American Parkour - Parkour and Freerunning

Tips for Getting Started in Parkour...

APK - Parkour and Freerunning Community

APK's Professional Parkour Team

Tribe Professional Parkour and Freerunning

Friends of APK

Exclusive Contests & Pics

10,559 Fans

Parkour/Freerunning Videos

5,566 Subscribers

Instant News and Updates
1,461 Followers

Newsletters

The Freerunner - World's 1st Parkour Magazine

WOD - Workout of the Day

APK Alliance Blog

What is the Alliance thinking?
What is the Alliance doing?

Find out on our blog!

Proud to be Sponsored by

Weekly Features

Featured Video

Featured Link

Parkour Mumbai

Featured Wallpaper

APK Login

Members: 72296
News: 4494
Web Links: 48

Official Store of American Parkour

Buy Tutorial DVDs,

Clothing, and Gear

At the APK Store

Last Week's POTW

American Parkour Picture of the Week Winner

See this week's entries

Add your picture!

Picture of the Week

POTW - 11-9-2009

	Joe - 3man Tandem Kong
	Chad and Skinny - Planche and Flag

Workout of the Day

WOD 11-20-09

"Education is what survives when what has been learned has been forgotten."
--B. F. Skinner-- (1904 - 1990)

Leave NO Trace

So far we've picked up 105 bags of trash - learn more here . Check out APK's outreach initiatives here .

RSS Syndication

Home

Anti-Competition Essay

Monday, 23 April 2007

Here is an excellent article speaking out against competition in Parkour by APK member Faelcind.

"Why I am against competition in parkour"
One of the most consistent arguments within the parkour community is the argument over whether parkour should become competitive. In my experience most experienced traceurs are against parkour, but can rarely offer a strong argument against competition except that parkour isn’t competitive, or maybe because David Belle has said it should not be competitive which is neither clear nor a powerful argument. Meanwhile, many of the large commercial parkour sites have come out as supporting competition, or at least arguing it is inevitable...

When I first started parkour I did not understand the proscription against competition at all. I am by nature a competitive person I love to wrestle, box and play team sports and I want to win. In fact, as a kid running through the woods I used to fantasize that I was competing in the new Olympic event of obstacle coursing.

However I now look at the possibility of parkour competitions as a negative thing. When Gear wrote his essay on why we should look forward to competition in parkour, I thought he made excellent arguments, but it didn’t sit right with me and I could not agree with the conclusion, however I wasn’t sure exactly how to explain why I was against competition so I did not respond at the time. However I have continued thinking about it and at some point I was able to figure out why I was against competition in parkour.

To me it boils down to understanding the philosophy and background of parkour. Parkour is often connected to two french mottos: the natural method motto etre forte poure etre utile, and the parkour motto etre et durer. The natural method motto means “be strong to be useful.” The parkour motto means something like “to be and to endure.”

David belle has said that parkour was inspired by fireman and soldiers and he would like it to keep that spirit; that our competition is to see who can help the most people. I believe that the two mottos I quoted are both consistent with the attitude you will find in experienced traceurs that their training is not just to be efficient today, but for tomorrow, the next day, and 30 years down the road. To always be able to be useful and strong. To me this is very important and I think it is unfortunately counter to the reality of professional sports today.
I worry that parkour becoming competitive would be mean, over specialization in traceurs training, and even more injuries and accidents due to competitive pressures.

I think before I go into why parkour should not be competitive, it’s important to explore what competition in parkour would probably be like and what conditions are like in similar sports. Some people have thrown rock climbing out as a comparison, saying competition wouldn’t be that bad, few people know about rock climbing competitions, it affects recreational rock climbers very little except in improving the quality of their equipment, and some people get to make money doing what they love. What’s so bad about that? Nothing really. If I thought parkour could go a similar way, I would be a lot less worried about competition. The problem with that analogy as I see it is that rock climbing simply lacks the aesthetic element that parkour brings. How many movies feature gratuitous rock climbing scenes? How many music videos feature rock climbers doing their thing? I think the visual aesthetics of parkour are equal to or better than any of the most popular televised x-game sports, and on par with gymnastics as well.

