot of others consider Parkour and Freerunning to encompass "training for movement through the environment" aswell as "Movement through the environment" itself.
...
The best preparation for Parkour and Freerunning is body weight conditioning since the muscle that you build will be enough to help your movement step by step.
No, I think I stated this quite clearly in my last post. Moving through the environment IS the training for moving through the environment. There is no separate training part of Parkour. Training isn't separate, Parkour is training. The best preparation for Parkour is Parkour. You do not need physical preparation before starting to practice Parkour. You do not need to lift weights or do separate bodyweight exercise.
You just need to follow the natural path of progression with movement at a steady pace. In fact, doing anything else, practicing in any other way, will cause you problems in the long run. There is no other way to develop all of the skills you will need in order to remain safe.

"you do not need to practice anything else like this to practice Parkour." - DaveS

i strongly disagree with this statement. parkour without conditioning or proper flexibility is a dangerous activity.  most people on these forums have so many major muscle imbalances its a mirical that they are still training. if you don't believe me then check out the injury section and take note of how many are not trauma related injuries. parkour creates dominant quads in most people and without flexibility and posterior chain strengthening then its just a matter of time before you get tendonitis. also if you plan to overcome an obstacle, say a 17' arm jump, and your current maximum arm jump is 11' with perfect technique then depending on your genetics you will most likely never get there without some form of load training.  ex: squat, powerclean, plyometrics.  any expert would agree that plyometric training (90% of parkour) is dangerous without a high base strength and without a base strength your plyometric capabilities will plato significantly faster.
You only over-develop your quads if you have a focus on quad-intensive movements. Varied movement will create no imbalances.
Muscles imbalances are caused by a lack of variety in exercise. Parkour itself contains plenty of variety, except when people try and create a focus on individual movements. To solve this problem, we need to make sure the emphasis is on getting past the obstacles that exist in your environment, rather than on finding places to practice popular or supposedly 'fundamental' movements like vaults, arm jumps etc..
It's true, to develop strength past a certain point you need to train in ways that require a certain amount of strength. That is an obvious consequence of the fact that you need to progress steadily, and is in no way a problem with the concept of
If you train with movement, if you practice Parkour and you don't try and skip stages, when you get to the point of having to use training methods that rely on having a lot of strength you will have the strength you need.

Strength, flexibility, coordination, balance, perception, decision making, attitude, and all of the other skills that keep you safe while practicing Parkour are best developed through practicing the basic levels of Parkour itself. Note, I'm not saying that Parkour develops each individual skill in the fastest possible way, I'm saying they're developed in the best way, in a balanced way.
Safety is about balance; If you can jump but not land, that's not safe. If you can climb a wall but not judge whether it's strong enough to support you, that's not safe. If you have the strength but not the technique, that's not safe. If you can jump between two walls but not resist peer pressure, that's not safe. You can't focus on just the physical ability, you need to be able to deal with all of the challenges you will face.
No other activity or combination of activities develops the exact balance of skills you need to remain safe while practicing Parkour.

Parkour is training, whatever your existing strengths or weaknesses. You don't need to be strong to practice Parkour. Training for Parkour is a nonsensical idea.

Whether Parkour is appropriate training for what you want to do is another question entirely. If you want to use your physical ability to show off or to perform in controlled environments for media organizations or corporations then sure, train in other ways. If you want to develop your abilities to become a strong, capable individual, capable of getting past all of the obstacles you face, of all kinds, then Parkour will be an entirely appropriate way to train.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Leland on December 09, 2010, 12:09:50 PM
DaveS, with all due respect, your last post seem to be really controversial compared to your other posts, and I don't think I agree with you (for once). While I do agree that most of Parkour is training (btw, should Parkour be capitalized?), I think that it's entirely possible to attempt to increase our physical capabilities for Parkour, aka training for parkour. I was taught on these very forums that lifting heavy to develop strength is the best way to develop functional and applicable strength for parkour, and it has helped me tremendously in achieving my goals.

Quote
Strength, flexibility, coordination, balance, perception, decision making, attitude, and all of the other skills that keep you safe while practicing Parkour are best developed through practicing the basic levels of Parkour itself. Note, I'm not saying that Parkour develops each individual skill in the fastest possible way, I'm saying they're developed in the best way, in a balanced way.
Safety is about balance; If you can jump but not land, that's not safe. If you can climb a wall but not judge whether it's strong enough to support you, that's not safe. If you have the strength but not the technique, that's not safe. If you can jump between two walls but not resist peer pressure, that's not safe. You can't focus on just the physical ability, you need to be able to deal with all of the challenges you will face.
No other activity or combination of activities develops the exact balance of skills you need to remain safe while practicing Parkour.

You argue that if you are strong but lack technique it is not safe, I say it's a hell lot safer when you're strong if you lack technique then someone who is weak AND lack technique. For your argument to be logically consistent, it would have to mean that it is more dangerous to be strong then to do Parkour then it is if you are weak. I understand your meaning that progressive building up of strength and technique in a balanced manner is the best way to develop the skills necessary for Parkour, I just disagree with it. New traceurs who have physical activity backgrounds will no doubt advance faster and safer then those without because of their increased physical attributes. David Belle himself was already strong and involved in many physical arts before creating Parkour.

Personally, I started weight training because of Parkour. Parkour has taught me that to take care of my body and be strong, and I believe that it is the mindset of someone "training for Parkour" that determines whether or not he is a traceur.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: WillPK on December 09, 2010, 12:18:56 PM
Dave you need to stop talking nonsense on the internet and come out training.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Skills on December 09, 2010, 12:35:42 PM
@Dave
Sorry I misinterpreted that, but that actually leads to a question, do you train a particular set of movements when you are out training?
I don't know what they call them in England but here we use the name "circuit training", basically we repeat the same route for excersise.
Do you do this?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: MThomasfreerun on December 09, 2010, 01:02:22 PM
There is a lot of good discussion in here and a lot of incredibly bad discussion as well. I'm for it all as long as it's respectful, but the one thing I CANNOT stand is how  most everyone speaks as if THEY are authorities on the subject.

This is a topic that is based heavily on personal viewpoints and opinions (yes, it is, no matter how much you want to say "bullshit" or "no it isn't you're just a dumbass who wouldn't know parkour if it pissed in your face"). If any of the concepts being discussed were FACTS there wouldn't be a discussion because the facts could be quickly identified, sourced, and concluded. Open discussion can help others consider and expand their own beliefs and understanding, but when wielded as a sword it becomes divisive which is not what the parkour community needs.

If you have a strong OPINION on the subject I think that is great, but remember - it's just your opinion, so state it as such, and give others due respect for theirs.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: John "Cras" Morrow on December 09, 2010, 01:34:24 PM
Quote
You only over-develop your quads if you have a focus on quad-intensive movements. Varied movement will create no imbalances.
Muscles imbalances are caused by a lack of variety in exercise. Parkour itself contains plenty of variety, except when people try and create a focus on individual movements. To solve this problem, we need to make sure the emphasis is on getting past the obstacles that exist in your environment, rather than on finding places to practice popular or supposedly 'fundamental' movements like vaults, arm jumps etc..

Although that sentence is mostly true, i dont think a generalization such as that is true. Varied movement will create no perceivable imbalances as you will just get used to doing certain movements the way you use them, which necessarily isnt the correct way to use them. Also, i feel that working on fundamental movements will help. Practice makes perfect. If you want to go out there and get past obstacles, there are some movements that you are going to use a lot, and practicing them so that they become second nature is i think instrumental.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: NMPK on December 09, 2010, 02:31:02 PM
Varied movement will create no imbalances.
 Training for Parkour is a nonsensical idea.

You're assuming a LOT here about the environment. Nothing about any given environment GUARANTEES that moving through it will make you a balanced athlete, I'm sorry that's simply untrue. If all I ever did was move through my environment (even though this is still my favorite way to train) I would pretty much exclusively be a distance runner. Maybe a speed vault here or there but things like cats, precisions and climb ups would all be severely underdeveloped if I didn't train them specifically. This is just the realities of the fact that most of where I live is flat and spread out.

And again I would say that if training for parkour is a "nonsensical" idea then you're logic inevitably leads to the conclusion that any kind of physical or mental improvement you make in any way is parkour. I could do math problems and be doing parkour. Bouncing everywhere on my ass would be parkour. I'm sorry but to me that's a far more nonsensical assertion.

That being said I'm totally with you that generally the best way to adapt to moving through your environment is to move through your environment. But to say that's the only way to do things, that subsidizing your training with other things is actually counter-productive? Sorry, I think that's quite simply, wrong.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 09, 2010, 02:34:33 PM
No, I think I stated this quite clearly in my last post. Moving through the environment IS the training for moving through the environment. There is no separate training part of Parkour. Training isn't separate, Parkour is training. The best preparation for Parkour is Parkour. You do not need physical preparation before starting to practice Parkour. You do not need to lift weights or do separate bodyweight exercise.
You just need to follow the natural path of progression with movement at a steady pace. In fact, doing anything else, practicing in any other way, will cause you problems in the long run. There is no other way to develop all of the skills you will need in order to remain safe.

that is a very bold statement and i know a lot of people with degrees on the matter who whould laugh at it.  i only study exercise science and even without a degree i can tell you this is not true for at least 90% of the population.  even if practicing plyometrics without a strength base way safe and or didn't plato very quickly, there is no set routine of moving through the environment so how would you expect people to avoid things like muscle imbalances and untimately tendonitis if everyone is practicing different things in different environments?  
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 09, 2010, 03:18:35 PM
Sorry for the length of this one. It's turning into a Q & A session and people are replying faster than I can :)
Please, skip to the bit that's relevant to the questions you asked.

There is a lot of good discussion in here and a lot of incredibly bad discussion as well. I'm for it all as long as it's respectful, but the one thing I CANNOT stand is how  most everyone speaks as if THEY are authorities on the subject.
Just for the record, I'm not infallible. I've put a lot of time and effort into training and learning about Parkour (fairly safe to say more than most people, but not as much as David Belle ;) ) but decide for yourself whether what I say is right or not.

DaveS, with all due respect, your last post seem to be really controversial compared to your other posts, and I don't think I agree with you (for once). While I do agree that most of Parkour is training (btw, should Parkour be capitalized?), I think that it's entirely possible to attempt to increase our physical capabilities for Parkour, aka training for parkour. I was taught on these very forums that lifting heavy to develop strength is the best way to develop functional and applicable strength for parkour, and it has helped me tremendously in achieving my goals.
Yes, Parkour should be capitalized, because it's a proper noun, it's the name of the discipline.

All of Parkour is training. That is its defined purpose. It's fun, yes, but also useful.

As I said, it depends what your goals are as to whether lifting is useful for you or not, and I don't dispute that lifting is the best way to develop strength. That's irrelevant to this discussion though, because if we focus on strength then the development of other attributes suffers, and we fail to develop our overall abilities in a balanced way that is necessary for Parkour. Our goal isn't to jump the furthest the fastest. The goal of the discipline of Parkour is to help practitioners develop a broad range of fundamental abilities that you can use to get past obstacles of all kinds. Specialization is a bad thing.

The use of weight lifting is a long-standing argument between me and some others on this website, and it's not going to be resolved in this thread (at least not without without venturing even further from the original topic). For now, just be aware that there are people who strongly disagree with the necessity of Parkour practitioners using weights. This website is not the source of all knowledge, even the most experienced people here are absolute beginners in understanding both what Parkour is and its benefits.

You argue that if you are strong but lack technique it is not safe, I say it's a hell lot safer when you're strong if you lack technique then someone who is weak AND lack technique. For your argument to be logically consistent, it would have to mean that it is more dangerous to be strong then to do Parkour then it is if you are weak.
Absolutely, because Parkour is a training system. You need to challenge yourself in order to improve, and if you are physically stronger then that simply means that what you have to do to improve is more physically demanding. Training when you're strong is FAR more dangerous than training when you're weak. The forces are much greater, and let's also not forget that there are parts of your body that you cannot strengthen. For instance, if you're moving quickly you're much more likely to damage your internal organs with an unprotected impact. Mistakes when you are strong have much more serious consequences than mistakes when you are weak, for this precise reason. You're stronger, so the training is tougher.
What protects you from physical harm is your ability to avoid attempting things that you can't do, i.e. it is your mental strength in accurately judging your ability and the difficulty of movement.

I understand your meaning that progressive building up of strength and technique in a balanced manner is the best way to develop the skills necessary for Parkour, I just disagree with it. New traceurs who have physical activity backgrounds will no doubt advance faster and safer then those without because of their increased physical attributes.
No, that is simply not the case. In fact, the reverse is the case. The stronger you are, the more slowly improvement takes place. Someone who starts Parkour when already strong will jump a 6 foot gap before someone who starts when weak, but jumping a 6 foot gap isn't progress if you already have the ability to do that. Progress and advancement means improvement over your abilities you had when you started Parkour. Being able to jump further than someone has absolutely no bearing on your respective rates of improvement, on whether you've advanced with Parkour. Objective achievement is an irrelevant scale for Parkour practitioners. What matters is how much stronger you are than when you started, both physically and mentally.
Since parts of mental development can only happen alongside physical development (the biggest example is the process of learning how to train yourself with Parkour), being physically strong already only makes practicing improving harder. It makes training harder. It makes practicing Parkour harder.

David Belle himself was already strong and involved in many physical arts before creating Parkour.
Well, in David Belle's book he describes how when he started to create the idea of Parkour he had tried a few different sports, like gym and athletics, enough to 'know how to use his body', but in his words he "had a little physical ability, nothing special". I suppose it depends on how you interpret his words, but I don't think that a 14 year old who has been to a series of gym and athletics classes that he didn't enjoy is likely to have had the sort of "able to squat 2 x bodyweight" strength that some people talk about as being necessary before starting plyometric exercise.
David has said elsewhere, too, that he wasn't strong as a child, before Parkour. (Also in the book, I think he's quite clear that the source of his father's physical ability was specifically a result of self-made obstacle courses that he used while a child in a military school.)

Personally, I started weight training because of Parkour. Parkour has taught me that to take care of my body and be strong, and I believe that it is the mindset of someone "training for Parkour" that determines whether or not he is a traceur.
Well, for me, 'training for Parkour' means that that someone hasn't understood the point of Parkour, which is that Parkour is used to train for other things, not vice versa. A traceur for me is someone that trains by trying to move past the obstacles in their environment.

Sorry I misinterpreted that, but that actually leads to a question, do you train a particular set of movements when you are out training? I don't know what they call them in England but here we use the name "circuit training", basically we repeat the same route for excersise. Do you do this?
In a given training session I might find a course that I like and repeat it several times, or on occasion a single movement, but I try and avoid any lasting patterns in my training because I recognize that there are significant dangers involved in falling into routines. Failng everything else, routines become boring, which is probably the greatest danger to training. :)

Although that sentence is mostly true, i dont think a generalization such as that is true. Varied movement will create no perceivable imbalances as you will just get used to doing certain movements the way you use them, which necessarily isnt the correct way to use them.
What I'm saying is that if you vary movement, if you don't stick to just one way of doing things, then you don't get that problem. It is important to actively resist failing into a routine with any movement. If you do that, you don't need to worry about 'form'.

Also, i feel that working on fundamental movements will help. Practice makes perfect. If you want to go out there and get past obstacles, there are some movements that you are going to use a lot, and practicing them so that they become second nature is i think instrumental.
Absolutely, practicing movement that is truly fundamental is very useful. However, it's important to recognize what fundamental movement is. I used inverted commas for a reason in my last post, because although movements such as vaults, arm jumps and precisions are considered by many to be fundamental (even labeled as such on popular websites), they are too demanding for most beginners to attempt safely. The truly fundamental movements are things like crawling, climbing, rolling, walking and running. Those are stages of movement progression that almost every beginner tries to skip quickly past, including myself and I'm sure virtually everyone else here, but they are stages that you need to devote a lot of time to in order to give yourself the necessary foundation to train through movement.

You're assuming a LOT here about the environment. Nothing about any given environment GUARANTEES that moving through it will make you a balanced athlete, I'm sorry that's simply untrue. If all I ever did was move through my environment (even though this is still my favorite way to train) I would pretty much exclusively be a distance runner. Maybe a speed vault here or there but things like cats, precisions and climb ups would all be severely underdeveloped if I didn't train them specifically. This is just the realities of the fact that most of where I live is flat and spread out.
I didn't mean to imply that you should rely entirely on the environment to create challenges for you, but if you move through your environment in a variety of ways, challenge yourself with as great a variety as you can (either through changing location, or being creative yourself), you will not develop muscle imbalances.
I think it's a mistake to think that you need to learn the same movements that everyone else does. If the environment you find yourself in contains few situations where arm jumps, precisions and climb-ups are useful, then those movements are clearly not as useful to you and it will be practical to spend less time developing the ability to do them. We are supposed to be training to improve our ability to to live our own lives, in our own neighborhoods, not to live someone else's life. Sure, it's great to be able to get past every possible obstacle, but practicality says that you should spend more time on obstacles that you will probably meet than ones that are simply 'possible' for you to meet. For me, practicality says devote time to getting past each obstacle according to how often you encounter it, or how important it is (or would be) to get past it.

And again I would say that if training for parkour is a "nonsensical" idea then you're logic inevitably leads to the conclusion that any kind of physical or mental improvement you make in any way is parkour. I could do math problems and be doing parkour. Bouncing everywhere on my ass would be parkour. I'm sorry but to me that's a far more nonsensical assertion.
I'm sorry, I don't understand how you reach that conclusion from what I said.

