What are you going to do if Parkour turns into a entirely competitive sport?

[Michael L P]

Well, there you go assigning your value to something and stating it like a definition. Nobody can argue if you're going to use things in your head as definitions.

How many football (soccer) programs focus on teaching youth values? Martial arts? Parkour? Are there not competitions in these things? Do not even the people who participate in the competitions learn the values through the practice and participation in the sports?

you sir are absolutely right abou that. its the commitment to the activity you do. i played soccer, baseball, basketball, even did several sports on my own and in all of them you dedicate yourself, the better you get at it the happier you are with yourself. everytime i feel low on life i go out and do something about it because those sports and activities i do drive me. thats why i dont care what happens in the political side of free running because like every sport there is haters. cities cap rails for skaters, post signs everywhere that say no no no, but i have yet to see a law or rule that says no running, well except keep off grass. either way running is one of my ways to be free and thats all i see it as, my escape from the followers why walk, dont walk, dont play, play, sit down, stand up, talk, dont talk. im tired of all that so run be myself by my actions not my attention to do what they say. FR is in my blood and you cant take that blood from me, so away i go.

[Millercb96]

I'm about ready to trash this thread just wanted some opinions not 120 posts of arguments. Thanks though 

[Michael L P]

I'm about ready to trash this thread just wanted some opinions not 120 posts of arguments. Thanks though 

honestly thats all a forum is for, a bunch of middle aged guys to trash talk everything while they eat fritos in their mothers basements....sorry their man cave or something. ok jk jk nobody get all hurt about that, but until you do trash it this will thread will always be full of trash talkin and ppl voicing out loud what they think, ppl online talk to much i know cause i do

[Andy Keller]

Isn't that the point of a forum? To speak you thoughts?

Forum - n.
1. A public meeting place for open discussion.

2. A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.

[David Jones]

I'm about ready to trash this thread [...]

That's rediculous.

[TedD]

Am I upset that it will turn competitive?
No, in fact I believe that there is a lot to be gained by turning the sport competitive.  I don't plan in participating, but watching such competitions will definitely inspire me to progress in my training, as I'm sure it will with many others.  For that, I believe that the whole concept of competition could have its values.

What concerns me is the demographic that this sport will be marketed to.

Inevitably, due to how young the average traceur is and the attraction of the sport to kids, this will end up on some sort of MTV deal and a bunch of teenagers will start trying this out at home off the roof of their house or through the mall and end up breaking some law or God forbid end up hurting themselves.

It's all-important that should Parkour become mainstream and turned into a competition sport, the community as a whole maintain its values on safety and responsible training.  This is something I love to do and have returned to despite getting a pretty serious injury because of it.  I refuse to let this become the next skateboarding where they're thought of as a sort of loud, obnoxious sub-culture of immature adrenaline junkies.

[DaveS]

Discussions are the whole point of forums. It would be nice if the question that started the discussion wasn't forgotten entirely (as is in danger of happening here), but personally I think discussions are a lot more useful if they are allowed to progress naturally through the wider issues rather than being strictly confined to one aspect of a topic.
At least a couple of mods seem happy for the discussion to continue for now, so I'll continue to discuss until that changes.

Mark, I'm using dictionary definitions here. We can't have a discussion unless we agree on what words mean and I don't think it's unreasonable to assume we're using the English language in this discussion.

Competition: 1. The act of competing; rivalry. 2. an event in which people compete.

Competitive: 1. Involving rivalry. 2. of sufficiently good value to be successful against commercial rivals. 3. characterised by an urge to compete.

A participant in a competition is not necessarily a competitive person, but as I stated above competitions do encourage competitive behaviour.
Competitive people are those driven by an urge to compete, an urge to try and beat others. At risk of pointing out the obvious, this is not the same as being driven by a desire for improvement or preparation.
Competitions can help people learn about many things, but because competitions encourage competitive behaviour they can't help people learn about ideas that aren't competitive. If you're competitive you can't also be cooperative. They are opposites.
If the motivation and desire is different the outcome will have be different, because those are the fundamental thoughts that control our actions. If you want to beat others you will do things differently than if you want to help others, and it won't be as helpful as a result.

[Gabe Arnold]

Competitions can help people learn about many things, but because competitions encourage competitive behaviour they can't help people learn about ideas that aren't competitive. If you're competitive you can't also be cooperative. They are opposites.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Yes they're unlike each other but not opposites. Ever heard of a "fair fight"? Or being "sportsman-like"? It's not exactly cooperation as you're probably thinking of but it is still a desire to see your competition at their absolute best and to play fairly and with honor. I wouldn't want to play against someone ill-prepared or at a distinct disadvantage just so I could win - I'd want them to be at their absolute best. There is a pride factor there, a desire to prove yourself against even the toughest odds, but then there always is a sense of pride in Parkour.