   So, assuming that competition in parkour would be more like the x-games or gymnastics or another minor but well known televised sport, these are the problems I see:

1.   Parkour is general. Competition by its nature must be specific. I would draw an analogy to martial arts. A complete unarmed self-defense system will teach you striking at range using all your limbs, clinching, striking in the clinch, grappling in the clinch, take downs, grappling on the ground, and striking on the ground. However you will find very few martial arts schools that still teach all of these aspects because most martial arts have become competitive. If you look at the history of competitive martial arts like boxing, you will see how all of these techniques were once part of what was known by practitioners, but gradually they were banned until only something very specific was left, like boxing (striking with the hands), tae kwon do (striking primarily with the feet, with points not power as an emphasis), judo (takedowns), and wu shu (aesthetic displays). Jujitsu was until recently one of the most complete martial arts, but recently submission grappling competitions have become common under the name jujitsu, and you will find more and more schools whose primary focus is success in these competitions. At this point striking is hardly taught in many jujitsu school is hardly, and even take-downs are often barely taught in my experience.

A parkour competition similarly would very likely be a standard length or maybe a few different standard lengths. It would also likely include standard types of obstacles, and very likely standard safety features that you would not find in the real world. Optimal training for competition would mean not focusing on optimal overall training. It would mean over-specialization.

For those who say that competing would not affect their training: perhaps not, but what about the next person to become involved in the discipline, or the person after that? Tell me that most modern judoka are not basing their training for competition and not actually fighting, or tae kwon do athletes, or boxers, or jujitsu fighters. Competitive parkour would no longer be parkour in its truest sense in my opinion, and I think the new competition brand of parkour would likely cannibalize the old style.

2.   Too far, too fast, too high. As Gear mentioned in his thread, competition is great for pushing one to their limits and discovering new levels of performance. I am certain that without competition the development of techniques like the triple back in gymnastics would have taken much longer. But what he ignores is the cost. Professional athletes are often viewed as the epitome of health. I think this is simply counter to fact. There is price to achieving the level of performance seen in professional athletics and it usually involves your health.

Take a look at gymnastics. Last summer I had the chance to chat with Bill Sands, a sports scientist who works with the USA national gymnastics team. He told me that at some point in the last 2 years every member of the men’s senior national team has had reconstructive shoulder surgery, except Jordan Jovtchev who had injured his elbow. His reason as to why this was happening was simple: the maltese cross. In his opinion, this technique was simply beyond the human shoulders design specs, and training it regularly was a guarantee of future injury at this point. However, in order to be competitive in men’s rings you have to do a maltese at the international level, so all the top men’s gymnasts are now getting shoulder injuries. My gymnastics coach, who was an elite level gymnast, has 20 percent disability in both elbows, has had reconstructive surgery on one shoulder and needs it on the other. He blames it on years of having to compete the Yamawaki — which is a double front flips in between the rings.

The average life expectancy of an NFL player is 55, 22 years less then the general average. Elite endurance athletes have enlarged hearts and a higher risk of heart problems .
I am not even going to touch on the issue of performance enhancing drugs which are rampant in professional athletics.

From my perspective it is simple the pressure and money involved in elite professional athletics force an athlete to become over specialized and to take a constant risk with their health that eventually catches up to them. That is not a future I want to see for parkour.

If parkour is about being useful today, tomorrow, and in 20 years, and able to overcome obstacles whenever it is needed, I think that professional competition would be counter to that in the long run.

To those who would say “well it’s inevitable, there’s nothing we can do about it:” That is simply defeatism, we can not know what effect taking steps against competition can have until we try!

Also to those who say “well sure, parkour shouldn’t be completive, but free running competitions are fine:” this to me is hypocritical. Most people will tell you they’re against competition because David Belle said parkour shouldn’t be competitive. Well, if Sebastien Foucan is considered the father of free running and his motto is “no chiefs, no competitions, just a way,” shouldn’t his wishes be respected just like David’s?
Furthermore I think free running has even more aesthetic potential than parkour, and if it does become a popular competitive sport, parkour would basically get swallowed up by it just as easily as by a competive version of parkour.

That’s my thoughts for what their worth I am not completely happy with how I put them down but I hope the make you think."

Users' Comments

Display 17 of 17 comments

1. 04-24-2007 02:20

You bring up some very important points I think. Parkour is often compared to martial arts, but it is different in that it is very general. I don't think there is any martial art that gives you the freedom to create different moves. There is a lot of freedom in Parkour, this could change in competition though.