That being said I'm totally with you that generally the best way to adapt to moving through your environment is to move through your environment. But to say that's the only way to do things, that subsidizing your training with other things is actually counter-productive? Sorry, I think that's quite simply, wrong.
It's a physiological principle that you get better at exactly what you practice.  If you could separate out all of the pieces, optimize the training of each one, and then stick it all back together then that would be great. However in real life problems aren't specialized, and part of developing practical strengths is being practiced at using skills in combination. This shows a major flaw in the idea of specialized training.
The argument usually used to counter this is that there are certain skills that you can't develop in combination with others (strength being the one most often quoted). I believe that to be wrong, as a result of learning from my own training experience and that of other Parkour practitioners (such as David Belle).

that is a very bold statement and i know a lot of people with degrees on the matter who whould laugh at it.
I don't mind being laughed at, I like people to be in good humor :)
Exercise science is still a very, very new discipline in itself. Popular views are not necessarily correct views.

there is no set routine of moving through the environment so how would you expect people to avoid things like muscle imbalances and untimately tendonitis if everyone is practicing different things in different environments? 
It is precisely because there are no set routines that people can avoid muscle imbalances. Imbalances are caused by people sticking to set routines.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Leland on December 09, 2010, 04:09:39 PM
Quote
As I said, it depends what your goals are as to whether lifting is useful for you or not, and I don't dispute that lifting is the best way to develop strength. That's irrelevant to this discussion though, because if we focus on strength then the development of other attributes suffers, and we fail to develop our overall abilities in a balanced way that is necessary for Parkour. Our goal isn't to jump the furthest the fastest. The goal of the discipline of Parkour is to help practitioners develop a broad range of fundamental abilities that you can use to get past obstacles of all kinds. Specialization is a bad thing.

The use of weight lifting is a long-standing argument between me and some others on this website, and it's not going to be resolved in this thread (at least not without without venturing even further from the original topic). For now, just be aware that there are people who strongly disagree with the necessity of Parkour practitioners using weights. This website is not the source of all knowledge, even the most experienced people here are absolute beginners in understanding both what Parkour is and its benefits.

You're arguing under the assumption that weight training makes other physical attributes suffer. That is not always true, of course if one focuses on developing strength purely by weight lifting, that is going to be make him weaker in other areas, but that shouldn't be the case where traceurs weight lift anyway. Strength form the basis of many of Parkour movements, most notably any sort of climbing skills. it also helps control almost every movement including vaults and jumps. You might say that one that purely practices control will have better control then one who purely focuses on strength training, that is obviously through, but a traceur who trains intelligently with a smart training plan including weights and pure Parkour training will also have a high degree of control. Functional strength (which should be what traceurs aim for) helps in improving other physical attributes, that's why almost every athlete strength trains.

Anyways, I suppose we can stop discussing about weights or not in this thread if you or anyone else feels it's derailing the original topic.
Quote
Absolutely, because Parkour is a training system. You need to challenge yourself in order to improve, and if you are physically stronger then that simply means that what you have to do to improve is more physically demanding. Training when you're strong is FAR more dangerous than training when you're weak. The forces are much greater, and let's also not forget that there are parts of your body that you cannot strengthen. For instance, if you're moving quickly you're much more likely to damage your internal organs with an unprotected impact. Mistakes when you are strong have much more serious consequences than mistakes when you are weak, for this precise reason. You're stronger, so the training is tougher.
What protects you from physical harm is your ability to avoid attempting things that you can't do, i.e. it is your mental strength in accurately judging your ability and the difficulty of movement.

If being physically stronger means that what you have to do to improve in Parkour is more demanding, then you're saying that being strong = better at Parkour.That is one obvious contradiction, because you implied previously that strength training doesn't improve your Parkour skills, because other attributes will suffer. Furthermore, you say that training when you're strong is more demanding because you train more demanding moves. Well, if you're just beginning in Parkour, then you shouldn't do high intensity moves, no matter how strong you are. No one is saying we should skip the basics and all attempt high level moves that our strength permits us to attempt, we're saying that given equal training intensity, having high strength will make training safer. Not to mention improve faster as well.

Quote
No, that is simply not the case. In fact, the reverse is the case. The stronger you are, the more slowly improvement takes place. Someone who starts Parkour when already strong will jump a 6 foot gap before someone who starts when weak, but jumping a 6 foot gap isn't progress if you already have the ability to do that. Progress and advancement means improvement over your abilities you had when you started Parkour. Being able to jump further than someone has absolutely no bearing on your respective rates of improvement, on whether you've advanced with Parkour. Objective achievement is an irrelevant scale for Parkour practitioners. What matters is how much stronger you are than when you started, both physically and mentally.
Since parts of mental development can only happen alongside physical development (the biggest example is the process of learning how to train yourself with Parkour), being physically strong already only makes practicing improving harder. It makes training harder. It makes practicing Parkour harder.
'

Now you're saying that a stronger person improves slower then a weaker person, because he started out better at Parkour already! Since you're equating jumping further to improving in Parkour, then weight training helps improve in Parkour. Therefore, you can train for Parkour by weight lifting. Unless you're saying that achieving a 6 foot gap is somehow more holistic when achieved through pure movement, which would just be well.. full of elitism. Also, jumping a 6 foot gap not only requires strength, it requires technique, balance, and a whole bunch of other stuff. By training you strength, you check that "being able to jump 6 feet" off the list of skills required to say, do a 6 feet precision. Therefore, you can more easily train for the other stuff required to land a 6 feet precision, like balance, technique, and what not, not to mention such control is more easily achieved when you have easily jump over 6 feet.. Thus, someone who started out strong will be able to master the 6 feet precision faster then someone who did not, therefore strength will help you progress faster. As for objective achievement being irrelevant, I do not agree as well, objective goals are a way many traceurs train to improve themselves. For example, being able to land 6 feet precisions almost every time is a more useful goal then getting better at precision  jumps. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that comparing oneself with others is irrelevant, as what is relevant is self-improvement, but at the same time, if someone who claims to be training for a year says he can't do a waist height speed vault, I would seriously doubt he's been training/doing Parkour.


Also, Ryan Ford's parkour competition brought this to light to me:
Quote
The girl who won was an elite gymnast for 12+ years and is more physically capable than a huge percentage of the men in parkour. She has only been doing parkour for about 6 months so some of her technique is rough around the edges (like using her knee on climb ups) but her physical condition, athletic background, and mindset made her the winner. So while you question whether or not she was physically ready to do those courses, your answer is exactly that, she won largely in part to her good physical condition.

The men's winner, Sat Khalsa, has a degenerative back injury that has prevented him from doing parkour for several years now. He trains parkour seriously maybe 2 or 3 times a year. He also stays in really great shape through other methods and is naturally talented. Isn't it weird how someone can be really good at parkour without even doing it? The same goes for a lot of the guys in the top 10. They weren't necessarily the most skilled or technically sound athletes, but they were better athletes, period. It makes a lot of the parkour training people do look like a total waste of time. People would be way faster and able to complete a task or escape or reach in an emergency situation if they were simply better athletes. Instead of being really good at kong vaults, underbars, and cat leaps, people should worry more about running faster, jumping farther, and being stronger. Completing obstacle courses or emergency situations, in other words and by definition, being good at parkour, is more about being a good athlete and less about perfect technique. This is just another example of interesting insight I gained from doing this competition. These are insights that can make the entire parkour community better and further the training methods we all use.

That thread and video can be found here: http://www.americanparkour.com/smf/index.php/topic,30975.0.html
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 09, 2010, 05:17:54 PM
You're arguing under the assumption that weight training makes other physical attributes suffer.
I'm arguing that focusing on one area means that you have to put less emphasis somewhere else. It's not necessarily other physical attributes that suffer, it could be mental attributes, but you can't get something for nothing.

If being physically stronger means that what you have to do to improve in Parkour is more demanding, then you're saying that being strong = better at Parkour. That is one obvious contradiction, because you implied previously that strength training doesn't improve your Parkour skills, because other attributes will suffer.
Sorry, I thought I'd stated quite categorically that being strong does not mean that you are better at Parkour. Better at Parkour means better at improving. Being stronger means being stronger, being better at moving means better at moving, and neither have got any bearing on your Parkour ability.
For me, 'Parkour' is not the same as 'moving past obstacles'. Parkour involves moving past obstacles, but as I've explained several times in this thread I consider there to be more to Parkour than just movement. Parkour is about using the idea of 'moving past obstacles' for practical purposes, not just for moving. You can be good at moving past obstacles without practicing or knowing anything about Parkour.
Strength training will help you move, but it won't help you use movement to help you improve other things, because you're using strength training to help you improve other things. Strength training teaches you strength training, Parkour teaches you Parkour. They are parallel methods, aiming for similar targets, but different to each other.

Furthermore, you say that training when you're strong is more demanding because you train more demanding moves. Well, if you're just beginning in Parkour, then you shouldn't do high intensity moves, no matter how strong you are. No one is saying we should skip the basics and all attempt high level moves that our strength permits us to attempt, we're saying that given equal training intensity, having high strength will make training safer. Not to mention improve faster as well.
You won't improve faster. I think what you mean is that you will achieve faster, and it's certainly true that if you start Parkour when you're already physically strong then the time between starting Parkour and doing a jump will be shorter.
However, you're forgetting to count all the training you've already done to become physically strong. If you add that time in, and the time it takes to get your other abilities up to the same, safe, balanced level, then it will actually take you longer than if you'd just started Parkour in the first place. Combined learning is faster than learning everything separately. With Parkour you can develop far more abilities at once. It's faster, if being strong in all these abilities is what you're after. If you only want to be strong in a few abilities then it might be faster to specialize, but I don't think that's wise and that's not the purpose that Parkour intends to serve.

As well as being faster overall it's also safer overall, because it doesn't leave you trying to learn how to cope with movement you find difficult at a point where 'movement you find difficult' contains greater risk of more serious injury.

Now you're saying that a stronger person improves slower then a weaker person, because he started out better at Parkour already!
No, not better at Parkour. Stronger doesn't mean better at Parkour. Stronger means better at moving, which is completely different.

Since you're equating jumping further to improving in Parkour, then weight training helps improve in Parkour. Therefore, you can train for Parkour by weight lifting.
You can train for movement by weight lifting. You can't train for Parkour by weight lifting. You can't train to get better at 'using movement to get stronger' by 'using weights to get stronger'.

...but at the same time, if someone who claims to be training for a year says he can't do a waist height speed vault, I would seriously doubt he's been training/doing Parkour.
Well, that depends entirely on what he started off being able to do. If he couldn't walk when he started, then being able to vault a year later means he's probably very good at Parkour.

Also, Ryan Ford's parkour competition brought this to light to me:
I interpret the results to indicate that most Parkour practitioners simply do not know how to practice Parkour effectively.

From my point of view Ryan also makes the same mistake lots of people do, by equating ability on an obstacle course with Parkour ability. An obstacle course is not an equal challenge for different practitioners, therefore the results cannot be compared on an equal basis.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 09, 2010, 05:56:56 PM
"I'm arguing that focusing on one area means that you have to put less emphasis somewhere else. It's not necessarily other physical attributes that suffer, it could be mental attributes, but you can't get something for nothing."
 so then if you want to focus all your attention on just parkour then with that logic you are fine with being weak.  there is no doubt that training like you have discussed would not result significant strength gains for example 2x BW squat, but a 2x BW squat would increase your gains in jumping, running, landing, climbing, you name it pretty significantly. 
this is getting outright silly. if your mindset is the mindset the founders have about parkour then i no longer want to be a part of such an ilogical practice.  where can i sign up for rage froobling?  ::)   seriously though i have hundreds of scientific studies that back what im saying and you have the personal opinion of a few (most likely genetically gifted) to back what your saying.    im going to stick with my way and if that means im not practicing parkour than im ok with that.  btw lifing is one of the fundimental movements just like running, and climbing so by not doing it you are assentially unbalanced.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 09, 2010, 06:33:08 PM
there is no doubt that training like you have discussed would not result significant strength gains
Well, there's significant doubt in my mind that my methods don't result in significant strength gains, since I know that training like I am discussing has resulted in significant strength gains for me personally. I also know other experienced practitioners who have experienced the same thing themselves. David Belle seems to think that it's resulted in significant strength gains for both him and his father, too.
For the record, I don't think I'm genetically gifted physically (far from it) and according to David Belle himself, neither is he.

this is getting outright silly. if your mindset is the mindset the founders have about parkour then i no longer want to be a part of such an ilogical practice.  where can i sign up for rage froobling?  ::)   seriously though i have hundreds of scientific studies that back what im saying and you have the personal opinion of a few (most likely genetically gifted) to back what your saying.
There are hundreds of scientific studies that say that if you are interested in developing a small number of abilities as effectively as possible then you should choose methods of training that concentrate on those abilities. However, there are no scientific studies that look at what you should do if you want to develop strength in all areas, physical, mental, motivational etc. It's too broad a scope for current scientific capability.
I encourage everyone to look in detail at the methods and actual results of scientific studies, rather than just the conclusions.

btw lifing is one of the fundimental movements just like running, and climbing so by not doing it you are assentially unbalanced.
Practicing lifting objects is certainly useful (which is why broader training systems with similar aims to Parkour, such as MovNat, include it and other skills as well as moving past obstacles), however it is primarily useful for helping you improve your ability to lift things. There is a lot of crossover when you are talking about fundamental human abilities like moving, or lifting, or carrying, or throwing etc. but if you want to get better at something you're best off practicing that thing itself.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: John "Cras" Morrow on December 09, 2010, 07:49:26 PM
There is a lot of crossover when you are talking about fundamental human abilities like moving, or lifting, or carrying, or throwing etc. but if you want to get better at something you're best off practicing that thing itself.
but do your muscles really know the difference if they're lifting you up a ledge or lifting a barbell?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 09, 2010, 08:22:55 PM
but do your muscles really know the difference if they're lifting you up a ledge or lifting a barbell?
Well, in that specific example the two motions use different muscles in vastly different ways. But yes, moving yourself does involve using the muscles of your body in different ways than when you are staying stationary and moving other objects.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 09, 2010, 09:06:01 PM
you are majorly contradicting your self in your last response to me.

first, how would you know your strength is going up instead of just your technique if you don't condition or measure weights?
second, you suggest because there are no scientific studies that look at what you should do if you want to develope strength in all areas that they aren't useful to you. that suggest you are interested in developing strength in all areas, but you deny lifting which is an area of human movement.

Well, there's significant doubt in my mind that my methods don't result in significant strength gains, since I know that training like I am discussing has resulted in significant strength gains for me personally. I also know other experienced practitioners who have experienced the same thing themselves. David Belle seems to think that it's resulted in significant strength gains for both him and his father, too.


of course they do to a certain extent, but mostly you are probably just getting better at technique and timing.  the only way to really know would be to compare weights lifted previous to parkour training and then compare them to after.  my guess is they wouldn't be too much different.  however if you spent half your time developing a 2xBW squat and doing muscle-ups, and the other half to parkour then your strength would have gone nuts and your skill and timing would probably be about the same, but with your heightened level of strength you would be able to progress longer once your technique gains began to plato.  also many studies show explosive power (aka clim-ups, jumping, sprinting, vaulting) is directly related to the amount of base strength an athlete possesses.  as your squat goes up so does your potential for farther jumps, ect.    unfortunately it is not the other way around.  your power may go up if you practice those things, but only until it becomes affected by your low level of strength then you hit a plato or blow out your joints.

   

edit: Take the precision jump for example. There are two guys, guy A and guy B. both are identical and both naturally squat half their BW without any training.  If Guy A  purely  practices parkour technique for a 6 foot precision jump, he will not be able to squat 2x his BW within 5 months (or ever for that matter), but if guy B is squatting 2x his BW in 5 months then there is no doubt he could jump 6 feet as well.  Once guy B is able to jump the distance it is just up to a little technical work and bam! He is now jumping farther than he would be if he had just practiced like guy A and according to scientific evidence Guy A will stall sooner than him and is at greater risk of injury.   
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Leland on December 09, 2010, 09:49:28 PM
Pretty sure your edit is what I said as well :)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Elet ET on December 09, 2010, 09:53:19 PM
I quit parkour. You guys win.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Dan Elric on December 09, 2010, 11:29:10 PM
The core values of parkour…
I will attempt to flesh out what the core values of parkour are through logic.  The purpose is to bring forth the building blocks of parkour’s philosophy, and what parkour is.

Parkour, as we all know, is a physical discipline that involves movements to continue momentum through and over obstacles in one’s path.  I think this is a good definition.  So from the start let’s try to throw some arguments out there.

Parkour is a physical discipline.  It requires strength, dexterity, and flexibility to perform well.

1)   Parkour requires strength, dexterity, flexibility, and technique.
2)   Strength, dexterity, flexibility, and technique are developed through training.
3)   Therefore, parkour requires training.

There we are, we’ve established that parkour requires training, now you may be going, “well no shit Sherlock,” but it isn’t that easy with this sort of thing.  Now let’s see where these next arguments will lead us.

4)   Training gradually improves physical ability, and thus requires continuous work.
5)   Continuous work requires persistence.
6)   Therefore, parkour requires persistence.

There’s a core value right there, persistence.  So there’s one, let’s see what else we can dig up.

7)   Parkour can be extremely dangerous.
8)   Injury and death are undesirable.
9)   Therefore, parkour stresses a need for safety.
10)   Focusing decreases the chance of injury or death.
11)   Therefore, parkour requires focus.
---

I’m sure that there are more.  I’ll leave the rest up to the rest of you, or perhaps for me to do later.  I’m more interested right now in defining parkour.

1)   Our brains recognize and analyze our environment.
2)   The more our brains recognize and analyze specific patterns in an environment, the faster and better it becomes at doing it.
3)   Our environments encompass a large variety of different obstacles.
4)   Parkour requires that we overcome obstacles in our environment.
5)   Therefore, parkour requires that we overcome a large variety of obstacles. [3-4]
6)   Therefore, doing parkour requires that we recognize and analyze a large variety of obstacles. [1, 5]
7)   Therefore, our brains become better at analyzing things this way.
8)   A mindset is a way of thinking and analyzing things.
9)   Therefore, parkour improves our ability to use this specific mindset.