We seek challenge. All a competition does (a competition in the classical sense of man vs. man) is shift the focus of the challenge from internal to external. And that doesn't make it bad by default. Because most practitioners these days are trained under the ideals of being good to others and having respect I think competitions would bring out the best in us. We'd train alongside our friends to make sure we were as strong and capable as possible and encourage each other throughout the challenge.

There will always be selfish individuals interested in only personal glory. They're here in the community now, doing crazy media stunts for self-satisfaction. A competition may draw out more of them or harden the selfish emotions further. But I think competition would also bring out stronger altruistic feelings than even now. It's a bit of a double-edged sword but I, for one, am willing to take that chance.

Are there other ways to get that result, Dave? Perhaps. Like you've said many times, we have a third option. But I believe that option to be weak, coming from a fearful mindset - like a man with an addiction, only able to live totally dependent or completely abstaining. I believe it shows greater strength to use the good parts while actively pushing aside the bad. Moderation is the word. As the thread's title implies, total competition would be detrimental, but total prohibition is limiting. In my opinion anyway.   

And with that, I leave this thread for greener pastures.

[DaveS]

You're right, sportsmanship is not cooperation. Sportsmanship is a desire to compete within the spirit of the rules, rather than the letter. It's competition without cheating, so it's a less negative form of competition but it's still nothing to do with cooperation.
I can see how pride relates to rivalry and ego, but not how it relates to parkour.

There is a shift from internal to external focus when you create competition, but there is also a shift from real to artificial focus, and a shift from cooperative to competitive motivations. Like I said in my last post, you can't change motivations and desires and expect people to act in the same way.
The current training system promotes cooperation and has resulted in a generally friendly and helpful community. If you change the training structure to a system that promotes something else, attitudes will start to change.
Encouraging people to compete against each other will push attitudes towards rivalry, as an intrinsic aspect of competition. It cannot possibly promote cooperation and altruism.

I don't think willpower can prevent the human instinct to adapt to the current situation. It's chemically a part of us all. I think even the attempt will create internal conflict, and I don't see any benefit of competition that outweighs this drawback, nor any that can't be produced another way more effectively.

[jp2ykz]

Competitive people are those driven by an urge to compete, an urge to try and beat others. At risk of pointing out the obvious, this is not the same as being driven by a desire for improvement or preparation.

These two desires are not mutually exclusive. The drive to compete will usually lead to the later any way.

Competitions can help people learn about many things, but because competitions encourage competitive behavior they can't help people learn about ideas that aren't competitive. If you're competitive you can't also be cooperative. They are opposites.

 
This is patently false. People on teams participate in a very wide array of cooperative activities. This is something that you can even put on a job application to show that you have experience working with others. The world is not black and white.

If the motivation and desire is different the outcome will have be different, because those are the fundamental thoughts that control our actions. If you want to beat others you will do things differently than if you want to help others, and it won't be as helpful as a result.

I would think that you could surely be motivated if you desire something How are these (motivation and desire) fundamental? Isn't water, food, shelter, habitat the only fundamental needs that we have? The other stuff just comes from that. Plus motivation and desire are naturally connected not opposite.   
What if you understand that sometimes one has to loose and pick them self back in order to learn or grow (the idea of building character)couldn't beating someone or wining then motivated by the hope of helping that person??

There is a shift from internal to external focus when you create competition, but there is also a shift from real to artificial focus, and a shift from cooperative to competitive motivations.

Isn't parkour already an external focus? You don't do it in your head. right? What is real VS artificial?? isn't reality an illusion? What is real about parkour? How do you even know that I am real...

[DaveS]

I was using 'motivation' and 'desire' as synonyms, not contrasting one with the other. Desires change, so therefore actions change.
Desires aren't mutually exclusive, but the point I was making is that when your desires change so do your actions, and therefore so does the effect. For example, you can try to go north and east at the same time, and end up going north east, but each step north east doesn't take you as far north as the same step would if you were heading directly north.
It is always difficulty that provokes improvement. There are many ways to face difficulties that do not involve competition and losing.

If you're working with a team, competing against other teams, then it's not the competition part that helps you learn to work with others, it's the cooperation with your team members. Doing two things at the same time doesn't mean that they are both the cause of any effect you see.
If I create a game that involves shooting people while reading a medical book, does it follow then that guns help treat illness?

The shift from internal to external I was referring to is the change from internal motivation to external motivation. As a matter of fact, I think parkour is largely internal. The only external part is the obstacle, whereas the difficulty, the desire, the method, the solutions and the improvement are all a part of you.