M.O.D.

2. 04-24-2007 06:37

I think that you have made a very strong case for non competition. This essay is very well written and I appreciate the fact that you even add links to the info you cited.

YoungOne

3. 04-24-2007 08:12

All good points, though I would address a few as such:

"However you will find very few martial arts schools that still teach all of these aspects because most martial arts have become competitive"

Actually, more and more martial arts schools are teaching mixed skills, as the most popular competition in the world is mixed martial arts. Competition actually created the avenue to make these martial arts LESS specific!

I don't think obstacles in a competitive format need to be exactly the same from one comp. to the next...in skateboarding comps they change for every event and they test a variety of skills used in skateboarding...a Parkour comp. would be much the same, testing Parkour SKILLS rather than Parkour itself.

"From my perspective it is simple the pressure and money involved in elite professional athletics force an athlete to become over specialized and to take a constant risk with their health that eventually catches up to them. That is not a future I want to see for parkour."

Take a look at Blane's "Dilution." I think he sees it as well as you or I do that this is already the case. Kids are competing to be the best right off the bat. I think there's actually a possibility that standardizing a competitive format along with showing incremental training and allowing there to be a professional slant to both of these aspects might better educate new traceurs in comparison to the random and scattered internet information that may or may not be correct and could possibly be dangerous. In order to attract talented trainers and intelligent designers to help push the art in the right direction, a competitive format needs to be in place to make it viable.

gearsighted

4. 04-24-2007 09:54

I completely agree with this essay, It would be sad to see parkour as the next "fad sport" that everyone saw on tv. The spiritual aspect would be easily forgotten in all the media and hype. I hope that competitions never exist for parkour. That's just my 5 cents

thefirstfirefox

5. 04-24-2007 11:08

Just wanted to adresses a couple of your points gear.

On the martial arts it is true that more skills are teaching a wider range of skills, these skills are still competition oriented, how many mix martial arts schools practice in street clothes, with shoes on, fighting multiple opponents etc. The rules of the game have changed but people are still primarily training for a game.

Blanes dilution was one of my inspirations for actually writing this down, I don't see how looking at the reality of professional athletics today you could expect anything but a worsening of current trend if professional competitions come to fruition.

A also completely disagree that competition is necessary to make parkour viable. I think it is already clearly viable, and I think the existence of disciplines like yoga, tai chi etc prove that movement disciplines do not need competition to be viable. I think competition would clearly push parkour in the wrong direction. I think what we need are organizations like our PNWPA up here hopefully DB production in france etc to increase safety understanding and awareness.

Faelcind

6. 04-24-2007 13:08

"how many mix martial arts schools practice in street clothes, with shoes on, fighting multiple opponents etc."

Quite a few, here are two that we're trying hard to work with on various levels:

Tony Blauer

Krav Maga

"I don't see how looking at the reality of professional athletics today you could expect anything but a worsening of current trend if professional competitions come to fruition"

I see the fact that we would have the opportunity to train a wide variety of individuals with the knowledge gained from the stresses of competition as a large counterforce to the negative trend that's in place at the moment. I also think the level of excellence demanded of a standardized competitive format would lead to better technical adaptation to groups that would benefit immensely from Parkour training, i.e. military and law enforcement. Have you ever seen firefighter competitions? Do they negatively effect the job of saving people's lives? If anything I think they improve the odds that a competitor will be able to apply various skills under duress, thus increasing their usefulness.

"A also completely disagree that competition is necessary to make parkour viable"

I don't think it's necessary, but I think it's the best way. As I said in my competition article, Parkour is about performing at a high level under physical duress in order to be more useful in a variety of situations. I still hold that there's truly no better way to simulate this amount of demands than a well-thought competitive format.

gearsighted

7. 04-24-2007 13:37

Those are both military oriented systems both pre-date MMA and as far as I know neither is producing high level MMA fighters so I am not sure how the are relevant.

I work in a competitive sport gymnastics sure we know how to train higher skill levels because of competition but the existence of competition by no means guarantee's good and safe teaching. Actually I think in some ways the opposite is true because the driving force at every level is to produce atheletes capable of doing certain skills as opposed to be fit overall, we end up with tons of repeative stress injuries because of over training specific movements and training movements before the body is ready for them. You never want to hold a kid back because of a couple of elements but training for those elements before his/her body is ready for it is cause of allot of injuries. The number of former female gymnasts with back pain is huge because of the thousand upon thousand of reps they did of bridge walkover activities because of their impotance at lower levels. Both males and females have frequent knee problems and shoulders are huge issue for men.