Well, that didn’t go quite as far as I hoped it would, but it reached a good level.  It seems Chau Belle was wrong and parkour is not a mindset; however, parkour requires a specific mindset, this is what some people call parkour vision.  Personally, I think reaching out to show that parkour carries something nonphysical is pointless at the start because you’ve all ready defined what parkour is or simply come up with a new definition of parkour, and considering its common usage, parkour more represents actions rather than a mindset.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 10, 2010, 12:17:19 AM
If you guys want to talk about Strength and Conditioning, take it here. (http://www.americanparkour.com/smf/index.php/board,14.0.html)

I quit parkour. You guys win.

Lulz... I feel the same way sometimes.  What's this thread about again?

Exercise science is still a very, very new discipline in itself. Popular views are not necessarily correct views.
It is precisely because there are no set routines that people can avoid muscle imbalances. Imbalances are caused by people sticking to set routines.

DaveS, you are completely dismissing a body of scientific research that you have strong opinions about though you are clearly not familiar with it, based on it being a "very, very new disclipline" in a thread which you argue your "popular views" based on the about the "very, very new dislipline" of parkour are right.  Your views are not backed by peer-reviewed research, or anything other than opinion.  You need to do more research about exercise physiology before you talk about it.  You are in a leadership position in the community, it is irresponsible of you to spread opinions that are ignorant of and dismissive towards the best available information.

If you seriously believe what you're saying, start a topic in the General Fitness Forum here (http://www.americanparkour.com/smf/index.php/board,14.0.html), where our experts post.  I know I'm being very direct and it may seem rude, but you've done this before in other threads and I was more polite and subtle in my recommendations then, now you're posting about it again, and ignoring the information others are giving you.  Your expertise on parkour does not make you qualified to talk about strength training, particularly not in such a way as to say everyone else is wrong.  It's fine if you don't like weight training, and prefer your methods, but that doesn't controvert scientific opinion or the decades (centuries?) of anecdotal evidence about the value of resistance training.

That said... I'll follow my own advice and stop talking about Strength and Conditioning here...

PS Sorry about all the run-on sentences...
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: max eisenberg on December 10, 2010, 06:35:28 AM
you are majorly contradicting your self in your last response to me.

first, how would you know your strength is going up instead of just your technique if you don't condition or measure weights?
second, you suggest because there are no scientific studies that look at what you should do if you want to develope strength in all areas that they aren't useful to you. that suggest you are interested in developing strength in all areas, but you deny lifting which is an area of human movement.
  

im with dave on this one, i dont condition much at all so the strength i get comes at a slower rate but, is an overall strength. ive noticed my body get significantly stronger from the techniques i practice and how i play with my environment. its absolutely stupid to argue that moving itself will not make you stronger, or that by not conditioning we are not measuring our progress with numbers so we can be SURE were getting stronger.

thats seriously stupid if you mean it that way. i know for a fact ive gotten stronger because back when i started i couldnt do most of the stuff i can do now, not nearly as quickly, efficiently or with proper form. why? because my muscles were not built up enough for it.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 10, 2010, 06:55:13 AM
im with dave on this one, i dont condition much at all so the strength i get comes at a slower rate but, is an overall strength. ive noticed my body get significantly stronger from the techniques i practice and how i play with my environment. its absolutely stupid to argue that moving itself will not make you stronger, or that by not conditioning we are not measuring our progress with numbers so we can be SURE were getting stronger.

thats seriously stupid if you mean it that way. i know for a fact ive gotten stronger because back when i started i couldnt do most of the stuff i can do now, not nearly as quickly, efficiently or with proper form. why? because my muscles were not built up enough for it.

its mostly because you didn't have the right technique and now you do.  the only way to know for sure would be to go back in time and measure the amount of force produced by a mucle and compare it to the amount produced now.  of course you will gain some strength/power/ endurance, but not even a fraction of what you would be gaining if you coupled techical training with proper conditioning/ strength training. 

im sorry if it looks like i have completely gone off topic with strength training issues, but it was all to prove a point about parkour. 
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 10, 2010, 07:00:15 AM

second, you suggest because there are no scientific studies that look at what you should do if you want to develope strength in all areas that they aren't useful to you. that suggest you are interested in developing strength in all areas, but you deny lifting which is an area of human movement.
There's nobody saying that scientific studies on the benefits of strength training aren't useful. However, the fact that none of them are studying the effects relating to the goals of Parkour means that they are not directly relevant to Parkour. Conclusions aren't automatically transferable.

first, how would you know your strength is going up instead of just your technique if you don't condition or measure weights?
...
of course they do to a certain extent, but mostly you are probably just getting better at technique and timing.  the only way to really know would be to compare weights lifted previous to parkour training and then compare them to after.  my guess is they wouldn't be too much different. 
Nobody said anything about looking only at the effects on movement technique either. Life involves many tasks, and some of them (including but not limited to lifting objects) enable you to spot increases in strength. Training with movement can increase strength.

however if you spent half your time developing a 2xBW squat and doing muscle-ups, and the other half to parkour then your strength would have gone nuts and your skill and timing would probably be about the same,
I don't think it's sensible to claim that if you halve the amount of time you spend working on technique that your technique will be about the same. Of course your technique will be substantially worse. Sure, the difference in improvement in technique might be hard for beginners to spot, but there will definitely be a significant difference between two radically different training systems. Everything has an effect.

edit: Take the precision jump for example. There are two guys, guy A and guy B. both are identical and both naturally squat half their BW without any training.  If Guy A  purely  practices parkour technique for a 6 foot precision jump, he will not be able to squat 2x his BW within 5 months (or ever for that matter), but if guy B is squatting 2x his BW in 5 months then there is no doubt he could jump 6 feet as well.  Once guy B is able to jump the distance it is just up to a little technical work and bam! He is now jumping farther than he would be if he had just practiced like guy A and according to scientific evidence Guy A will stall sooner than him and is at greater risk of injury. 
Person B could jump 6 feet, but nothing like as safely because although he would have the strength he wouldn't have any of the other skills required. It would take an additional 5 months of technique work to be at the same point technically as person A (and this is still leaving out all the mental skills that come as a result of developing physically through Parkour).
The scientific studies you are referring to look at the effects on injury in a range of sports, however it is important to remember that those sports are not Parkour. Parkour contains one significant extra element, different to that of any other sport. Namely, that in Parkour you are in complete control over what you do. You don't have collisions with other people, you don't have to try and perform unnatural movements, and you aren't encouraged to compete with other people, nor to disregard your own decision-making ability. In other sports you can't control the physical demands. In Parkour you can.
Safety relies on physical condition in other sports simply because that's the first point at which a person has control over what happens. They can't control what their body experiences, so they have to attempt to strengthen their ability to deal with experiences of all kinds.
In Parkour, we can control what our bodies experience. It's entirely our choice what we do. We protect ourselves with our strength of mind, and that keeps us far safer than any physical protection can. No amount of physical strengthening will provide protection if you decide to push too far too fast, but you can remain safe with any level of physical strength as long as you don't choose to attempt things far beyond what you can do.

It seems Chau Belle was wrong and parkour is not a mindset; however, parkour requires a specific mindset, this is what some people call parkour vision. Personally, I think reaching out to show that parkour carries something nonphysical is pointless at the start because you’ve all ready defined what parkour is or simply come up with a new definition of parkour, and considering its common usage, parkour more represents actions rather than a mindset.
Let's not forget though that every action requires a thought. I believe people are correct when they say that the core of Parkour is the mental approach, as even though it is our actions that define us it is our mental approach that ultimately determines our actions.

I think it is always necessary to show beginners that Parkour involves non-physical development and a way of thinking as well as physical development. They don't need to focus on that part, but they do need to be aware that it exists, otherwise they will try and attach their own meaning to the actions which won't necessarily be the same.
Once someone makes a connection between ideas it stays with them. Once they connect Parkour to something else, they will always associate Parkour with that other thing.
That is, after all, how almost all of the problems in the Parkour community have arisen, by people not realizing that Parkour has a philosophy and then thinking they can apply their own philosophy to the actions. Commercialization, competition, expression, rebellion, these are all just different purposes that people have tried to attach to Parkour. We know from experience in the Parkour community that it's very difficult to break those connections once they have been established.

Lulz... I feel the same way sometimes.  What's this thread about again?
This thread is about understanding the philosophical side of Parkour. Since the philosophical side is connected to every other aspect, to explain it fully we need to detail it's connection to other parts. Since people don't fully understand the other parts, we also need to explain those. This is all background understanding fundamental to the question of whether or not Parkour has a philosophy.

I'm not contradicting any scientific evidence or results, I'm saying that we can't assume that the conclusions people draw from it apply to Parkour. Results are different to conclusions, as anyone with a basic understanding of scientific method can testify. Results are indisputable, conclusions are simply (educated) guesswork.
Conclusions about which path you should choose depend entirely upon what your goals are, and the goals of Parkour are significantly different to the goals of any other activity. Those scientific studies use a small selection of measurements, like how far you can jump, or how much weight you can lift, or how hard you can push against a piece of equipment, or how many injuries you get playing competitive sport, all within the scope of a controlled, scientific study. That's fine, but in Parkour we're interested in a lot more. We're interested in how far you can jump when your life is in danger, how much weight you can lift when you're dragging someone out of a river in winter, how hard you can push when you're exhausted, or how many injuries you get from helping your friends throughout the course of your life. We simply do not care about the things that they are testing, and those studies on weight lifting don't include measurements of these things we care about. I've read the details. Have you?

There are no scientific studies of Parkour, and no peer reviewed research either. Anecdotal evidence is limited. Simple rational understanding says Parkour is different.

Your views are not backed by peer-reviewed research, or anything other than opinion.  You need to do more research about exercise physiology before you talk about it.  You are in a leadership position in the community, it is irresponsible of you to spread opinions that are ignorant of and dismissive towards the best available information.

If you seriously believe what you're saying, start a topic in the General Fitness Forum here (http://www.americanparkour.com/smf/index.php/board,14.0.html), where our experts post.  I know I'm being very direct and it may seem rude, but you've done this before in other threads and I was more polite and subtle in my recommendations then, now you're posting about it again, and ignoring the information others are giving you.
Politeness and subtlety are not things I associate with you. You come across as neither here, nor have you in previous discussions with me, nor in several other threads I've read. Friendly, maybe, but not polite or respectful.
Yet again you're making the discussion personal, by focusing criticism on a person rather than the point in question. I think you need to seriously rethink your discussion technique, because you're not presenting yourself as being knowledgeable about the topic, you're presenting yourself as being knowledgeable about my thought process and my past experience. You claim to know me better than I know myself, which is rude, insulting, and clearly nonsense. I'm sure you'd find it a lot easier to get your points across if your posts treated others with more respect. If you made your points by referring to the information rather than to me, then we'd have more to discuss.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Leland on December 10, 2010, 08:26:22 AM
Quote
Safety relies on physical condition in other sports simply because that's the first point at which a person has control over what happens. They can't control what their body experiences, so they have to attempt to strengthen their ability to deal with experiences of all kinds.
So if Parkour, you are totally in control 100% of the time? Accidents always happen, no one is infallible, and when they do, a strong person will get hurt much less then a weak one.

Quote
In Parkour, we can control what our bodies experience. It's entirely our choice what we do. We protect ourselves with our strength of mind, and that keeps us far safer than any physical protection can. No amount of physical strengthening will provide protection if you decide to push too far too fast, but you can remain safe with any level of physical strength as long as you don't choose to attempt things far beyond what you can do.
Therefore, being weak = limiting what you can train for = stalling. You speak as if anyone that can squat twice their bodyweight will go around jumping 9 feet gaps that they are unprepared for. With intelligent training, someone who can jump 9 feet will have a far easier time controlling a 6 feet jump, and that is where he should progress from. If being strong and attempting things beyond your level is dangerous, being weak and attempting to do so would be absolutely disastrous. This is not an argument against strength training, this is an argument supporting safe training, which is irrelevant in this case.

Quote
That's fine, but in Parkour we're interested in a lot more. We're interested in how far you can jump when your life is in danger, how much weight you can lift when you're dragging someone out of a river in winter, how hard you can push when you're exhausted, or how many injuries you get from helping your friends throughout the course of your life.

If you think that being stronger wouldn't help in the situations above.. because the scientific experiments don't exactly emulate the conditions.. then you'd just be wrong. Being strong would obviously help in those situations.

Are you saying that someone who trains pure movement would do better in those situations? Because that would make no sense either, because you aren't exactly training in danger. If you argue that the balance, agility, perception would help, then you own argument against strength training bites you in the ass, there is no direct evidence supporting that point. If you're saying that the mental state someone who trains in pure movement would enable him to overcome these obstecles, then your argument would have no logical basis whatsoever, and you would also be saying that those who weight train to supplement for their parkour training are mentally weaker then those who don't, which would be downright elitist.

Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 10, 2010, 08:48:07 AM
Yet again you're making the discussion personal, by focusing criticism on a person rather than the point in question. I think you need to seriously rethink your discussion technique, because you're not presenting yourself as being knowledgeable about the topic, you're presenting yourself as being knowledgeable about my thought process and my past experience. You claim to know me better than I know myself, which is rude, insulting, and clearly nonsense. I'm sure you'd find it a lot easier to get your points across if your posts treated others with more respect. If you made your points by referring to the information rather than to me, then we'd have more to discuss.

Everything I said was about your behavior, and the nature of your argument, not your character.  That's the difference between attacking the person and attacking the argument.  I also stuck to what you actually said, rather than inventing claims for you.  If you really feel I was over the line, report me to a moderator, that's what they're here for.  I am 100% okay with what I said, because what I said was about the arguments you were making.

Find anyone with true expertise in physiology and exercise science that agrees with your claims and then we'll talk some more.  Produce real evidence to back it up, and then we'll talk.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andrew 'Syn' Obenreder on December 10, 2010, 10:51:11 AM
I choose not to fall.

I believe...
That I'm logging off :D
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: NMPK on December 10, 2010, 11:43:41 AM
Aw come on guys can this thread not get ugly? I was having fun.

Dan, props on actually laying out a logical outline and trying to define a "philosophy" for parkour. I don't think people realized quite the extreme that it's necessary to take the step by step nature of logical arguments to in order to remain consistent. Incidentally are you a philosophy major, or just interested in the subject?

As for the other argument going down, can we at least agree that direct physical strength/conditioning training will be best for direct physical improvement, and direct parkour training (motion through the environment only) is the best way to develop technical proficiency and fine motor control (for parkour)? As for which of these is therefore "better" wouldn't it depend on your personal strengths/weaknesses, goals as a practitioner, and environment? That's my take. I'll freely admit I know too little about physiology to go any deeper than that.

Dave of your posts that I've seen you've always been very helpful and willing to share your expertise and opinions with beginners. I'm sure that coaching association tag in your sig is not merely nominal. That being said, every thread I've seen Brett in he's been very respectful and genuine, not to mention logically on target. In other words can we all just e-hug or something?  :-Sarcasm

I believe...
That I'm logging off :D

This seems like the right idea, but how else am I supposed to waste time on the internet on my lunch break? I deleted my facebook... 
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: max eisenberg on December 10, 2010, 12:44:08 PM
i replied to quickly ... again.

you're right, the movements wont maximize your strength gains because you're only pushing and pulling so much weight around. i would however say that parkour could and does make you stronger under proper training conditions. it is however true that as you progress in technique things get easier because your technique gets better but, wouldnt it be true that technique getting better is a direct result of strength gains?

ryan ford has put forth an excellent addition to this, being that better athletes make better traceurs and more physically capable people... period.

i need to start looking at parkour with my own eyes, not the eyes of david belle, stephane vigroux and the rest of the people who brought their views to the table.

thank you for that guys, very well made points on the last two pages, very careful consideration must be taken in my future training.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 10, 2010, 01:10:03 PM

Find anyone with true expertise in physiology and exercise science that agrees with your claims and then we'll talk some more.  Produce real evidence to back it up, and then we'll talk.

agreed
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: J. Gabriel Alvarez Manilla on December 10, 2010, 01:58:15 PM
Let me see if I understand the two lines of argument that have developed:

Dave is arguing that the best way to train for parkour is to do more parkour, or that practicing techniques develops strength required for those techniques

Brett Robert, Chris and other argue that progress in parkour is split between technical and physical training, and that technical training maxes out, but that hardcore physical training with weights and such is the way to go.

Is my rough summary correct?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 10, 2010, 03:41:17 PM
Let me see if I understand the two lines of argument that have developed:

Dave is arguing that the best way to train for parkour is to do more parkour, or that practicing techniques develops strength required for those techniques

Brett Robert, Chris and other argue that progress in parkour is split between technical and physical training, and that technical training maxes out, but that hardcore physical training with weights and such is the way to go.

Is my rough summary correct?

Yeah, pretty much.  But this thread was initially about one guy saying he was tired of people judging him because he didn't share their philosophy.

I'm totally all for the getting along thing.  I set a high standard for discourse for those I think are capable of living up to it, not to be mean, but because as a teacher of mine said "technique is the proof of sincerity."  If you truly care about something, I believe it's worth taking the time to say it right.  I also believe that it's entirely possibly to completely disagree with someone else about things, and still respect them.

E-hug? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJTBPdVpdMc)

Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 10, 2010, 04:45:55 PM
Let me see if I understand the two lines of argument that have developed:

Dave is arguing that the best way to train for parkour is to do more parkour, or that practicing techniques develops strength required for those techniques

Brett Robert, Chris and other argue that progress in parkour is split between technical and physical training, and that technical training maxes out, but that hardcore physical training with weights and such is the way to go.

Is my rough summary correct?

Could it be possible, then, that both of you are correct? That both methods are perfectly legitimate and simply lead to different results that a person may or may not prefer based on their idea of Parkour training and how they want to use it in their life? Lovin' the intellectual back-and-forth, that's how people learn. Just be sure to keep 'integrating' in mind, that it's about learning and sharing and combining, and not just defending yourself as being right.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: J. Gabriel Alvarez Manilla on December 10, 2010, 08:37:04 PM
Could it be possible, then, that both of you are correct? That both methods are perfectly legitimate and simply lead to different results that a person may or may not prefer based on their idea of Parkour training and how they want to use it in their life?