[Millercb96]

Isn't that the point of a forum? To speak you thoughts?

Forum - n.
1. A public meeting place for open discussion.

2. A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.

It is but some of it's pointless arguments. Your posts weren't so much of arguing so no worries.

[Muse_of_Fire]

Miller,

If you're going to post a controversial question on an internet forum (and posting a question about competition on a parkour forum certainly qualifies), you have to expect people to argue about it. It should be no surprise.

What's nice about APK is that people are able to argue respectfully and with maturity about controversial topics, and this thread is no exception.

Some of this thread has wandered, sure; but it's been mostly relevant to your original question. If you feel you have nothing to learn from observing the discussion in this thread, then there really was no point in your posting the question to begin with.

[Clint Walker]

I believe if it must be competitive, let it not be commercial. Let it not be for some grand prize. Let it be for a greater good. Let it be for bringing people together. Let it be a test. Compete, not for trophies or medals, but for trust. Trust... in your self, in fellow traceurs, and in the survival of the core philosophies. If there must be competition, let there be only one team, united by the love of the art.

[max eisenberg]

How is the biosphere as a whole not competitive? Do you not believe that some species survive and some don't? Do you believe in evolution? Do things EAT other things? Do creatures compete for a limited supply of resources?

I personally can't call lions eating a zebra collaborative - it is in a "biosphere sense", but the zebra didn't like that game. If you don't consider that a won and lose situation (one got protein and nutrients and the other lost it's life) then I don't know what is!!

i feel as though life is a collaborative thing, without this you dont have that, without that you dont have this. a lion is there to hunt the zebra, the zebra is there to be hunted by the lion. however the zebra is also there to graze and eat grass. they are both part of the cycle of life, they both exist on the same plane and they both eventually cease to exist on the same plane. without one their might not be the other and of course it goes the other way  as well.

you are looking too small, our home (earth) wastes nothing. life as we know it recycles absolutely everything. while yes animals "compete" (if you wish to label everything you see) for food, and evolution competed so that the strong survive, it is all just the cycle of life.

sure we all compete for everything but, you can choose to see it as just the cycle of life. if the lion didnt eat the zebra it would cease to live, if the zebra out ran the lion it would keep living. every situation and example is unique and special, sure i guess you could call it all competeing so that this conversation can continue but, you can also look at it for what it is at its most basic level.

[Dylan A]

Stay true to how I look at it.

[M2.]

Wow, can't believe this is still going ... but I can pinpoint the issue

DaveS "less negative form of competition" ... this assumes that competition is negative

[jp2ykz]

i feel as though life is a collaborative thing, without this you dont have that, without that you dont have this. a lion is there to hunt the zebra, the zebra is there to be hunted by the lion. however the zebra is also there to graze and eat grass. they are both part of the cycle of life, they both exist on the same plane and they both eventually cease to exist on the same plane. without one their might not be the other and of course it goes the other way  as well.

you are looking too small, our home (earth) wastes nothing. life as we know it recycles absolutely everything. while yes animals "compete" (if you wish to label everything you see) for food, and evolution competed so that the strong survive, it is all just the cycle of life.

sure we all compete for everything but, you can choose to see it as just the cycle of life. if the lion didnt eat the zebra it would cease to live, if the zebra out ran the lion it would keep living. every situation and example is unique and special, sure i guess you could call it all competeing so that this conversation can continue but, you can also look at it for what it is at its most basic level.

Unless you are a planet this point while true dose not apply.

[max eisenberg]

Unless you are a planet this point while true dose not apply.

haha yeah sorry, i was kinda going off topic.

competition is good, always has been. its what gave us the technology we today. i dont think we should see competition as a "thing" that affects us, we affect competition. we can let it make us or break us, competing smartly with the right heart will let you do and see things you never would have thought.

if you let it affect you you will end up playing for the winning aspect, this is where people see it in a negative light. i guess thats why i went off on that long side note, its like the cycle of life. it has positives and negatives... if you choose to see it that way.

[ehk16]

the non-competitive nature of parkour sets it apart as well as the practitioners apart from other sports and other athletes that take part in those sports. Also, how are people supposed to be judged in parkour? Everyone is different and everyone has strengths and weaknesses and parkour reflect it because it has such a wide variety of movements. So my question is how can how can there be competition if everyone has their own set of movements that makes them unique? I just don't see how a real standard can be set to grade people on their performances. And the thing is if a standard is set then there would be so much less creativity, because everyone would be trying to do the same movements. Therefore i see that the only way to judge someone in parkour would be by creativity, but everyone is creative in there own way, so it would come down to being a personal choice. I hope i made sense. If not whatever =P