I don't see competitive firefighting competitions as any more valid an analogy then rock climbing even more so it is niche sport without the level of money and media pressure that I think you could expect in competitive parkour and which would are the driving force behind the pernicious effects we see in the high level proffesional atheletics.

Faelcind

8. 04-24-2007 15:17

I agree the whole I can jump highet[marquee] I agree the whole I can jump higher than you is BS [/marquee]

hotheels

9. 04-24-2007 16:12

"the existence of competition by no means guarantee's good and safe teaching"

Very good point, but I find it hard to believe that it would in any way reduce the quality of teaching. It facilitates quality instructors becoming involved, because they can make it into their livelihood, and thus is ratchets up the potential for quality.

"Those are both military oriented systems both pre-date MMA"

Indeed they are, but they are both being incorporated in part into quite a few competitive fighters. One competitive school that turns out great fighters (Chuck Liddell being one)but is also leaning towards broad scale functionality is "The Pit" gym in California that has implemented their "Crosspit" methods to train both functional and competitive fighting skills together.

John Hackleman The Pit

Crossfit Spinning Back-Kick video

John Hackleman's ability to train these fighting skills to the military, law enforcement and special forces individuals in attendance is due to the fact that he can make a viable living from also training competitive athletes. He also has gained the closest thing to real-world experience with measurable results through competition. Without that aspect of head-to-head competitive sport, the ability to say "This definitely works in a fight" would be diminished. The same is true for Parkour...unless you make a common practice of using Parkour in an emergency situation, a competition where something is on the line is the best way to recreate this.

gearsighted

10. 04-24-2007 18:16

faelcind; i didn't post about this on .net, but im behind you 100% on this. Competition is not made for creating athletes who will last. It is for pushing athletes to their highest potential for a relatively short amount of time; only some of the best athletes in sports can compete at their level for 20 years-the vast majority only go around 5 sometimes before injuries end their careers.

While i'm not going to comment on everything that has been written, i will say this:
Gear, you mentioned blane's article-i feel that what you said is something of a twist on his words and a misinterpretation. Competition pushes people to do more as well and as soon as they can; this is a problem. Blane was saying that Traceurs who are in the dawn of their training should not be pushing themselves to do as much as possible; this is only going to have the same effect as in sports-injuries, and a very slim likelihood of future health. This goes against the basic ideas of parkour (and i'm not saying "David said this/that)
I mean what faelcind mentioned; to be strong to be useful, and to be and to last. Competition will not preserve this spirit; competition will push being better than the next guy, doing more, and retiring when you're 35.

ThePKoala

11. 04-24-2007 20:26

(okay... this will likely make no sense. There is more I wanted to say but it's not happening right now. I have a cold and the NyQuil is taking effect... so I apologize if my comment rambles. Maybe tomorrow when I feel better I'll post some more. In the meantime, enjoy!)

Very well-written. My "gut" instinct as a newbie to the discipline is that there should not be competitions. I wrestled with why I felt that way for a while and reading your comments helped put some shape to my gut reaction, so thank you.

I come from a dance background: primarily ballet, and at an elite/professional level. There are competitions within ballet, most notably the USA IBC (the only one that “matters” for all practical purposes). Most professional dancers will look upon an IBC winner with a great deal of respect and quite a few IBC winners have gone on to professional careers at prestigious companies.

However the competition route is generally not how one goes about pursuing a career in ballet. Most dancers train according to a rigorous program from a relatively young age and then audition for placement within companies. Dancers who follow a competition track follow a completely different training regimen that does include emphasis on technique, but also with a focus on learning specific canonized variations or pas (solo or duet/small group pieces) from the established classical ballet repertoire.

A competition dancer will be very proficient at a prescribed set of canonized classical pieces. Indeed, many competitors’ technical proficiency in these dances is stellar, and could rival that of any top-level professional dancer. However a dancer who only does competitions will likely have a very difficult time, say, picking up a new work that an avant-garde choreographer might be setting. This is not to say that their technique is lacking, because it isn’t; rather, their development as an artist may be arrested.