That's what I was going for. I feel like the idea of training for parkour with more parkour has been misunderstood; that some think it entails that technique training is the only way to go. In my eyes, training parkour with more parkour just means using physically demanding movements in repetition to condition, like climb ups and lowering over and over again. I find this method quite legitimate: I once had a precision training session in the rain, my legs were so sore by the end of it it was very hard to walk down stairs. What was so good about is that I was training technically at the same time; it got to the point where I wasn't getting any of them right so someone suggested "try getting them 10 times right in a row," and I had to focus really hard to get that technique right.

That's not to say that weights or straight up push ups, pull ups, and other things aren't a good way to condition, but I find two problems with weights, one is personal and the other practical. First, I don't feel comfortable with weights. It's just foreign, and weird, and I don't like it. If I don't have to, I wont; but that's just me. To those of you that use them, sure, why not. The second problem is that access to them usually costs money. You can buy them, or go to the gym, and in both instances you pay money for it. I bring this up because what's so nice about parkour for beginners is that you don't need any equipment to start, just you and someone to show you the way. If you tell people that weightlifting is necessary, then you're taking away from that minimalistic aspect of beginning parkour.

That's just personal opinion, I'm not trying to knock on other's training methods. If an individual has weights already or wants to use them, that's their deal, their training method.

One more thing, please don't tell me that my progress is solely technical when I know that not only my cat traverses (hang shimmy) are faster, they also require much less effort than when I first started.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 10, 2010, 09:01:45 PM
Could it be possible, then, that both of you are correct? That both methods are perfectly legitimate and simply lead to different results that a person may or may not prefer based on their idea of Parkour training and how they want to use it in their life? Lovin' the intellectual back-and-forth, that's how people learn. Just be sure to keep 'integrating' in mind, that it's about learning and sharing and combining, and not just defending yourself as being right.

The only problem is the way the claims are being made.  There's nothing wrong with saying "I prefer a, b, & c because of x, y, & z."  If you're doing that you're clearly stating an opinion.  Opinions aren't really open to debate, they are an interpretation of large bodies of information.  However if you say "x is the best way to build strength," or even just "x builds strength," then those are  claims which are either true or false.  When a novel claim is made, the burden of proof is on the claimant.  This is particularly the case when the novel claim directly contradicts large bodies of evidence.

For the record, I've pointed out this distinction to DaveS in other threads, that he should state his opinions as opinions, not facts, and look into strength training because he seemed uninformed, which is why when he was once again making similar claims here I chose to be so direct.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 12, 2010, 07:38:19 PM
It's important to understand that I'm not advocating technique training. I'm advocating training in a way that involves elements of technique, strength, balance, coordination, perception, judgment, positive attitude and many other abilities. I'm advocating training by trying to move past obstacles in your environment, in a range of locations and in a range of situations. Trying to move past the obstacles in your environment helps you develop in many ways.

When you start you improve in the skills you're most lacking, because it's the skill that you're weakest in that holds you back. You're only as strong as your weakest link. Once that skill is improved, another skill becomes the weakest skill and your practice improves that skill. Training only ever improves the weakest of the skills that are required for what you're doing.
If you practice the full action from the start then every part of training will work to keep your skills in balance. No single skill progresses too far beyond the other abilities that you use alongside it, and this helps you to maintain the balance of skills necessary for safety. If one skill fails you, you have plenty of other skills to compensate.
Once all your skills are at a balanced level, they will progress together. More difficult movement challenges will be a challenge to all of your skills that are involved.


Everything I said was about your behavior, and the nature of your argument, not your character. That's the difference between attacking the person and attacking the argument.  I also stuck to what you actually said, rather than inventing claims for you.
That's right, you were criticizing your perception of my behavior. That's the part that's unnecessary. Your views about whether you think that I'm ignoring evidence or not have got nothing to do with the merits of this discussion. If there is a flaw in my argument, point it out, provide evidence showing that flaw. That's all you need to do. If you don't understand a thought process as someone's explained it then state how you think the thought process should proceed. At the moment you're not doing that. You appeared to be making the assumption that your side of the argument is so strong that the only way I can disagree with you is that I haven't considered it, and then posting that assumption as a statement of fact (instead of posting your solution to the discussion).
There is no way for you to know, other than by them telling you, what someone else has considered in formulating my thoughts and ideas. No argument is perfect, they are always founded on many assumptions, and there are always many gaps where different people might understand an idea in different ways and draw different conclusions. Someone ignoring you isn't the only possibility for them disagreeing with you. A flaw in an argument doesn't translate into a flaw in a person, or in that person's behavior. None of us shouldn't make the assumption that it does.

Find anyone with true expertise in physiology and exercise science that agrees with your claims and then we'll talk some more.  Produce real evidence to back it up, and then we'll talk.
The problem that this whole thread is currently wrestling with is that there is very little evidence of anything connected to Parkour.
Find me any study of the training methods of Parkour as compared to those of other activities, taking into account entire effect on life.
My claims are based on the fundamental principles of physiology, exercise science and physics.
That to increase strength you need to work against a larger force, everyone seems to agree.
That you can generate large forces by using weights, everyone agrees.
That large forces can only be generated by using weights is the point of view of several people on this website.
That movement can generate large forces too, through the f = m a formula, has been the point of view of almost every scientist since Isaac Newton.

You can't prove the entire 'weight training is essential for Parkour' argument by asking someone to disprove it with the very 'call to authority' argument already discredited in this discussion. I've provided examples supporting my views (myself and other experienced practitioners), but I think this entire discussion is happening precisely because there is little reliable evidence of anything connected to Parkour. I fully admit that there isn't much evidence supporting my views, but since we are yet to see any evidence disproving it either that doesn't mean it's not true.
If your viewpoint is so well founded, maybe you could show us how it's foundations. It doesn't need a big debate just to include a link or two to conclusive evidence or in-depth discussion, and that could have solved this discussion several threads ago.

If you truly care about something, I believe it's worth taking the time to say it right.
My point exactly.


So if Parkour, you are totally in control 100% of the time? Accidents always happen, no one is infallible, and when they do, a strong person will get hurt much less then a weak one.
Therefore, being weak = limiting what you can train for = stalling. You speak as if anyone that can squat twice their bodyweight will go around jumping 9 feet gaps that they are unprepared for. With intelligent training, someone who can jump 9 feet will have a far easier time controlling a 6 feet jump, and that is where he should progress from. If being strong and attempting things beyond your level is dangerous, being weak and attempting to do so would be absolutely disastrous. This is not an argument against strength training, this is an argument supporting safe training, which is irrelevant in this case.

If you think that being stronger wouldn't help in the situations above.. because the scientific experiments don't exactly emulate the conditions.. then you'd just be wrong. Being strong would obviously help in those situations.
Well, nobody is ever in total control of anything, because there is always the minute possibility of something like an alien attack in the middle of crossing an obstacle.

Barring supernatural intervention however you're left with natural intervention, and as humans we can develop an understanding of natural principles. Sure, most people in our part of the world do have a very poor understanding of the nature of how things work, but this is something we can all improve. We can learn to check surfaces, understand materials, to look out for other people, to listen to the internal reports of your body's condition and many other things that help us avoid putting ourselves in dangerous situations. These things can all be learned and improved at any point, and since they keep you safe they're best learned while all elements of the challenge are relatively easy so as to avoid failure resulting in more serious consequences.

If you don't have the protection that comes from understanding the nature of your environment then, really, a development in any ability is going to help you stay safe. Strength training will protect you somewhat against consequences that you can avoid through physical strength, obviously, but then balance training will protect you against consequences that can be avoided through balance, and the same can be said of any other skill. They are all useful to protect you if the danger happens to be in that form. Since we can't predict what form danger will take, it's best to develop all fundamental abilities that will be used in many situations, not just strength.

The most fundamental ability with regard to safety is self-control, the ability to determine your actions and the situation you find yourself in. Both of those things we can do in our training (that is, after all, the whole point of training, to let yourself develop without the risk of severe consequences). Outside our training, we don't have control, and once we lose control danger could come in any form. That's why we should try and improve all our fundamental abilities with training. Strength is fairly fundamental, but so are lots of others.

Are you saying that someone who trains pure movement would do better in those situations? Because that would make no sense either, because you aren't exactly training in danger.
That is what I'm saying, and the whole of this argument is based on the fact that moving through your environment contains dangers. Furthermore, as our training progresses and the challenges get harder, it gets more dangerous. We're talking about how to remain safe in our training precisely because it's not a given.

If you're saying that the mental state someone who trains in pure movement would enable him to overcome these obstecles, then your argument would have no logical basis whatsoever, and you would also be saying that those who weight train to supplement for their parkour training are mentally weaker then those who don't, which would be downright elitist.
It's not elitist to point out that different types of training help you develop in different ways. If you do less Parkour training then you'll get less of the benefits from it. If you then do an equal amount of strength training to make up the difference then you'll get the benefits of the strength training, but those benefits will be different from those of Parkour, and the overall effect less relevant for Parkour and therefore less useful to Parkour.

Could it be possible, then, that both of you are correct? That both methods are perfectly legitimate and simply lead to different results that a person may or may not prefer based on their idea of Parkour training and how they want to use it in their life?
I've made that exact point already in this thread, and it seems as though there is still a discussion going on so I don't think that is the issue that is causing the problem. :)
Other points are still being discussed elsewhere, but I think the point that Brett and Chris are focusing on is, specifically, whether or not strength can be gained through movement.

When a novel claim is made, the burden of proof is on the claimant.  This is particularly the case when the novel claim directly contradicts large bodies of evidence.
My claim isn't exactly novel, given that I'm referring to principles that are several hundred years old, and not exactly contradicting the evidence, given that all living creatures have been exercising through movement as long as they have existed. The burden of proof is always on whoever is trying to force people away from the natural principles of living, given that our existence is proof of the success of nature.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 13, 2010, 01:08:07 AM
You can't prove the entire 'weight training is essential for Parkour' argument by asking someone to disprove it with the very 'call to authority' argument already discredited in this discussion.

Who said that?

I'm done here.  I didn't cross any lines.  I stated a case built on evidence.

It is still my opinion that the OP is free to believe, or not, whatever he so chooses, and that the principles which countless scientific studies as well as the overwhelming body of anecdotal evidence have shown to be true for all athletic disciplines apply equally to parkour.

Good luck DaveS.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 13, 2010, 05:51:36 AM
Who said that?
You did: "Find anyone with true expertise in physiology and exercise science that agrees with your claims and then we'll talk some more. " Whether or not anyone else agrees with me (never mind someone specifically trained to make the same assumptions that I think are the cause of the misunderstanding) is irrelevant to whether I'm right or not.

It is still my opinion ... that the principles which countless scientific studies as well as the overwhelming body of anecdotal evidence have shown to be true for all athletic disciplines apply equally to parkour.
You haven't yet mentioned in this thread what principles you're referring to. Laws of nature apply equally to everyone, principles governing an individual's choice of path do not.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 13, 2010, 10:46:41 AM
Laws of nature apply equally to everyone, principles governing an individual's choice of path do not.

And I think this is the key to this entire discussion, well-said, Dave. Parkour is an individual activity. We need to make it more common and more easy for members of our community to understand and respect the choices, opinions, experiences, and education of one other, and that like any other activity, we choose what suits us, and because we have different needs, desires, and experiences to add to and compliment. And as we learn more, we have different needs, or change what suits us.

Yes, weight training has benefits. And yes, we can still accomplish the same with bodyweight in motion, through physics, as Dave so aptly expressed. Each have their own side-effects and comparisons, be it bodyweight gain vs. loss, or efficiency of time spent training, vs. availability of obstacles or weights, and so on, and so on.

Why is it so important to be the only one who's 'right'? Let's integrate what we know and learn from one another, and ensure our mindset stays in the learning, and not defending, zone. Remember, few things in this world are black and white, or right and wrong. Much more commonly, we are on a gray scale, or a continuum. At least, that's been my experience. All of this is no exception.

Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Dan Elric on December 13, 2010, 12:14:11 PM
http://www.eatmoveimprove.com/ (http://www.eatmoveimprove.com/)

You could also take it to the gen fit boards, where you'll get an answer much faster.  This is so completely silly, several people that lurk the gen fit boards could have answered your questions by now.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andy Keller on December 13, 2010, 01:28:50 PM
http://www.eatmoveimprove.com/ (http://www.eatmoveimprove.com/)

You could also take it to the gen fit boards, where you'll get an answer much faster.  This is so completely silly, several people that lurk the gen fit boards could have answered your questions by now.

What are you referring to?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: J. Gabriel Alvarez Manilla on December 13, 2010, 01:29:14 PM
Right, so we were arguing about the legitimacy of the statement that there is (or isn't) a philosophy behind parkour?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: WoodlandGhillie on December 13, 2010, 01:35:59 PM
Right, so we were arguing about the legitimacy of the statement that there is (or isn't) a philosophy behind parkour?

I think we should build off of Dan's logical attempt at defining Parkour.

Parkour is a physical discipline.  It requires strength, dexterity, and flexibility to perform well.

1)   Parkour requires strength, dexterity, flexibility, and technique.
2)   Strength, dexterity, flexibility, and technique are developed through training.
3)   Therefore, parkour requires training.

There we are, we’ve established that parkour requires training, now you may be going, “well no shit Sherlock,” but it isn’t that easy with this sort of thing.  Now let’s see where these next arguments will lead us.

4)   Training gradually improves physical ability, and thus requires continuous work.
5)   Continuous work requires persistence.
6)   Therefore, parkour requires persistence.

There’s a core value right there, persistence.  So there’s one, let’s see what else we can dig up.

7)   Parkour can be extremely dangerous.
8)   Injury and death are undesirable.
9)   Therefore, parkour stresses a need for safety.
10)   Focusing decreases the chance of injury or death.
11)   Therefore, parkour requires focus.

---

1)   Our brains recognize and analyze our environment.
2)   The more our brains recognize and analyze specific patterns in an environment, the faster and better it becomes at doing it.
3)   Our environments encompass a large variety of different obstacles.
4)   Parkour requires that we overcome obstacles in our environment.
5)   Therefore, parkour requires that we overcome a large variety of obstacles. [3-4]
6)   Therefore, doing parkour requires that we recognize and analyze a large variety of obstacles. [1, 5]
7)   Therefore, our brains become better at analyzing things this way.
8)   A mindset is a way of thinking and analyzing things.
9)   Therefore, parkour improves our ability to use this specific mindset.

Training, persistence, safety, focus, analyzation skills, and an environment to use those skills in.

Any more?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: J. Gabriel Alvarez Manilla on December 13, 2010, 01:53:50 PM
A definition for a philosophy, maybe?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andy Keller on December 13, 2010, 01:57:40 PM
I think we should build off of Dan's logical attempt at defining Parkour.

Training, persistence, safety, focus, analyzation skills, and an environment to use those skills in.

Any more?


Reminds me of APK's "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.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: WoodlandGhillie on December 13, 2010, 02:04:32 PM

Reminds me of APK's "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.


Which brings about the question; Where's the problem agreeing with this?

The philosophy of Parkour is individual and opinionated, the definition seems to be already set. Why does this argument continue?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 13, 2010, 02:54:25 PM
I said I was done with this, but for better or worse, I felt I needed to address a couple things in the more recent posts.  To Evan, Andy and admiralsanchez, thanks for trying to bring the thread back on topic, and I'm sorry if this post only serves to further derail things.

Yes, weight training has benefits. And yes, we can still accomplish the same with bodyweight in motion, through physics, as Dave so aptly expressed. Each have their own side-effects and comparisons, be it bodyweight gain vs. loss, or efficiency of time spent training, vs. availability of obstacles or weights, and so on, and so on.

Here's the thing, the part I bolded is factually incorrect.  I'm not arguing to win, or to be the only one who's right.  I fully recognize the range of preferences as being valid for what they are: preferences.  However, the fact that you like something doesn't make it more effective than other methods. 

If you don't like lifting weights: don't.  If you don't like planche (a highly effective bodyweight exercise for building strength): don't do it.  If you like regular push-ups: do 'em.  If you only like parkour: have at it.  Just don't go around claiming what you like is just as good for developing strength as methods like planche or compound lifts if it isn't. 

I am not an expert on exercise physiology, no one in this thread is from what I've seen (although Chris seems like he's on his way).  I know a little bit, and I know how to select an expert.  I'm just a guy who's read maybe 3 books on the subject and taken a couple biology, anthropology, and anatomy classes, spent time in the gym, time in the dojo, and time on the streets training parkour.

That said... please, if you want to talk about fitness: take it to the general fitness forum.  This thread is supposed to be about philosophy.

You did: "Find anyone with true expertise in physiology and exercise science that agrees with your claims and then we'll talk some more. "

Yes I said that, I did not say:

'weight training is essential for Parkour'

I never said that.  I don't understand how anyone would see those two quotes as being the same (as you are by answering with the one when I asked "who said that" when you posted the other).  If you want to quote me, quote me.  If you use a synopsis, please make it an accurate one.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 13, 2010, 03:34:12 PM

Here's the thing, the part I bolded is factually incorrect. 

How so? Not trying to challenge you, I'd like to correct any misperceptions I have about physics and anatomy. With weights, we're utilizing additional mass with gravity to create force to resist. With bodyweight in motion, we're creating more velocity, to get force, to also get resistance. Now, you can do very slow lifts with weights, and that creates more resistance versus what a landing would create, which is more of a sharper force than weight resistance, as its over a shorter period of time. But since that's the type of resistance we often need to utilize in our techniques, that makes it valid, therefore I'm struggling to see the factual incorrectness. They both seem to be effective methods for what they do, and there's no reason to do both, one, or the other based on preference. Maybe one is better, but that depends on the person and the environment and everything else. That's my point in the original post. It's individual, so we cannot raise or dismiss either as purposeful.

I think the conversation is quite over as to whether it has a philosophy, so unless an Admin or Mod sees fit, I see no reason to continue this topic, as I think we're starting to make some way!
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 13, 2010, 04:18:58 PM
How so? Not trying to challenge you, I'd like to correct any misperceptions I have about physics and anatomy. With weights, we're utilizing additional mass with gravity to create force to resist. With bodyweight in motion, we're creating more velocity, to get force, to also get resistance. Now, you can do very slow lifts with weights, and that creates more resistance versus what a landing would create, which is more of a sharper force than weight resistance, as its over a shorter period of time. But since that's the type of resistance we often need to utilize in our techniques, that makes it valid, therefore I'm struggling to see the factual incorrectness. They both seem to be effective methods for what they do, and there's no reason to do both, one, or the other based on preference. Maybe one is better, but that depends on the person and the environment and everything else. That's my point in the original post. It's individual, so we cannot raise or dismiss either as purposeful.

I think the conversation is quite over as to whether it has a philosophy, so unless an Admin or Mod sees fit, I see no reason to continue this topic, as I think we're starting to make some way!

I think you mean "purposeless," but I bolded that part because I agree completely (so long as you mean purposeless).  I don't really have a problem with people working out in whichever way they find fulfilling, I just don't like to see people making claims that one thing is as effective, or more effective than another when it isn't.

I'm hesitant to answer your question because I'm not an expert, but here's my attempt based on what I've learned: 

My understanding is after the initial stage where weak people may see some strength gains, the individual movements themselves are of insufficient intensity to cause strength adaptation.  If you can do 300 kong-to-precisions for example, you're not developing strength, but you are developing endurance.  Generally speaking strength has more crossover to endurance than vice-versa.  Some parkour movements help develop power, particularly the lower body plyometrics, and power has more correlation with strength than endurance. 

In the end, you can create a program with weights or bodyweight exercises that is optimized for different things (strength, or endurance, or flexibility, or power).  There is always a trade-off, you cant train for endurance and strength at the same time (or with the same methods), and there are other trade-offs.  Generally speaking, the sum of all training and research in the last ~150 years is that strength is best developed with compound weight lifting or gymnastics holds (planche, front lever, back lever, manna, L-sit, etc.).

For parkour, the general fitness forum here, and several of the parkour gyms in America, generally recommend either a gymnastic bodyweight program supplemented with squats and deadlifts to develop the posterior chain, or Mark Rippetoe's Starting Strenth program (or something similar) where compound barbell lifts for strength are supplemented with Olympic lifts for power.  High-Intensity-Interval-Training is the recommend means for improving endurance or "cardio."

^This answer is incomplete and imperfect.  There is some controversy about these topics, however it's more like "is there any reason to run sprints longer than 40m" than "is parkour a good way to develop strength."  If you want more, go to the general fitness forum.

Did you mean "no reason to continue this topic" or "no reason not to continue this topic"?

I see no reason to continue this topic, at least not here.  We have a general fitness forum to discuss things like this.  The mods there possess a level of expertise quite beyond my own inexpertise, and rarely check threads like this.  I'm not trying to stifle the discussion, but these are technical questions which I'm not very qualified to answer, so I'd rather not attempt to do so.  Also, many of them have been asked a hundred times (and answered a hundred times) in that forum.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 13, 2010, 07:01:18 PM
oh how i want to argue that bolded claim...  please someone who agrees with it just post that statement in the gen fit section so we can discuss it.

back to the topic.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. -wiki.

doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics

any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=philosophy

assuming everyone agrees that these are correct definitions of philosophy then what about parkour makes it a philosophy?  ( im not saying I don’t think it is I just don’t know the answer for sure)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 13, 2010, 08:23:57 PM
I think we should build off of Dan's logical attempt at defining Parkour.
Training, persistence, safety, focus, analyzation skills, and an environment to use those skills in.
Any more?
You need something definite to start with, in order to deduce any other element. This website currently uses the definition "Parkour is the physical discipline of training to overcome any obstacle within one's path by adapting one's movements to the environment", but I think it has several flaws (the word 'physical' is unnecessary, and "adapting one's movements to the environment" is almost meaningless) so for me a better definition is that "Parkour is the training discipline where you try and move past obstacles in order to help you get past any obstacle that you face".

It seems we all agree though that Parkour is about getting past obstacles. The everyday Parkour training involves trying to move past the obstacles in our environment, and the ultimate goal of training is to be able to get past any obstacle that we encounter. Since that's the bit we all agree on, let's see how far we can get from just that.

I think the key words in that bold sentence I included above are 'training','you','move past' and 'obstacles' from the part concerned with what we actually do, and 'help','past any obstacle' and 'that you face' from the part concerned with the reasons for it.

From the fact that the core understanding of Parkour involves 'Training' I think it is possible to infer that Parkour isn't practiced for it's own sake. It is preparation for other things. Parkour begins and ends with training, when you move on to using your skills (rather than developing them) you move beyond the parts Parkour is concerned with.
From the fact that it is 'you' that is acting I think we can infer that Parkour is concerned with using your abilities, not those of someone or something else. Parkour has no need for aids or tools.
From the fact that in Parkour you 'move past' obstacles I think you can infer that Parkour involves moving yourself from one place to another. From the fact that there are no other statements about movement qualifying the type of movement I think we can infer that getting to our destination is the only consideration. No need to think of expression, or rebellion, or entertainment, or anything else.
From the fact that Parkour involves 'obstacles' I think we can infer that Parkour is concerned with the difficult parts of a journey, rather than the easy parts (I think this can also be inferred from the fact that we need to be challenged in order to improve). Obstacles are difficult by definition, and a movement that is easy contains no obstacle. Parkour is not about easy movement.
If we say that Parkour aims to 'help' you get past obstacles I think we can say that there is implicit recognition that Parkour does not do everything.
Saying that Parkour involves helping you get 'past any obstacle' shows that the focus is on developing fundamental skills, since it's only fundamental skills that will help with all obstacles.
That Parkour is concerned with helping you get past any obstacle 'that you face' makes it is clear that Parkour is focused on you as an individual, on helping you with the problems you encounter in your own life. Parkour has no goals beyond a training environment, it's up to you as an individual to decide your course through life.

You can deduce that there are many individual skills that are generally useful when practicing Parkour, but I think there are too many to list them all. I also think that there are too many for anyone to consciously consider them all, and I don't think that it is useful to try. Trying to get past obstacles helps you improve the abilities that are challenged whether you are aware of them or not, and it's much more practical to simply highlight the ones that are the problem at any given time.

However, there are elements that are common to all obstacles, and it's the basic grounding in these elements that all practitioners have in common. Specifically, it's the bit right at the start of the process of getting past an obstacle, before the process begins to focus on the individual obstacle. Once you've chosen to face an obstacle you set about dealing with the specifics, the element common to all solutions is the bit where you choose to face the obstacle. You become aware of the obstacle, you find a desire to get past it, and you choose to act on your desire. To become aware of an obstacle you need to be moving along a path, to have the desire to get past an obstacle you must see it as blocking your path, and to choose to act on that desire you must believe that the attempt will lead to you getting past it.

These fundamental, essential aspects of getting past obstacles are all aspects of thought, and if you combine them they make up the philosophy of Parkour. Having a path, having a desire to progress, and believing that you can progress. Or, if you want to bundle it together, believing that you can always make progress along your path. I think it should be clear that the actions involved in Parkour are down to the individual, but that the philosophy is universal.

"weight training is essential for Parkour"
I never said that.  I don't understand how anyone would see those two quotes as being the same (as you are by answering with the one when I asked "who said that" when you posted the other).  If you want to quote me, quote me.  If you use a synopsis, please make it an accurate one.
This discussion consists solely of debate about what is essential in Parkour.
We're all agreed, as far as I can see, that developing strength is an important part of moving past obstacles, and I consider moving past obstacles to be essential to Parkour. If developing strength is essential to getting past obstacles that means it is essential to Parkour, and if you're suggesting that weights are essential for strength training then there seems to be a logical connection saying that using weights is essential for Parkour.
If this isn't the point you're making, please tell me what is and I'll be happy to retract my summary of what I thought your views were. Since originally you went straight to criticizing me rather than referring to the point being discussed, you did force me to resort to guesswork in order to find a point to respond to.

Just don't go around claiming what you like is just as good for developing strength as methods like planche or compound lifts if it isn't.
I think that you're arguing against a position that simply does not exist in this discussion. I've not claimed that movement is as good as weight lifting for developing strength, and since Adam was simply repeating my point I don't think he was either.

oh how i want to argue that bolded claim...  please someone who agrees with it just post that statement in the gen fit section so we can discuss it.
I'm not quite sure which statement in bold you're referring to, but I agree that it would be useful to include more people with knowledge about strength training in a discussion about different methods of developing strength. If I have time tomorrow I'll try and start such a thread.

Philosophy
...
any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=philosophy

assuming everyone agrees that these are correct definitions of philosophy then what about parkour makes it a philosophy?  ( im not saying I don’t think it is I just don’t know the answer for sure)
Parkour isn't a philosophy, Parkour contains both a philosophy and a method. I've outlined the parts that make up the philosophy a few times in this thread so far, and I explained earlier in this post that the core element for all practitioners is in how we approach situations (i.e. obstacles).
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Dan Elric on December 13, 2010, 08:42:13 PM
You need something definite to start with, in order to deduce any other element. This website currently uses the definition "Parkour is the physical discipline of training to overcome any obstacle within one's path by adapting one's movements to the environment", but I think it has several flaws (the word 'physical' is unnecessary, and "adapting one's movements to the environment" is almost meaningless) so for me a better definition is that "Parkour is the training discipline where you try and move past obstacles in order to help you get past any obstacle that you face".

I disagree.  APK's definition is the best I've seen.  What you're trying to do is remove the physical aspect of it when parkour is physical by nature.  People that overcome mental obstacles are considered traceurs now?  I don't think so.  By the same logic you don't actually have to do any physical aspect of martial arts to be a martial artist...  Which is absurd.

Quote
It seems we all agree though that Parkour is about getting past obstacles. The everyday Parkour training involves trying to move past the obstacles in our environment, and the ultimate goal of training is to be able to get past any obstacle that we encounter. Since that's the bit we all agree on, let's see how far we can get from just that.

Physical obstacles.  Lookup parkour on youtube...  you don't see a bunch of people thinking hard about problems, you see them vaulting over physical obstacles.


Quote
From the fact that the core understanding of Parkour involves 'Training' I think it is possible to infer that Parkour isn't practiced for it's own sake. It is preparation for other things. Parkour begins and ends with training, when you move on to using your skills (rather than developing them) you move beyond the parts Parkour is concerned with.

...

That Parkour is concerned with helping you get past any obstacle 'that you face' makes it is clear that Parkour is focused on you as an individual, on helping you with the problems you encounter in your own life. Parkour has no goals beyond a training environment, it's up to you as an individual to decide your course through life.

You're adding so many things into what you think parkour is I don't even think we're talking about the same thing anymore.



Quote
You can deduce that there are many individual skills that are generally useful when practicing Parkour, but I think there are too many to list them all. I also think that there are too many for anyone to consciously consider them all, and I don't think that it is useful to try. Trying to get past obstacles helps you improve the abilities that are challenged whether you are aware of them or not, and it's much more practical to simply highlight the ones that are the problem at any given time.


My arguments had little to do with skill; hell, it blew off all physical skill in a single line and used it as a way to get to the fact that training is of valued importance in parkour.

Quote
However, there are elements that are common to all obstacles, and it's the basic grounding in these elements that all practitioners have in common. Specifically, it's the bit right at the start of the process of getting past an obstacle, before the process begins to focus on the individual obstacle. Once you've chosen to face an obstacle you set about dealing with the specifics, the element common to all solutions is the bit where you choose to face the obstacle. You become aware of the obstacle, you find a desire to get past it, and you choose to act on your desire. To become aware of an obstacle you need to be moving along a path, to have the desire to get past an obstacle you must see it as blocking your path, and to choose to act on that desire you must believe that the attempt will lead to you getting past it.

Sounds like determination and perseverance, but not parkour.

Quote
These fundamental, essential aspects of getting past obstacles are all aspects of thought, and if you combine them they make up the philosophy of Parkour. Having a path, having a desire to progress, and believing that you can progress. Or, if you want to bundle it together, believing that you can always make progress along your path. I think it should be clear that the actions involved in Parkour are down to the individual, but that the philosophy is universal.
This discussion consists solely of debate about what is essential in Parkour.

Unless you've got some logical arguments backing up what you say is and isn't essential to parkour then we're far from achieving a philosophy with this.  If you rely solely on what your opinion of parkour is, instead of logic, there are going to be disagreements that can't be disputed, and nothing is solved.  However, if you take a logical approach disagreements can be disputed and an ultimate authoritative philosophy can be reached.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 13, 2010, 10:41:59 PM
Since originally you went straight to criticizing me rather than referring to the point being discussed, you did force me to resort to guesswork in order to find a point to respond to.

Since this is the second time you've accused me of ad hominem (criticizing the person rather than the argument) in this thread, would you please produce a direct quotation of me doing so?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 14, 2010, 07:35:24 AM
I disagree.  APK's definition is the best I've seen.  What you're trying to do is remove the physical aspect of it when parkour is physical by nature.  People that overcome mental obstacles are considered traceurs now?  I don't think so.  By the same logic you don't actually have to do any physical aspect of martial arts to be a martial artist...  Which is absurd.
...
Physical obstacles.  Lookup parkour on youtube...  you don't see a bunch of people thinking hard about problems, you see them vaulting over physical obstacles.
Well, I think there are a lot of problems with that argument. Firstly, there is nothing that says that Youtube videos are a good representation of Parkour, in fact since the purpose of most of those videos is to show off there's good reason to think they are a bad representation. Secondly, the mental aspects of challenges are invisible so they are never going to be as obvious on a video, and since the vast majority of video makers are intent on producing an impressive visual display they have no reason to try to highlight this aspect (in the same way that they choose to highlight the fantastic movement at the end of training, rather than the training itself). Thirdly, removing the word 'physical' doesn't remove the physical element from Parkour, it just removes the focus on the physical element, letting you consider other aspects of obstacles.
Fourthly, Parkour is not solely physical in nature. Getting past any obstacle will always require thought as well, for the reasons I outlined above (you need to recognize the obstacle, choose to face the obstacle and believe that you can get past it, whether consciously or subconsciously).

You're adding so many things into what you think parkour is I don't even think we're talking about the same thing anymore.
My point is that I think these things that I'm talking about are there already. They are things that every practitioner has experienced, and actually they are things that have been part of all good Parkour explanations for well over a decade. I'm not adding anything, I'm simply trying to recognize what we have.

Sounds like determination and perseverance, but not parkour.
Parkour requires determination and perseverance. Obstacles are difficult, and to get through the difficulty to the benefit on the other side requires you to have the mental strength to keep going. To develop any ability requires you to get through difficulty.

Unless you've got some logical arguments backing up what you say is and isn't essential to parkour then we're far from achieving a philosophy with this.  If you rely solely on what your opinion of parkour is, instead of logic, there are going to be disagreements that can't be disputed, and nothing is solved.  However, if you take a logical approach disagreements can be disputed and an ultimate authoritative philosophy can be reached.
The problem is, as I stated above, that you need to have some fixed starting point in order to create a logical argument. You need a premise, and the premise of my last post was that "Parkour is the training discipline where you try and move past obstacles in order to help you get past any obstacle that you face". I explained the simple reasons why this definition was different to the APK one, but we can go into that in more detail if you think it is necessary.

Since this is the second time you've accused me of ad hominem (criticizing the person rather than the argument) in this thread, would you please produce a direct quotation of me doing so?
I did in fact quote you when I pointed it out the first time. You accused me personally of being irresponsible and of ignoring others, which is criticizing my actions rather than the argument in question.
You are in a leadership position in the community, it is irresponsible of you to spread opinions that are ignorant of and dismissive towards the best available information.
...
you're posting about it again, and ignoring the information others are giving you.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 14, 2010, 02:49:07 PM
EDIT: Thanks for posting that in response to my request, you're right that you had posted it earlier.  My bad for forgetting that.

I don't believe what I wrote about your argument ignoring information or being a community leader was ad hominem, because I feel what I wrote was about your argument, not you.  That said, I'll try not to use such incendiary language in the future.  I admit the terms "ignorant" and "dismissive" that I used are very loaded and I can see why you would be bothered that I used them to describe what you were saying.

Will you please stop accusing me of ad hominem (still no reason for the 2nd accusation) and misattributing quotes to me?  I don't mind you disagreeing with what I say, but please don't say I said something I didn't say.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: klaymen on December 14, 2010, 05:21:05 PM
In my humble opinion Parkour was developed by some kids who had some spare time and wanted to have some fun. They ended up enjoying what they did and it spread from there.

In my opinion, the United States was founded by Jewish space aliens who ended up impregnating the Native Americans before leaving forever.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: J. Gabriel Alvarez Manilla on December 14, 2010, 06:38:07 PM
Ok, so we've established aspects of parkour so far. The question is, should we include Sebastien Foucan's Freerunning (not just flips and stuff, but how he intended it), and should we include the fact that they were once both called the Art of Movement? Basically, are we talking about Parkour as its own separate entity as defined by Dave?

What we consider the movements of pure Parkour/Freerunning originally was just a method of training for movement, and even before that, as described by Stephane Vigroux, the founders started training together to find out what it was to be strong. Parkour and Freerunning were the two different names and meanings put behind the training/movement. David Belle traces the Art of Movement back to his father's military and firefighting days, and calls it parkour, and means for it to be useful. I've always seen the example of having to get to an injured person or climbing into a burning building to save someone. Sebastien Foucan traces it back to when he was a child playing games and imagining obstacles in his head. I've seen that whenever we (or myself) would play little games such as the ground is lava, only with a certain exercise behind it. Another interesting little fact is that whenever you hear Foucan and Vigroux speak, they use Parkour and Freerunning interchangeably.