A well-trained professional dancer will be able to execute class movements and drills with proper technique, ease, and precision. A well-trained competition dancer will be able to do this also. Often a competition dancer can do “more” in class than a non-competitive, professional dancer (e.g. multiple pirouettes). The difference is that a well-trained professional dancer will be able to pick up almost any choreography, and adapt his/her movement to convey the choreographer’s desired style. A competition dancer will have trouble with this.

This is not to say that ballet competitions are useless. On the contrary, the IBC has done a lot to increase public awareness of the art form, to provide training opportunities to students who otherwise wouldn’t have access to dance, to provide another entry avenue for young dancers to start professional careers, and to push the boundaries of ballet technique as a whole. The art has definitely grown as the result of competitions.

The same could be said for parkour. A competitive traceur will have a different skill set than a non-competitive, but elite-level, traceur. I think this is what Faelcind is getting at in point #1 of his essay.

With regard to training, ballet training developed over centuries in the absence of any formal competitive body. Now it is a codified system of physical and artistic conditioning that is universal. I can go to ballet class in the USA or in Shanghai or in Frankfurt, and it will be the same everywhere I go. I think parkour is still young enough to not have this, and that’s okay. We’re all in the process of developing that right now.

Will competition bring about a standardized training system for parkour? I think the real question is, will not having competitions interfere with the development of a standardized training system? Likely not. Competitions may bring about that standardization faster, but it is not necessary to have competition to develop the training. The training will happen on its own as the discipline develops.

Granted, ballet may be a poor example because only a small percentage of the population cares about ballet, and even fewer about the IBC results. Parkour, on the other hand, will only get more and more popular as it gets more media exposure. In any case, ballet is what I know, so that’s what I’m sticking with for my analogy.

Most consumers of ballet consider it only in its performing arts aspect. Very few know about the IBC. So it can be considered to only play a small role in the expansion of ballet technique and equipment compared to the “standard” performance career trajectory. For most dancers, every class and rehearsal is a chance to re-evaluate one’s skills and equipment to do better.

What probably most strikes me as an argument against competition in parkour is this:

Parkour is an individual discipline. Whether your consider it an art of a sport or both, you would be foolish to think that parkour is about how I do compared to you. Everyone knows that the primary competition comes from yourself: to beat your time/height tomorrow, to go train even when you feel like plopping on the couch with Ben & Jerry, and others. Turning that sense of competition against the Self outwards doesn’t sit right with me. In my book, if I’ve managed to get my leg extension higher, or hold a balance for 4 counts longer, or run even a quarter more of a lap, then I’ve won.

Muse_of_Fire

12. 04-25-2007 02:34

"Everyone knows that the primary competition comes from yourself: to beat your time/height tomorrow, to go train even when you feel like plopping on the couch with Ben & Jerry, and others."

Why would that change? I think that's the biggest issue I see here, the fact that everybody would attribute competition with creating the attitude that people display rather than the people themselves being responsible. I feel that the people who would burn themselves out quickly trying to go big from the get-go would do so with or without a formalized competitive format, but as I stated before, I think the benefits gained from being involved in the creation of a competition outweigh leaving it to somebody else to create for us.

gearsighted

13. 04-25-2007 12:52

I was actually in a similar position to Faelcind a while ago. I thought parkour competitions might be beneficial -- discovering which techniques really get over obstacles faster or more efficiently by putting them head-to-head.

But as I read more about parkour -- especially articles like Dilution, or countless accounts of young traceurs/traceuses getting knee and joint problems -- and as I started to understand my own body and how it deals with training for parkour, I came to the same conclusion that Faelcind has.

It can be summed up like this: Parkour, as a discipline, is intended for the long-term. Competition is inherently a short-term endeavor.

Parkour is about maximizing the potential and usefullness of your body. If you train in such a way that your knees are shot 5 years later, how useful are you then? Not very, and it doesn't matter how many awesome drops you were able to pull off during your heyday. But competition doesn't care about 5 years down the road -- it cares about how much you can do right now, and how much you can do on the day of the competition.

With all due respect for gear, I must say that even if parkour competitions have varied enough obstacles that overspecialization doesn't happen, and even if coaching and training is very high-quality and rigorous across the board -- the problem will still exist. Those training for parkour competition will still be training for the short term.