Foucan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2wHvSA9AEg
Vigroux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d1AxUPPcF8
Belle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWneBIz6ATg

Notice how in Belle's interview (if you find the subtitles), he mentions parkour is also not choosing the path given to you, but to make your own path, like a freedom in movement. It doesn't seem to be intended by the founders to be only training (sorry to refute your argument a bit, Dave), but parkour/freerunning/the art of movement have a certain flexibility in their meanings.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: klaymen on December 14, 2010, 07:29:36 PM
Ok, so we've established aspects of parkour so far. The question is, should we include Sebastien Foucan's Freerunning (not just flips and stuff, but how he intended it), and should we include the fact that they were once both called the Art of Movement? Basically, are we talking about Parkour as its own separate entity as defined by Dave?

Personally, I am happy that there was a distinction made between Parkour and Free Running. I think it's a win win.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 15, 2010, 06:33:33 AM
Despite my own person opinion that they are all the same, I really don't mind if people use different names to say different things, so long as they understand where it comes from, and that they all originate from the same thing. As long as its conscious and with a purpose, rather than out of ignorance, I'm fine with it. Language is a tool, not an idol.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: dotCA on December 15, 2010, 06:39:39 AM
I don't really care "What" i do or "What" other people think they do. I artfully move through my enviroment, and to me and many traceurs we have a mental compenent to that that strengthens to a philosphy. Is it wrong for me to force that on you ? Yes.

Is it wrong for you to say my philosophy is incorrect and inadaquette ? Yes. I don't understand why this steamed an argument.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: WoodlandGhillie on December 15, 2010, 09:44:55 AM
Personally, I am happy that there was a distinction made between Parkour and Free Running. I think it's a win win.

Do you agree we can collectively call them the Movement arts, or l'Art du Déplacement?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Luke MC on December 15, 2010, 10:42:34 AM
I wish that people would take the time to understand Dave's points before responding to them. This is exactly why I gave up on this forum back in September. Dave, I commend your patience. Everyone seems to be missing the point.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Cody Bolen on December 15, 2010, 10:46:43 AM
I wish that people would take the time to understand Dave's points before responding to them. This is exactly why I gave up on this forum back in September. Dave, I commend your patience. Everyone seems to be missing the point.
This thread was started in the begining of December, not sure if you were being sarcastic or refering to an older thread "Parkour-Purist"
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: klaymen on December 15, 2010, 12:15:01 PM
Do you agree we can collectively call them the Movement arts, or l'Art du Déplacement?

Yes, just like football and basketball are both "ball sports".
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: John "Cras" Morrow on December 15, 2010, 02:19:17 PM
I don't really care "What" i do or "What" other people think they do. I artfully move through my enviroment, and to me and many traceurs we have a mental compenent to that that strengthens to a philosphy. Is it wrong for me to force that on you ? Yes.

Is it wrong for you to say my philosophy is incorrect and inadaquette ? Yes. I don't understand why this steamed an argument.

well people feel that they have to defend their philosophy, and people also want to convert others to their way of thinking. So i see what you mean, however i dont agree fully. A little debate never hurt anyone (but when it goes out of control it does). This forum is usually very good at being mature.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 16, 2010, 05:46:13 AM
I think we all accept that it's a bad idea to try and force your own philosophy onto other people. The difficult part is in reconciling that with the fact that there are a lot of people that try to associate themselves with the name 'Parkour' despite not actually practicing it. There's an element of 'cult' status to Parkour that's encouraging this, but the bigger problem is that there has never been a clear understanding of how to practice and the view that's grown up around Parkour that it doesn't matter.
Parkour is a broad discipline, but it is defined and it does not include everything that is labeled as Parkour on the internet. The internet contains a lot of misinformation as well as good information. How you practice Parkour does matter.

I think all Parkour practitioners share some common ways of thinking, and I think that these ways of thinking become more important and more obvious the longer you practice. If you're doing what you need to do in order to practice Parkour, you do need to think in a certain way. For me, it's those common areas that are 'the philosophy of Parkour'.

Ok, so we've established aspects of parkour so far. The question is, should we include Sebastien Foucan's Freerunning (not just flips and stuff, but how he intended it), and should we include the fact that they were once both called the Art of Movement? Basically, are we talking about Parkour as its own separate entity as defined by Dave?
I'm not quite sure what you mean there, but my view is that David, Sebastien, Stephane, the Yamakasi, les Traceurs, and a few other groups close to the foundation of Parkour all practice the same discipline. Parkour doesn't just allow variation, or people to follow their own path, it actively encourages it. If Parkour is about training in order to continue on your own path then I think it's crazy to say that someone who has used that training to follow a different path is practicing a different discipline. Parkour helps you learn from movement, it doesn't tell you what to do with the things you learn.

Notice how in Belle's interview (if you find the subtitles), he mentions parkour is also not choosing the path given to you, but to make your own path, like a freedom in movement. It doesn't seem to be intended by the founders to be only training (sorry to refute your argument a bit, Dave), but parkour/freerunning/the art of movement have a certain flexibility in their meanings.
Clearly Parkour is fun as well as being useful, but I think it's clear that utility was a part of it from the start. Even Sebastien, with his laid back and fun-loving attitude, recognizes that if you're training it should have a purpose. My first contact with Parkour as a discipline was with Sebastien, and although my understanding has developed since my view of Parkour is essentially the same now as the understanding I got from him then.
For me, I think the only difference between David Bell and Sebastien Foucan in terms of their approach is that David had a clear idea of what he wanted to be able to do from the start, and Sebastien didn't. Sebastien therefore spent more time exploring, he explored more widely than David needed to.

Those three videos you linked to each mention a little bit about the start of Parkour, but the David Belle interview is the only one to say "Parkour is ...". If you listen to what each of those three people say (rather than what other people are saying around them) then I think they're entirely consistent with each other.

Personally, I am happy that there was a distinction made between Parkour and Free Running. I think it's a win win.
I think it would be good if there was a clear distinction between Parkour (training to be useful) and other movement-based activities, but I don't think 'Freerunning' makes that clear distinction. The word 'Freerunning' was created as another name for Parkour and it's still used by many in this way, and ultimately I'm not sure the drive to label showing-off, entertainment and expression as 'Freerunning'  has been beneficial. As far as I'm concerned movement for those purposes already had names, specifically 'acrobatics' and 'dance', and at the moment 'Freerunning' doesn't have much of a definition at all.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Luke MC on December 16, 2010, 09:30:38 AM
This thread was started in the begining of December, not sure if you were being sarcastic or refering to an older thread "Parkour-Purist"

I was referring to some old discussions that were taking place when I first joined up in September (or maybe August).
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Dan Elric on December 17, 2010, 12:43:38 AM
Well because we can't agree on what parkour means...  I now present a new discipline, like parkour, but less ambiguous.

Rage Froobling - n. - the physical discipline of training to overcome any obstacle within one's path by adapting one's movements to the environment.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 17, 2010, 07:24:29 AM
is that really the definition of rage froobling? 
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: WoodlandGhillie on December 17, 2010, 07:26:02 AM
is that really the definition of rage froobling? 

Rage Froobling was Teige (Teghead) making fun of arguments like the one we have here. It doesn't really exist.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Leland on December 17, 2010, 08:25:33 AM
Well because we can't agree on what parkour means...  I now present a new discipline, like parkour, but less ambiguous.

Rage Froobling - n. - the physical discipline of training to overcome any obstacle within one's path by adapting one's movements to the environment.

As a froober I think you need you clarify your definition. While Rage Froobling was created by the founders as an art of overcoming obstlecles, Froobling itself has evolved into what we call Free Froobling.

Us free frooblers think of froobling as a kind of self-expression and sometimes we don't necessarily overcome an obstacle but jump over, under and around in various cool ways.

Furthermore, many would say that froobling is more than just the physical, in fact, it is said that it should always be done in rage. If it is not, then you are simply jumping over a rail, and not practicing rage froobling.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: klaymen on December 17, 2010, 08:42:23 AM
I think it would be good if there was a clear distinction between Parkour (training to be useful) and other movement-based activities, but I don't think 'Freerunning' makes that clear distinction. The word 'Freerunning' was created as another name for Parkour and it's still used by many in this way,

Free Running was coined by Sebastien Foucan who had a different idea of what Parkour/Free Running (at the time there was no distinction) was. Sebastien wanted something that was all about self expression and flowing through lanscapes etc. David Belle on the other hand wanted Parkour to be closer to Georges Hebert's "Methode Naturelle". He wanted it to be something with efficiency and strength with usefulness in mind. While both of their visions involve improving oneself and becoming more skillful in ones movements, the mindset behind why that is being accomplished is completely different. Usefulness vs. Aesthetics. Form vs. Function.

Not to say that all Sebastien cares about is aesthetics (I certainly don't believe that), but Free Running definitely focuses more on the look and feel of movements than it does on whether they are actually useful.

I don't think one is inherently better than the other, but I do believe that there is a clear distinction which has been in place for years now.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: WoodlandGhillie on December 17, 2010, 08:57:56 AM
Is freerunning a mindset of parkour, or something different altogether?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andy Keller on December 17, 2010, 09:39:00 AM
Is freerunning a mindset of parkour, or something different altogether?

Interesting question. If we say that freerunning was how Seb differentiated between his mindset and David's, I almost see it the same as this:

Is Sebastien's mindset like David's mindset, or something different altogether?

The answer is sorta. There are so many differences, yet so many similarities too. Seb and David can be classified together or classified separately, depending on the terms. Does that mean we classify parkour and freerunning as together or separate?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Dan Elric on December 17, 2010, 10:05:53 AM
Thank you Andy =D

The result of what he said is fairly profound.  IF parkour is a mindset that mindset is going to be different for everyone.  Hell David Belle doesn't think you're doing parkour unless it is useful, and Seb referred to parkour as a freedom of movement.  And then parkour gets translated into free running into that interview and we separate parkour and free running why?  Because we think there needs to be a distinction between what Seb does and what David does.

What, we don't all follow their mindsets exactly.  I've heard people tout, "follow your own path."  And ask questions like, "What does parkour mean to you?"

Because of this discontinuity a definition of parkour can never be reached because it depends on how you think about parkour, rather than what it is.  Look at the etymology of parkour.  L'art du dèplacement means the art of movement.  This is what parkour was originally intended to mean, so should we let it evolve or let traceurs throw their two cents in about what they think it means?

I believe APK's definition accomplishes an explanation of what l'art du dèplacement means the best.  And if you disagree well...  Sorry, but this isn't about opinion, it is about an objective definition. 
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: klaymen on December 17, 2010, 10:12:58 AM
I don't agree with this idea that it has to do with your own mindset. Parkour and Free Running have very different ideals. The thing they have in common is that they are both movement arts. Kung Fu and Krav Maga are both martial arts, but that doesn't mean they should be interchangeable. I really don't understand why people wouldn't want them to have separate definitions. It solves so many disputes about flips and whatnot.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 17, 2010, 10:23:22 AM
I don't agree with this idea that it has to do with your own mindset. Parkour and Free Running have very different ideals. The thing they have in common is that they are both movement arts. Kung Fu and Krav Maga are both martial arts, but that doesn't mean they should be interchangeable. I really don't understand why people wouldn't want them to have separate definitions. It solves so many disputes about flips and whatnot.

Why shouldn't Kung Fu and Krav Maga be interchangeable? ;) I've been doing Japanese Karate for a while, and Chinese Kung Fu for a while, and they are completely interchangeable. Because they all came from the same place, if you study your history. Same with Parkour.

As for solving disputes about flips, in my experience it only creates more arguments. Calling it all the same, Parkour is Freerunning, Freerunning is Parkour, all the movements belong in them, that's when you're no longer disputing what sideflips are doing. It's all part of the method of training that -you- select.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andy Keller on December 17, 2010, 10:24:59 AM
I don't agree with this idea that it has to do with your own mindset. Parkour and Free Running have very different ideals. The thing they have in common is that they are both movement arts. Kung Fu and Krav Maga are both martial arts, but that doesn't mean they should be interchangeable. I really don't understand why people wouldn't want them to have separate definitions. It solves so many disputes about flips and whatnot.

It answers the flip question, for the most part, yes, but a separation brings about so many more questions. To be doing "parkour," must you be traveling efficiently at all times? As fast as possible? As safe? The same can be said for "freerunning" if it becomes totally separate - must it be fun? Or aesthetic? Or playful?

Why not have a broad concept for parkour rather than specific definitions that may or may not fit individual practitioners?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: WoodlandGhillie on December 17, 2010, 10:25:42 AM
Perhaps I should rephrase that question.

If Parkour is the discipline, is Freerunning another way for that discipline to manifest itself in a practitioner, or something different?

I figure Seb was following David for some time, and he developed his own ideas of what parkour is or should be. Does he want it to be "under" Parkour, like a throw style in Judo, or separate, like Martial Arts vs Movement Arts?

Because of this discontinuity a definition of parkour can never be reached because it depends on how you think about parkour, rather than what it is.  Look at the etymology of parkour.  L'art du dèplacement means the art of movement.  This is what parkour was originally intended to mean, so should we let it evolve or let traceurs throw their two cents in about what they think it means?

I believe APK's definition accomplishes an explanation of what l'art du dèplacement means the best.  And if you disagree well...  Sorry, but this isn't about opinion, it is about an objective definition. 

Surely parkour has to be something definite?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Andy Keller on December 17, 2010, 10:29:13 AM
Surely parkour has to be something definite?

It can be, but only something broad and seemingly vague. There is definite purpose to parkour, but defining that purpose in a way that fits practitioners universally is difficult.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: WoodlandGhillie on December 17, 2010, 10:36:06 AM
It can be, but only something broad and seemingly vague. There is definite purpose to parkour, but defining that purpose in a way that fits practitioners universally is difficult.

If parkour has a concrete definition that doesn't fit some of the many that claim to practice it, wouldn't that make threads like these non-practitioners trying to fit the label to themselves?

Which would be weird, because then you'd have a bunch of crazy people jumping over stuff.

That's equally as probable as parkour having a definition we haven't found yet... Right?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 17, 2010, 12:10:34 PM
I think, Evan, you're specifying it to an unrealistic level. It's not about a specific definition. Language will always be ambiguous. Take baseball as an example. The only thing we have about baseball is an idea. It's a concept. If you're playing catch with a friend, that's playing some baseball. If you're in the MLB with a team, that's baseball. If you're at a batting cage swinging a bat, that's baseball. There's no definition, because there doesn't need to be one. The more you break it apart, the less sure it becomes. Like baseball, Parkour is an idea, a concept, something we are all in our heads familiar with. Words like 'learning to overcome obstacles' and 'moving efficiently' and 'training to be strong, to be useful' can describe Parkour, but they cannot encompass it. Such is the way of language. We could go through this process with every word in the English language. What is a tree, really? What is an animal? What are humans? We've never truly been able to absolutely define anything. We just operate off the concepts and ideas these words give us.

Thus, we all have a sort of inherent idea of what Parkour is, and what Freerunning is. That's our definition. and I think APK has done a very good job of describing that idea, with their definition. It's not about fitting or not fitting into the hard-marked definition of Parkour/FR. I don't think many people would argue that the original author of this topic isn't doing Parkour because he doesn't agree with the philosophical aspect.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: klaymen on December 17, 2010, 07:11:01 PM
It answers the flip question, for the most part, yes, but a separation brings about so many more questions. To be doing "parkour," must you be traveling efficiently at all times?

...you don't have to be doing parkour at all times...
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: klaymen on December 17, 2010, 07:14:38 PM
Take baseball as an example. The only thing we have about baseball is an idea. It's a concept. If you're playing catch with a friend, that's playing some baseball. If you're in the MLB with a team, that's baseball. If you're at a batting cage swinging a bat, that's baseball.

I disagree with this. Just because you are playing catch with a baseball does not mean that you are "playing Baseball". I don't understand why people feel that anytime they are out training they must call it Parkour.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Leland on December 17, 2010, 08:52:27 PM
We call it Parkour because that's the reason we're training. Seriously, without exposure to Parkour, would you be climbing walls and vaulting rails? Even if you're conditioning outdoors, who else conditions like a traceur? Most other people who care about fitness in one way or another wouldn't even consider doing QM or shimmying, but we know how incredible various forms of these exercises can be for physical gains.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 17, 2010, 10:04:44 PM
I disagree with this. Just because you are playing catch with a baseball does not mean that you are "playing Baseball". I don't understand why people feel that anytime they are out training they must call it Parkour.

Are you honestly telling me that you think that say, you ask a 12 year old practicing pitching with his 13 year old friend at the local park what he's doing, he replies, "playin some baseball", that you'd consider him to be defining his activity wrong? I think that goes against every ounce of common sense that led us to the point of our lives that we're currently at. I clearly remember telling my parents that I'm gonna go play some baseball with my friends, and we'd just throw the ball and bat the ball and have fun. That was a very clear line of communication there.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: klaymen on December 18, 2010, 01:35:34 AM
We call it Parkour because that's the reason we're training. Seriously, without exposure to Parkour, would you be climbing walls and vaulting rails? Even if you're conditioning outdoors, who else conditions like a traceur? Most other people who care about fitness in one way or another wouldn't even consider doing QM or shimmying, but we know how incredible various forms of these exercises can be for physical gains.

You can be training for Parkour without doing Parkour. I really wish the old Parkour.net forums had not been purged. Other people have been through all of these discussions and it was explained so much better than I am probably doing right now.

Are you honestly telling me that you think that say, you ask a 12 year old practicing pitching with his 13 year old friend at the local park what he's doing, he replies, "playin some baseball", that you'd consider him to be defining his activity wrong?