And let's even say that a parkour coach decides to train his or her athletes with the "long term" in mind -- not letting them do large drops until after years of leg conditioning and perfect technique, moderating their training to avoid elbow and shoulder overuse injuries, and so on. I certainly would respect such a coach immensely. But the truth is that this coach will not produce athletes who do as well in competition as a coach who focuses more on short-term progress. And newbies will gravitate toward the more succesful coaches and schools; this is the nature of competition. So those with a "long term" outlook will be in the minority, and will be overshadowed by the schools that will teach you to drop big, lache farther, go harder and so on. Because those are the skills that will win the competitions, and getting to those skills sooner is more attractive.

Who do you think the majority would rather train with -- the school that can get you up to competition level in 5 years, or the one that claims it's going to take 5-10 years of training before you can even begin to practice such high-level movements?

The major problem is one inherent to parkour, really. A lot of "movements" in parkour can be technically *done*, and maybe even done well, but without adequate conditioning and proper technique will put stress on the joints that will lead to chronic conditions and even disability down the road. But if you can pull off that high drop today, and you land it ok, and it doesn't hurt too much, then unless you've been taught otherwise you're going to think "hey! I can do high drops!" and you're going to do more, without any thought to the long-term consequence it's having on your joints.

The comparison with the maltese cross in gymnastics is very pertinent. There is pressure to do this move in competitive gymnastics, and so everyone trains it -- but this training is destroying their shoulders. But who cares? Gymnasts probably don't really worry about whether they could still do gymnastics when they're 40. But parkour is different, because parkour is a practical disclipline that can have life-long benefits. So a traceur *should* care if they can still do parkour when they're 40.

The issue was brought up that this was already happening -- kids are already dropping to far, going too hard, progressing too fast, and they're ruining their joints. The disorganized dispursal of uninformed information on the internet is worsening the problem. Gear suggests that validating parkour with structured training and competition will only help this situation. To this I have 4 responses:

1) A structured and regulated parkour will not eliminate the uninformed decentralized disbursal of information, though it will provide a strong alternative voice.

2) The core of what's needed is this strong alternative voice, more education, and more good information about parkour. Competition is not the only route to this end, and I would argue not even the best or most efficient route.

3) As argued above, competition training, even if well-structured and good-intentioned, will inherently focus on the short-term performace of parkour rather than the long-term longevity of the practice. Therefore, any good information and training about how to train parkour for the long-term will NECESSARILIY be outside of the scope of competition training and coaching. A coach can teach his or her athletes long-term training if they choose, but it will inherently be at odds with the training required for competition.

4) Competition may be inevitable, but that doesn't mean it has to be supported or condoned. I think the most important thing is to continue to distribute quality information -- as this web site does -- on how to safely train parkour, how to progress slowly, how to avoid long-term-injury, and on what the dangers of competition are. Americanparkour.com is one of the best sources of information on parkour today and I think having high-level members of the site actively promoting the idea of competition sends mixed-messages and will lead to more misunderstandings of what parkour is all about.

---

That said, if parkour or freerunning competitions do come around (and I could totally see it happening), I think there are some things they could do to temper the above negative effects. For example, competitions could have a drop height limit based on weight class (and no "how high can you drop" event), penalize for improper technique (landing on heels), or require athletes to pass certain fitness tests (squat strength) before being allowed to compete.

penguin42

14. 04-25-2007 19:45

Gear,

I do agree that it is better to be part of the group that creates the competitive schema, rather than having to respond to it later. That way "we" (by "we" I mean those of you here who have expertise in the discipline, not including my newbie self) can have the most say in how competitions are structured.

That said, I think that the development of a competitive body in parkour *will* change the focus from competing with oneself/overcoming one's own obstacles, to what people can display. Granted, there will always be people who pursue the art in the interest of refining their skills on a personal level in a lifelong way, with or without competition; however the high-profile, "stunty" nature of parkour will make a competitive focus attractive to the general population, and therefore the risk of people rushing their training becomes greater.

I realize you're saying that people will do that anyway, so if competition is inevitable, we may as well be in a position to positively affect that as we can, and I agree with that. In dance, the IBC is the only ballet competition that "matters" as I mentioned. There are other competitive circuits out there that focus on flash over technique, and they are not well-respected by the dance community and therefore anyone serious about the art pays them no mind, and commits to serious ballet training with a focus that is faithful to the art form.