If someone says they are going to play baseball, that means playing a game of baseball. Yea, the line can get fuzzy if you are pitching and batting, or having baseball practice, but I feel like this is straying too far into the baseball analogy. What we are really discussing is the definition of Parkour, which has been clearly defined numerous times. It really saddens me that people are still clinging to this idea of Parkour being whatever you want it to be or some form of self expression or some other nonsense. Parkour is about quick and efficient movement in order to be useful. Free Running has been established years ago as the artistic/aesthetic offshoot of Parkour. I understand that they both kind of started as the same thing as far as the beginnings of the Yamakasi goes, but I'm pretty sure David Belle had an idea of what Parkour should be from the beginning. It was based on his father's method of escape in Viet Nam and Georges Hebert's "Methode Naturelle", both of which were based on being useful. Even the name "Parkour" comes from "parcours du combattant" (obstacle course). Since when has an obstacle course been about anything other than quickly and efficiently overcoming obstacles?

If it's really not a big deal for people to stray from the idea of usefulness, then why is it such a big deal to call it Free Running instead of Parkour?

Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 18, 2010, 04:48:05 AM
If it's really not a big deal for people to stray from the idea of usefulness, then why is it such a big deal to call it Free Running instead of Parkour?

It's not! I'm all for it being the same.

Yes, Klay. I'm quite aware of the generic narrative of how Parkour came about, thank you. Why do you think APK took the time to create the new, updated definition of Parkour? Because "the most quick and efficient movement" doesn't really make any sense anymore, it's outdated. Your wiki-history of Parkour is not quite accurate, I'm afraid. Freerunning was never an offshoot with a different purpose, it was a renaming for British television. Look, if "as efficiently as possible" is the true definition, it's impossible to even do Parkour. Ever. Because there's always something more efficient you can do, because we always have the capacity to better ourselves in some little way. That, and efficiency has a million facets. All we do is train. I won't get into this entire argument because its been done a thousand times already on this board, and the fact that APK took the time to adjust the definition lies as proof of that.

If you want to go back to the "roots", rather than being -pretty sure- what David had an idea of, why don't you watch some interviews of David Belle, particularly the new one, or talk to some of the Yamakasi personally as I have, and then I truly think you'll find that every single one of them want Parkour to be an individual path for people to take.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: klaymen on December 18, 2010, 09:05:57 AM
Freerunning was never an offshoot with a different purpose, it was a renaming for British television. Look, if "as efficiently as possible" is the true definition, it's impossible to even do Parkour. Ever. Because there's always something more efficient you can do, because we always have the capacity to better ourselves in some little way. That, and efficiency has a million facets. All we do is train. I won't get into this entire argument because its been done a thousand times already on this board, and the fact that APK took the time to adjust the definition lies as proof of that.

If you want to go back to the "roots", rather than being -pretty sure- what David had an idea of, why don't you watch some interviews of David Belle, particularly the new one, or talk to some of the Yamakasi personally as I have, and then I truly think you'll find that every single one of them want Parkour to be an individual path for people to take.

Yea, it was originally a way to try to explain what Sebastien was doing to the English crowd and he didn't mean for it to be any different. Since then the community decided to make the distinction to solve disputes about flips and other stuff. I guess things have changed since then, but there was a time when it what pretty much unanimously agreed upon that there is a clear distinction.

By your logic, speed runs of anything are not possible because you can always be faster. So you're saying you see no distinction in the mindset of practicing Parkour vs. Free Running? I just can't accept this. Parkour has the same sort of mentality as training a martial art, Free Running has the same mentality of skate boarding or gymnastics (no purpose other than improving and being able to do new "moves").

I have seen plenty of David Belle interviews, but I guess I could give the Yamakasi a call. What's their number again?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 18, 2010, 09:53:27 AM
By your logic, speed runs of anything are not possible because you can always be faster. So you're saying you see no distinction in the mindset of practicing Parkour vs. Free Running? I just can't accept this. Parkour has the same sort of mentality as training a martial art, Free Running has the same mentality of skate boarding or gymnastics (no purpose other than improving and being able to do new "moves").

I have seen plenty of David Belle interviews, but I guess I could give the Yamakasi a call. What's their number again?

Yeah, there was a time like that, when it was agreed upon. And it was a while ago.

I see no distinction between the practice of Freerunning and Parkour. There's nothing in Parkour that's not Freerunning, and nothing in Freerunning that's not Parkour, because they are different words for the same discipline. A third party meaning was applied to Freerunning, and it was an incorrect meaning. Your concept of Freerunning, I'm sorry to say, is horrifically shallow. And I don't mean that in an offensive way towards you. I mean it in a blunt and straight forward way. You're saying that "Freerunners" train for no purpose other than to show off and improve new moves? I've met a great many people who claim the title "Freerunners" and many are very deep, and they have a lot of purpose, philosophy, and useful application to their movement. I'm one of them! I do flips right alongside kongs. You're telling me that all Freerunning is just showing off and doing "moves" for the sake of it. That's the most ignorant statement I've seen in a while. So Sebastian is someone who has no purpose to his movement except improving new moves? No philosophy at all.

Yes, your perception of my logic is correct. Perfectly efficient motion is a goal we work towards, not something we ever achieve. That process of working towards perfection is what makes us better. That process or path, I call Parkour. Or Freerunning. Because if all Parkour is, is moving perfectly efficiently, then it's never been practiced. All we can ever do is 'try', and that's called training. Hence, APK's definition. "Parkour is the physical discipline of training to overcome any obstacle within one's path by adapting one's movements to the environment." My opinion is that what you consider "freerunning" movements are a part of that training

As for the Yamakasi, hit em up on Facebook. I've got them added. They're quite willing to Facebook chat and send messages.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: klaymen on December 18, 2010, 12:06:54 PM
I've met a great many people who claim the title "Freerunners" and many are very deep, and they have a lot of purpose, philosophy, and useful application to their movement. I'm one of them! I do flips right alongside kongs. You're telling me that all Freerunning is just showing off and doing "moves" for the sake of it. That's the most ignorant statement I've seen in a while. So Sebastian is someone who has no purpose to his movement except improving new moves? No philosophy at all.

You're right, I apologize. I didn't really mean to say that there was no purpose or philosophy to free running I was just getting frustrated and trying to think of new ways to state the idea that I was trying to convey.

Really I am just frustrated by people flipping around and showing off for the camera then calling it Parkour. I really feel that Free Running should have a broader definition that includes flipping and palm spins and whatnots. I like the idea that Parkour is specifically designed for usefulness and hate when I mention Parkour and someone asks me about back flips and jumping off of roofs.

As for the Yamakasi, hit em up on Facebook. I've got them added. They're quite willing to Facebook chat and send messages.

Damn, times certainly have changed...
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 18, 2010, 12:56:30 PM
Really I am just frustrated by people flipping around and showing off for the camera then calling it Parkour. I really feel that Free Running should have a broader definition that includes flipping and palm spins and whatnots. I like the idea that Parkour is specifically designed for usefulness and hate when I mention Parkour and someone asks me about back flips and jumping off of roofs.


And I'm tired of people running around doing uncontrolled giant cat leaps and roof gaps and kongs that hurt their joints for a camera and a 'team video', and calling it Parkour. It's a mindset that's the problem, not 'Freerunning' or any other problem with definitions. If its flips and palm spins and flowly movements that don't necessarily transport you anywhere that are done well and controlled, I like to see it. The Yamakasi do it, David Belle does it, and it's movement with obstacles, so I call that Parkour. Flips are just as useful as double kongs and any other Parkour movement if you have a responsible mindset. So that's what we should be focusing on. Promoting responsibility and knowledge, rather than bickering over what -we- think Parkour should be. Let's focus on the foundations: motivation, purpose, responsibility, spirit. Then people can move however they see fit, with that proper foundation set. Yes?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: max eisenberg on December 18, 2010, 01:36:56 PM
all of it is parkour, free running and ldd...

not all of it is "the way".

go watch the iceland interview with kerbie and seb. theres one line that redefined my definitions that i thought were rock solid. to reiterate what has been said between the lines NUMEROUS times in this thread...

its not about what you call it, rather how you approach it and what mindset you have to it.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Dan Elric on December 18, 2010, 03:15:53 PM
all of it is parkour, free running and ldd...

not all of it is "the way".

go watch the iceland interview with kerbie and seb. theres one line that redefined my definitions that i thought were rock solid. to reiterate what has been said between the lines NUMEROUS times in this thread...

its not about what you call it, rather how you approach it and what mindset you have to it.

Nah, that's silly.  What a dancer isn't a dancer if they don't approach what they do with the right mindest?  Do I have to have some special intangible quality to be a musician when I play music?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: klaymen on December 18, 2010, 03:23:03 PM
And I'm tired of people running around doing uncontrolled giant cat leaps and roof gaps and kongs that hurt their joints for a camera and a 'team video', and calling it Parkour. 

I agree.

Flips are just as useful as double kongs and any other Parkour movement

I disagree.

I really don't want this to turn into another discussion about the usefulness of flips with a million "what if's", so I'll just leave it at that.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 18, 2010, 04:42:18 PM
Are you honestly telling me that you think that say, you ask a 12 year old practicing pitching with his 13 year old friend at the local park what he's doing, he replies, "playin some baseball", that you'd consider him to be defining his activity wrong? I think that goes against every ounce of common sense that led us to the point of our lives that we're currently at. I clearly remember telling my parents that I'm gonna go play some baseball with my friends, and we'd just throw the ball and bat the ball and have fun. That was a very clear line of communication there.

i hate to burst your bubble, but...

baseball - a ball game played with a bat and ball between two teams of nine players; teams take turns at bat trying to score runs.

this thread has lost track and i don't think its going anywhere 

Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 18, 2010, 06:59:45 PM
Klaymen: And that's totally cool man! I totally respect your opinion. As long as its founded well, which it seems to be, that's fine! My experience has shown me things about flips that help me, on my path. My path is not yours. We can agree to disagree. :)

Chris: You're missing the point, man. I'm not arguing dictionary definitions. We already have a dictionary definition of Parkour, just as you have supplied us with a dictionary definition of baseball. It's on the APK main site, and nobody's contending it.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 19, 2010, 12:51:42 PM
Discussion of Freerunning can't get beyond very general principles, because there is no common understanding of what the word means. How about we keep this discussion about Parkour.

You can be training for Parkour without doing Parkour. I really wish the old Parkour.net forums had not been purged. Other people have been through all of these discussions and it was explained so much better than I am probably doing right now.
Parkour.NET hasn't been purged. It's all there, at archive.parkour.net
You can try and train for Parkour without doing Parkour, but it won't be very effective. The whole point of Parkour is that Parkour is the training.

Chris: You're missing the point, man. I'm not arguing dictionary definitions. We already have a dictionary definition of Parkour, just as you have supplied us with a dictionary definition of baseball. It's on the APK main site, and nobody's contending it.
Actually I'm contending it ;)
I think it would be more accurate not to pretend that there is a physical emphasis in Parkour, and to highlight that facing and getting past obstacles is important in the training, not just the end goal.

I believe APK's definition accomplishes an explanation of what l'art du dèplacement means the best.  And if you disagree well...  Sorry, but this isn't about opinion, it is about an objective definition. 
It's important to recognize that APK's definition is simply a merging of several people's opinions. It isn't in any way objective or definitive. The best that can be said about it is that it is popular in parts of the US community, but it would be nonsense to suggest that popularity is the same thing as objective truth.

It can be [defined], but only something broad and seemingly vague. There is definite purpose to parkour, but defining that purpose in a way that fits practitioners universally is difficult.
It's not that difficult to define Parkour. Parkour is broad, yes, but not vague in the slightest. It's the way of developing yourself by trying to move past obstacles. That fits all practitioners whether they flip or not, whether they want to help others or not, whether they focus on the philosophy or not, whether they focus on the strength aspect of not. It doesn't include moving to express yourself, but that's not a problem since expression is clearly something that people have tried to add in only recently.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 19, 2010, 01:33:09 PM
those are some good points david. it just seems to me that a discipline of "moving past obstacles to develop ones self" is very broad and too unspecific.  i don't see how flipping past obstacles would not fit into this definition if it were for the purpose of developing ones air awareness.. also, where do you draw the line with the word obstacle?  squatting 2x BW is also a physical obstacle as is dodging an opponent in football. both could be considered a form of development of oneself as well.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 19, 2010, 01:40:30 PM
Dave, loved your post. And I agree, I also find that one of the problems with a lot of people and even a lot of communities is the "checklist" emphasis. That the ability to achieve a movement, sometimes even just once, and sketchily, is the primary focus, versus the benefits of dedication to a discipline and the betterment of self. The problem is, encompassing those internal aspects into a definition that's clear to the public isn't easy. However, what you said in response to Andy, I like. And actually, may I have your permission to expand on it? I have an idea, a way of presenting it that may be quite awesome. Expect a PM soon.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 19, 2010, 02:59:54 PM
i don't see how flipping past obstacles would not fit into this definition if it were for the purpose of developing ones air awareness.
I don't think you even have to qualify it with spatial awareness. If you think a somersault might get you past the obstacle, of course, try it. You have to try alternatives. Usually it won't be the best way to get past the obstacle, but there's no problem with experimentation as long as you're still committed to finding the best solution.
There is no issue with trying to use somersaults to get past obstacles. Issues only arise when you practice somersaults to the exclusion of other more useful techniques. Pretty soon in your training you realize that somersaults are not the best way past most obstacles, so if you know this and yet are still spending all your time practicing somersaults it becomes clear that you're not looking for the best way past obstacles. When you're not trying to improve your ability to get past obstacles, you've clearly stopped practicing Parkour.

. also, where do you draw the line with the word obstacle?  squatting 2x BW is also a physical obstacle as is dodging an opponent in football. both could be considered a form of development of oneself as well.
Lifting weights might be a physical challenge but you're clearly not moving past anything if you're staying on the spot.

Dave, loved your post. And I agree, I also find that one of the problems with a lot of people and even a lot of communities is the "checklist" emphasis. That the ability to achieve a movement, sometimes even just once, and sketchily, is the primary focus, versus the benefits of dedication to a discipline and the betterment of self.
That is a commonly recognized problem, but I think that many of the people that recognize that problem in others don't realize that they are the ones perpetuating these problems. We have 'movement tutorials', we have 'technique forums' on websites. The whole community is still focused on learning a set of specific techniques. If we want to solve problems like this one we're going to have to stop being bad examples. We need to stop focusing on the movements and start focusing on the obstacles. We need to show that Parkour contains far too much variety for set techniques.

The problem is, encompassing those internal aspects into a definition that's clear to the public isn't easy.
The problem, really, is the perception that any part of this should be easy. Parkour is new, and of course learning how to teach it will be difficult. The concepts are diametrically opposed to the foundations of large parts of the modern word, of course it will be difficult to get people to accept it. Parkour is an internal, individual discipline, of course it's going to be difficult for non-practitioners to understand.

However, what you said in response to Andy, I like. And actually, may I have your permission to expand on it? I have an idea, a way of presenting it that may be quite awesome. Expect a PM soon.
Expand on any point you like, I don't own this discussion. I enjoy seeing other ways of explaining things, but I might not necessarily agree with them :)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 19, 2010, 03:23:52 PM
The problem, really, is the perception that any part of this should be easy. Parkour is new, and of course learning how to teach it will be difficult. The concepts are diametrically opposed to the foundations of large parts of the modern word, of course it will be difficult to get people to accept it. Parkour is an internal, individual discipline, of course it's going to be difficult for non-practitioners to understand.


Right. But while we have to accept that it's difficult, we also have to find a way to compromise to bring people to where we are. Otherwise, we're just an elitist, underground force of people who do something mysterious. And that's how those bad perceptions of what we do are created.

Let me know what you think of the PM I sent you! :)
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 19, 2010, 03:38:21 PM
Oh I wasn't saying that we shouldn't do it. Just that it's difficult.

Difficulty is absolutely no reason not to do something. In fact, it's every reason TO do something.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 19, 2010, 04:06:34 PM
"I don't think you even have to qualify it with spatial awareness. If you think a somersault might get you past the obstacle, of course, try it. You have to try alternatives. Usually it won't be the best way to get past the obstacle, but there's no problem with experimentation as long as you're still committed to finding the best solution.
There is no issue with trying to use somersaults to get past obstacles. Issues only arise when you practice somersaults to the exclusion of other more useful techniques. Pretty soon in your training you realize that somersaults are not the best way past most obstacles, so if you know this and yet are still spending all your time practicing somersaults it becomes clear that you're not looking for the best way past obstacles. When you're not trying to improve your ability to get past obstacles, you've clearly stopped practicing Parkour." -daveS

ok then maybe we should say "It's the way of developing yourself by trying to move past obstacles with efficiency.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 19, 2010, 04:46:00 PM
ok then maybe we should say "It's the way of developing yourself by trying to move past obstacles with efficiency.

So reverse vaults, lazysits, palm spins, etc, none of those are Parkour anymore?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 19, 2010, 05:59:17 PM
I don't think you need to add 'with efficiency' because that's implicit in the idea of an obstacle. Obstacles are by definition things that are near the limit of your ability, and if you're wasting too much of your energies you're clearly not going to have enough left to get past.

Put simply, you can't somersault over a wall you can only just climb up. Difficult tasks force you to take an efficient path.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: J. Gabriel Alvarez Manilla on December 19, 2010, 06:27:40 PM
Slightly (way) off topic, but

Seriously, without exposure to Parkour, would you be climbing walls and vaulting rails?
I kid you not, I would, just without so much dedication, and no conditioning aspect to it.