I guess I've refined my viewpoint now to basically be that competition can either be good or bad for the discipline. Since it is likely inevitable, we (as those committed to the art form) may as well establish a competitive body that is in keeping with those principles. Speaking for myself personally, I have no interest in training for competitive parkour. However I could support a competition circuit that emphasized technique and proper training.

Penguin42's four points, above, are excellently stated. This is similar to what I was hoping to get at lastnight before the NyQuil got into my brain.

We should remember, too, that as physical disciplines go, parkour is extremely young. It will probably be 25-50 years before training is codified and standardized. Thankfully there are places like this site, and people like the people I'm seeing here, that are taking on the challenge of drawing those lines and setting them out for people to see and use. It's an exciting time.

PS: As an aside, if anyone can help me register for the forum, I would really appreciate it. I can't get the validation letters to show up, even after reinstalling Firefox, and trying it with IE. Sorry to go off topic, but I'd really like to get on the forum! Any help would be extremely appreciated. Merci.

Muse_of_Fire

15. 04-26-2007 06:56

i really think that he brings alot of good points in this essay. I think that aprkour should stay the way it is because its just something that i don't even conseder a sport. To me it is a way of life that has really changed my way of life and has made me a better person and a better traceur.I just think we should leave it the way it is cause i will split all traceurs apart for something stupied like a competition. - Pyro :grin

pyroparkourbond

16. 04-26-2007 07:36

I have to say that I agree with the points made so far, in and of the fact that it's obvious that things will change when there is a competition. People will become involved for the wrong reasons, people will be injured by going too far, too fast. That being said, it's not the nature of the competition that causes this but the nature of people. Those same people would push themselves too hard, and very likely do already.

As for assuming that a competitive format would necessarily drive people towards large drops and dangerous techniques, that's a matter of becoming involved in the creation of the format in question. At the moment, we are in the midst of creating a competitive format that would stress effective Parkour skills in a variety of events that would have very little to do with the size of drops or the "wow" factor. To top it off, it wouldn't be a competition that tests Parkour, but rather the skills involved in Parkour. Non-traceurs with good training could compete and do well, if they had a good background in agility, strength, balance, etc. We all know that Parkour isn't any one THING that you can hold, produce, sell, etc. but rather a mindset and an ideal. Penguin, you make the point that we need better education, etc. and that a comp. isn't the best way to do it, and that's probably a good point, but it will be one way that this is accomplished, and I'll be glad to do all I can along these lines to do so. The additional benefit of increased quality training, education and validity are secondary to the fact that I think that a competition would be a fun way to test people's skills and travel around the world doing what I love, whether it's performing or training Parkour and other movement-arts.

I think this is a great point:

"We should remember, too, that as physical disciplines go, parkour is extremely young. It will probably be 25-50 years before training is codified and standardized. Thankfully there are places like this site, and people like the people I'm seeing here, that are taking on the challenge of drawing those lines and setting them out for people to see and use. It's an exciting time. "

We are actively involved with the creation of a competitive format. As of now we're trying to avoid as many of these problems as possible, most-notably the increased injury risk involved with overdoing techniques. Some of our best ideas are to break the comp. into skills related to navigating through obstacles. This doesn't make it Parkour, but makes it related to parkour-training. This will happen, and I think that these discussions within the community are a great way to examine the implications of this event and find the best ways to navigate through problems involved with it. The constructive discussion and criticism here is a driving force to do the best we can, and any other suggestions will be incorporated as this progresses.

gearsighted

17. 04-30-2009 11:29

very good article.

chaos93

Display 17 of 17 comments

Only registered users can comment an article. Please login or register.

Add your comment

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

Tips for Getting Started in Parkour...

APK - Parkour and Freerunning Community

APK's Professional Parkour Team

Friends of APK

Newsletters

APK Alliance Blog

Proud to be Sponsored by

Weekly Features

Featured Video

Featured Link

Featured Wallpaper

APK Login

Official Store of American Parkour

Last Week's POTW

Picture of the Week

Workout of the Day

Leave NO Trace

RSS Syndication

Parkour and Freerunning in the News

APK World News and Events