As for the Yamakasi, hit em up on Facebook. I've got them added. They're quite willing to Facebook chat and send messages.
I tried looking for them just now, but there's so many of them. Which one is the right one?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 19, 2010, 06:38:12 PM
Yann Hnautra, Chau Belle, and Lorenzoo Chocolat (Hahaha I love Laurent) are the names you want to search. Also, I've chatted with Stephane Vigroux about this stuff. (Andy Keller and I even got to shoot some pool with him! Haha. That's how chill he is.) He's said some very wise words on the subjects we're all discussing.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Skills on December 20, 2010, 07:42:16 AM
I must say that this topic has enriched alot of peoples understanding.Thanks alot to Dave and Chris and all of the others that have contributed their thoughts to this discussion, and special thanks to those who said "go train" ;D

The fact is,
Parkour is related to Direct Movement, this means that you are trying to overcome obstacles.
Freerunning on the other hand is associated with more Indirect Movement, your training (mental and physical) is expounded upon and you and your movement have a more intimate connection.

With Parkour your approach would be slightly different from Freerunning. In a Direct Movement state of mind you are thinking about a forward flow. In an Indirect Movement state of mind it would be more connected to the interaction with the obstacle, cherishing the movement and the details. The intricacies and explorative values are more present in the Freerunninig state of mind.

If you read this make sure you do 50 push-ups, sit-ups, squats and a whole bunch of exersises to balance your mental and physical training!!

Train Safe
-Joseph Best
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 20, 2010, 07:45:29 AM
So reverse vaults, lazysits, palm spins, etc, none of those are Parkour anymore?

i don't see the developmental difference between a palm spin/reverse vault and a back flip. all are good training, but none are practical.  if you consider one parkour then you should consider it all parkour.

I don't think you need to add 'with efficiency' because that's implicit in the idea of an obstacle. Obstacles are by definition things that are near the limit of your ability, and if you're wasting too much of your energies you're clearly not going to have enough left to get past.

Put simply, you can't somersault over a wall you can only just climb up. Difficult tasks force you to take an efficient path.


that is not true. stepping over a curb is considered an obstacle. anything in your path is an obstacle not just the hard ones.  if parkour is about developing oneself through overcoming obstacles then why is doing a flip over a curb not parkour if your goal is developmental?  
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Adam McC on December 20, 2010, 08:26:57 AM
i don't see the developmental difference between a palm spin/reverse vault and a back flip. all are good training, but none are practical.  if you consider one parkour then you should consider it all parkour.


Hahaha, Chris, we are discussing the same thing from different sides? I'm trying to say that flips, with the right mindset and application, are as much Parkour as everything else. Is that what you're saying, or no? I don't see the difference between at all. Indeed all are training, and since Parkour is 'training', I agree with your above statement.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 20, 2010, 08:31:05 AM
Chris, I don't think you're using the word 'obstacle' correctly. The dictionary definition of an 'obstacle' is something that obstructs or hinders, something that creates a difficulty.

Regardless, the parts of the environment that Parkour is concerned with are the parts that pose a challenge, the parts that are difficult to get past. That's what the word 'obstacle' means in a Parkour context. It helps you get past the difficulties in your life by letting you practice getting past difficulties in your environment.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 20, 2010, 09:32:04 AM
i don't think im using it wrong.  anything as small as a curb or even a patch of dirt can hinder or add difficulty to your path.  not maximum difficulty, but it is going to take some level of physical work to pass it.   if you disagree that a curb is not an obstacle because it is not difficult to get past then how about 3 foot wall?  that is also very easy to get past.  is parkour limited only to maximal effort 14 foot arm jumps then?   the answer is no.  parkour is about overcoming all obstacles in your path big or little for the purpose of development.  this should include flips, handstands, stupid little spinny flowy stuff and even dancing if you are doing for the purpose of development.    that is why i said parkour, as it is, is too broad to be classified as a specific disipline because the end goal is to unspecific.   as it is, the end goal of pakour is development.  if the end goal were efficiency then it would be a completely diffent animal. 
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 20, 2010, 11:05:32 AM
A curb can create a difficult situation, but it doesn't always. Likewise, in some situations a 3 foot wall is difficult to get past, but at other times it's not. Sometimes they are obstacles, sometimes that aren't. It's not the intrinsic qualities of the object in question that determines whether or not something is an obstacle, it's the relationship between that object, the person, and the demands of the situation. A 3 foot wall might be easy for you now, but it might be hard for a beginner. Also, if I tied your hands and feet together and asked you to get over it without touching it, it would become a challenge for you too. It's nonsense to say that a 3 foot wall (or even a curb) is either definitely an obstacle or definitely not an obstacle. It's all about the context.

is parkour limited only to maximal effort 14 foot arm jumps then?   the answer is no.
The answer is 'no' only because you put the word 'maximal' into the question. If you asked "Is Parkour limited only to difficult arm jumps?" then the answer would have been 'Yes'.

We can't develop by spending our time completing easy tasks. We have to challenge ourselves in order to improve, it's a physiological necessity. Even if we accept your definition of the word 'obstacle', it's clear that we need to focus on 'difficult obstacles' in order to get better at getting past obstacles.

The goal of Parkour is self-development, true, but although virtually anything can help you develop, not everything is equally effective at helping you develop.
Self-development is a broad goal if you compare it to some activities, sure, but it is still one that is easy to define. Difficult for someone else to observe, perhaps, but so what? Parkour's a training concept to help you develop, not a spectator sport for people to watch and rate.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 20, 2010, 03:31:23 PM
The answer is 'no' only because you put the word 'maximal' into the question. If you asked "Is Parkour limited only to difficult arm jumps?" then the answer would have been 'Yes'.

What?  That's ridiculous.  Due to the limits of the human body, any one obstacle's difficulty level is relative to what preceded it.  Try an eight foot wall run while keeping in stride during a mile (1.6km) run.  Even regular lazy vaults over waist-high rails are difficult when you're in the middle of a miles-long run.  Besides that, once one has developed oneself, many things which were difficult are easy, allowing one to concentrate on developing the intricacies of the move (footwork, timing, linking to other movements, etc.)

I'm all for people discussing philosophy, the definition of parkour, whether parkour and freerunning and l'add are all one or separate disciplines, and all of the other big, important topics.  I think every time the subject comes up new people have the opportunity to join the conversation and I personally see something new, even if it's just from a slightly different angle.  However, I don't see why every conversation on any of these topics has to turn into a conversation on all of them.  Usually by the time that happens, a lot gets lost as people start contending all the minutia, rather than exchanging ideas about the original topic. Seems like it might be a good time for people to step back from this conversation and let some of the ideas brought up sink in for a bit.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Chris [.5gibbon] Stevenson! on December 20, 2010, 03:46:07 PM
brett is that directed to me? i feel like im on to something and its the point i have been trying to make since like the 3rd page of this discussion.

Dave, so what your saying is an obstacle is only an obstacle if it is difficult?  and parkour is about overcoming difficult obstacles for the sake of development?   so with that logic perfoming a standard speed vault over a 3 foot wall is not parkour if it is not difficult for one to perform.  maybe a suitable alternative would be to flip over the 3 foot wall if it is more difficult to perform.  or to break dance around the wall because that may be more difficult to some than a vault.   
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: David Jones on December 20, 2010, 03:49:01 PM
I was talking to someone about this earlier, and I think all of these topics can only be discussed so far until the productivity comes to a halt. In the end of it all, I think we have to figure out these questions for ourselves. After all, Parkour is a personal journey...
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sam Zytka on December 20, 2010, 05:26:43 PM
this is directed towards chris cause i think dave's point may be that the reason you train parkour, is to make something like a 3 foot wall that would be an obstacle into something that takes very little effort or consciousness to overcome, it was once an obstacle but now overcoming it is second nature and thus it is no longer an obstacle, and that his point is that only when you are pushing yourself (relative to your own limits) are you truly doing parkour, but if you aren't overcoming obstacles i.e breaking mental barriers, or broadening your limits, then you aren't doing parkour, therefore if a three foot wall isn't a challenge for you and is thus not an obstacle, then the act of overcoming it isnt parkour
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Sparklefish on December 20, 2010, 06:11:16 PM
brett is that directed to me? i feel like im on to something and its the point i have been trying to make since like the 3rd page of this discussion.

No, more of a general comment for everyone.  Awhile back I felt I was no longer contributing to this conversation, so I stopped posting.  By all means, if you feel like you're on to something, keep posting.

I was talking to someone about this earlier, and I think all of these topics can only be discussed so far until the productivity comes to a halt. In the end of it all, I think we have to figure out these questions for ourselves. After all, Parkour is a personal journey...

^I think David put it much more eloquently than I.  I was trying to say something like the first part of what he said, but I agree with all of what he said.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: DaveS on December 21, 2010, 05:35:58 AM
Due to the limits of the human body, any one obstacle's difficulty level is relative to what preceded it.  Try an eight foot wall run while keeping in stride during a mile (1.6km) run.  Even regular lazy vaults over waist-high rails are difficult when you're in the middle of a miles-long run.  Besides that, once one has developed oneself, many things which were difficult are easy, allowing one to concentrate on developing the intricacies of the move (footwork, timing, linking to other movements, etc.)
That is the point I made in the first paragraph of my last post! :)
When I say 'difficult' I'm not just referring to obstacles that are difficult in optimum conditions. The conditions are part of the difficulty. A difficult gap to arm jump across might be one that contains a big distance, or not might be one that is slippery, or at the end of a tiring run, or dark, or under pressure. There are lots of ways for a wall to be difficult to get past, but the overall obstacle it presents does need to be difficult to get past for it to be useful to us in Parkour.

maybe a suitable alternative would be to flip over the 3 foot wall if it is more difficult to perform.  or to break dance around the wall because that may be more difficult to some than a vault.
This is the problem with focusing on the movements, that Adam and I were discussing on the previous page. It's not that Parkour involves difficult movement, it's that Parkour involves getting past difficult obstacles. Difficult in relation to your whole ability, not just a part.
We don't find a movement and then look for an obstacle of suitable difficulty, we encounter an obstacle and then try and find a solution. We choose the obstacle before we choose the movement we use to get past it. Problems come before solutions. This is the way it works in life, and this is the way we need to structure our training. We find a challenge and then start working on a solution. If we start making the solution part of the challenge, restricting ourselves to one particular type of solution in order to create a challenge, we remove the part of the process that deals with assessing a problem and formulating a solution.
An object is an obstacle if it is difficult for us to get past. All we're concerned with is 'can we get past the obstacle', not 'can we get past the obstacle with this particular movement'. If the solution is easy, we find a harder obstacle. If a particular movement doesn't work we find a different movement, not a different obstacle. If we focus on the obstacles rather than the movements we become free to use all of our abilities and find the optimum solution for us as individuals, learning how to adapt our strengths to the challenges we face. First obstacle, and then solution. Not both at once.

I was talking to someone about this earlier, and I think all of these topics can only be discussed so far until the productivity comes to a halt. In the end of it all, I think we have to figure out these questions for ourselves. After all, Parkour is a personal journey...
We have to make the decisions ourselves, but the choices we make are much more likely to be good ones if we consider as much information as we can, including information from other people. That's what discussions are for, sharing ideas, not making decisions for other people.
Title: .
Post by: David Jones on December 21, 2010, 07:39:24 AM
The intent for why we train is completely subjective at this point in the Parkour community. I honestly don't see how this thread going any further is going to help someone make a better decision as to why they do Parkour. Did the original french practitioners, or many of the top athletes of Parkour today use forums to figure out why they train? No, because they are content with themselves after figuring it out on their own. Certain ideas are great to discuss, but I don't think this is one of them. It's your own personal journey, and there is no reason that others should make a mark in it simply through opinion of what they think is right and wrong.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: BryanG on December 21, 2010, 07:54:33 AM
We don't find a movement and then look for an obstacle of suitable difficulty, we encounter an obstacle and then try and find a solution.

Sorry Dave, but I have to disagree here. When I got my first ever vault, for example, I was constantly looking for higher and higher things to vault over. That's not me encountering different obstacles, that's me trying to apply my movement to things I go out to find. I look for obstacles in my training, rather than simply encountering them.

I also experiment with a ton of different technique on certain obstacles in order to improve my capabilities elsewhere, which is training in an equally constructive manner as going out to find hard obstacles you can't overcome. An example of this is when I had learnt the pop vault over this wall just above head height, and instead of moving on to a harder obstacle, I went on to train on that wall for another month, until I had been able to kong vault, rather than regular vault, over the top.

I see where you're going though. When you have an obstacle you can't overcome, you would obviously try and find a solution to get over, under or through it. But that's only one aspect of training for me, and probably for a lot of other people, too.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Gareth EE Field on December 21, 2010, 09:55:32 AM
OP: Your opinion isn't humble enough.

Threadlock would be merciful here.
Title: Re: .
Post by: DaveS on December 21, 2010, 03:35:43 PM
The intent for why we train is completely subjective at this point in the Parkour community. I honestly don't see how this thread going any further is going to help someone make a better decision as to why they do Parkour. Did the original french practitioners, or many of the top athletes of Parkour today use forums to figure out why they train? No, because they are content with themselves after figuring it out on their own. Certain ideas are great to discuss, but I don't think this is one of them. It's your own personal journey, and there is no reason that others should make a mark in it simply through opinion of what they think is right and wrong.
Ok, for you this discussion isn't useful. For me, it is useful. For the other people taking part in it, they think it's useful for them. The people that think it's useful (like me) can take part, the people who don't (like you) can go do something else. Everyone's happy. :)

The original French practitioners didn't use internet forums because there were no internet forums (there was no internet). What they did instead was to talk to each other, talk to their relatives, their friends, trying to understand what they did. You don't develop understanding of something without thinking about it, and discussion is a useful aid to thought. Discussion is not essential, perhaps, but it is useful as it forces you to put your thoughts in order.

Sorry Dave, but I have to disagree here. When I got my first ever vault, for example, I was constantly looking for higher and higher things to vault over. That's not me encountering different obstacles, that's me trying to apply my movement to things I go out to find. I look for obstacles in my training, rather than simply encountering them.
Yes, we do have to look for obstacles, but I think it's a major mistake to look for obstacles with already the intention of performing a specific movement to get past them. Doing that teaches you to use that technique in different situations, when instead you could be learning how to find the best way to get past those new obstacles. What it does is teach people to rely on certain set techniques, because they never try anything different. You get good at cat passes, but you don't get better at getting past new obstacles. I've seen many people that are very good at certain techniques, but that are simply incapable of finding a solution to a new obstacle. To me, this is useless.

I also experiment with a ton of different technique on certain obstacles in order to improve my capabilities elsewhere, which is training in an equally constructive manner as going out to find hard obstacles you can't overcome. An example of this is when I had learnt the pop vault over this wall just above head height, and instead of moving on to a harder obstacle, I went on to train on that wall for another month, until I had been able to kong vault, rather than regular vault, over the top.
Experimentation is good, it helps you learn, but there's no point conditioning yourself to use poor solutions by continually repeating a movement once you know it's not the best way for you then. Sure, in the future once you've become stronger, you will need to experiment again, because you've changed and the solution will change also, but I think it's absurd to practice ineffectiveness.
The art of getting past obstacles is in trying to make it as easy as possible for yourself, being as efficient as you can in the situation. That's the skill that enables you to do the most, because that's how to learn to function to the limit of your ability.

I see where you're going though. When you have an obstacle you can't overcome, you would obviously try and find a solution to get over, under or through it. But that's only one aspect of training for me, and probably for a lot of other people, too.
Without wishing to cause offense, we've made the point already that there are a lot of people that aren't training effectively. Lots of people spend a lot of time practicing movements on obstacles where they aren't useful solutions, but to me that's simply one indicator out of many that we have a long way to go before the practice of Parkour is properly understood.

It's worth reminding ourselves, though, that there are aspects of obstacles that aren't determined solely by it's physical qualities. The complete obstacle might involve an element of repetition, for instance, or speed, or silence, or safety, or any number of other requirements. If that sort of thing forms part of the challenge then you may well need to use a different way of moving to successfully solve the problem. However you still need to set the challenge before you find the solution to it, if you want to be good at getting past obstacles instead of simply good at cat passes.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Luke MC on December 21, 2010, 06:27:06 PM
I love these conversations. Parkour is such a broad subject that it simply cannot be discussed properly without digressing into various avenues of thought and nuances of the practice. Every time people engage in a conversation about a fundamental aspect of Parkour, about the essence of Parkour, it grows into something far bigger than the original point. You never know where the road will lead. For me, at least, the road is an enjoyable one. I pick up ideas all the way through and it provides a lot of food for thought. The idea of locking or abstaining from threads like this is absurd to me. It's interesting and contributes a great deal of (often original) thought. And this is how conversations work. They develop and mature and digress and come full-circle. Why get in the way of a decent conversation? All of my traceur friends moved away or stopped practising, so this is one of my only outlets for connection with the Parkour world. Long live debates :)

To chip in on the current debate, all I really want to say is that people should be careful when resorting to popular opinion or their own training methods as justification for their arguments. For example, I've seen people bring up the APK definition of Parkour in a manner that suggests that the case is already closed, and I've seen people say "well I do Parkour and I include X in my training, therefore I disagree with your definition" as if they can redefine a discipline based solely on what they choose to practice. Neither of these are the case. Come on people, you can do better than this.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: J. Gabriel Alvarez Manilla on December 21, 2010, 06:46:20 PM
I've seen it a couple of times that we have found the philosophy part of parkour to be the applying the principle that we can analyse and deal with an obstacle in life just like we do with an obstacle in our path, no?
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: John "Cras" Morrow on December 22, 2010, 04:34:02 PM
I've seen it a couple of times that we have found the philosophy part of parkour to be the applying the principle that we can analyse and deal with an obstacle in life just like we do with an obstacle in our path, no?

yeah i totally agree. as many people say, its a mindset and a lifestyle not just some cool thing to do.
Title: Re: Non-Philosopher
Post by: Luke MC on December 22, 2010, 04:55:23 PM
I've seen it a couple of times that we have found the philosophy part of parkour to be the applying the principle that we can analyse and deal with an obstacle in life just like we do with an obstacle in our path, no?

Pretty much, lol.