Topic: Flow... let me get this straight...

[Adam McC]

I'm pretty sure that we're discussing how to develop good technique, not whether or not good technique is something worthwhile.

Are you not saying that a beginner is best focusing on the ability to adapt, rather than a specific technique? Not to show them something concrete, but rather to give them an obstacle, and encourage them to overcome it, in which they learn through trial and error and through their own mistakes how to overcome that obstacle? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's called "not" teaching technique. You seem to be against technique completely, as it counteracts your very philosophy. Hence your distaste for tutorials. For you are teaching an idea, not technique. (which I think is fine!) Allow me to explain:

technique. n. A systematic procedure, formula, or routine by which a task is accomplished.

Systematic, meaning regulated and controlled, not flexible or adaptable. Therefore, teaching technique is one method of teaching, meaning that you give them something concrete, systematic, and solid to understand, and then, as Joe expressed, allow them to expand upon that foundation. Or, those roots.

Your approach, on the other hand, is to allow them the ability to adapt themselves naturally to an obstacle, allowing them to create, out of their ideas, something concrete for that particular moment in time that gets them past their obstacle. Same idea, reverse order. Concrete to adaptive, adaptive to concrete.

That, before you immediately shut it down, was what my post was saying. And if people would stop bickering and start accepting multiple methods of teaching without getting egos involved, maybe we'd all better ourselves a little bit. Rather than being, how should I say it, unadaptive? Concrete? ...Systematic? I like your approach, Dave. I use it often. I also like my basic technique approaches, I use them too.

Sharing is caring, people.

[DaveS]

The word 'technique' does indeed imply introducing a system, a procedure, but that's exactly what we all do whenever we try and get past an obstacle. We try out our system for getting past obstacles. I don't think there's anything which says a system or procedure can't be adaptable.

My point is simply that we can create that system, that technique, ourselves. I think it's unnecessary to teach our own technique to others. I think it produces better results when people learn technique themselves.

[Mark Toorock]

Wow, Dave, I disagree with so many things you said, but I'm happy enough just to disagree. I feel that beginners can be good at lots of things, and I feel there can be joy and discovery in repetition.

[Adam McC]

The word 'technique' does indeed imply introducing a system, a procedure, but that's exactly what we all do whenever we try and get past an obstacle. We try out our system for getting past obstacles. I don't think there's anything which says a system or procedure can't be adaptable.

My point is simply that we can create that system, that technique, ourselves. I think it's unnecessary to teach our own technique to others. I think it produces better results when people learn technique themselves.

I have no problem with your method, Dave. I agree that engaging the creative system is effective for students, and is an important part of their training! However, that doesn't make your method superior. Teaching through specific technique is also tried and true as a method of teaching, and it leads to the same place. Speaking from experience, here. That's all! We can all be friends here. Sharing methods, learning from each other. Awesome! Coolio. No confrontation here, baby!

[Joe Brock]

The principles of biomechanics are identical in all situations, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the middle. You only learn that they are actually principles (and not just a one-off) by experiencing them in a variety of situations.

The principals are identical.  The practice of good biomechanics aren't.  There are certain things that are efficient, and others that aren't.  You can't dead lift at arm's length in front of you if you expect it to be efficient.  The same applies to physical practices of any kind.

I realize that I must just not be tuned into the zen-frequency that you are.  I hope that some day, I will be able to fly over the ocean and jam with you, and perhaps you can show me where I'm just not getting it.  I assume that it's because of the aforementioned "words."

"Uugh! Words confuse Joe...Joe smash."

[DaveS]

Wow, Dave, I disagree with so many things you said, but I'm happy enough just to disagree. I feel that beginners can be good at lots of things, and I feel there can be joy and discovery in repetition.

'Newcomers' can be good at lots of things, but I think the definition of 'beginner' is someone who's at the beginning, who hasn't yet started on this process of developing these abilities.

With mental conditioning it's possible to get enjoyment out of anything, but I think our natural state is to get enjoyment out of progress. I don't think it's necessary or useful to make any effort to enjoy going backwards, which is a part of repetition.

The principals are identical.  The practice of good biomechanics aren't.  There are certain things that are efficient, and others that aren't.  You can't dead lift at arm's length in front of you if you expect it to be efficient.  The same applies to physical practices of any kind.

I agree with all of that. However although you can be shown something that's efficient, you then don't get to experience that learning process yourself and so I think you lose out that way. You lose out by not developing all the other skills involved.

I think that you learn what's efficient for a given obstacle by trying different methods. What prompts you to try different methods on that obstacle is having used them successfully elsewhere. What introduces you to the idea of different methods in the first place is facing different obstacles. I think practicing with variety solves all of the problems.

[Mark Toorock]

Newcomers vs beginners - there you go tricking me with words again

[Adam McC]

I don't think it's necessary or useful to make any effort to enjoy going backwards, which is a part of repetition.

How do you see repetition as going backwards? Repetition simply implies drilling, lets say, a specific movement, until it becomes comfortable and easy. From the beginning to the end of that session of repetition, the individual has made progress from barely being able to do it, to being comfortable and able to do it any time. Repetition is designed to help you progress, to improve your skill and comfort and ability. How is this going backwards? I agree, for beginners, it's all about achievement and progress. I simply do not understand how you don't see that repetition gives them exactly that.

And Dave, Mark has a point. Arguing semantics of words seems silly, don't you think. If we spend the conversation on what -you think- "beginner" means versus what I think, versus "newcomer" and so on, we go nowhere. That's just twisting things to be right. Not logic, not helpful.

[Conrad Moser]

I have to agree with Adam and Mark on this discussion. I consider myself a "beginner" or "newcomer", having been at it for about six months, mostly in the past three months or so. And I do a lot of repetition. Working on precisions, both for leg strength, form, balance, etc.; rail walking for balance; wall climbs, cat leaps, lazy vaults, etc. I find that you need a strong base of moves to build from. And in doing these repetitions I can alter the moves based on the obstacle or environment. Is a lazy vault still a lazy vault if I'm only pushing off on one hand? Maybe, maybe not, but I vault the railing at my house one-handed if I'm holding a coffee or water bottle in the other. I can also change my landing angle or distance based on pushing off of the railing. Does that make it a different vault? Is a precision still a precision if your landing above your takeoff? Below? Perpendicular? I personally don't find it necessary to re-invent every move from scratch, or dispensing with words and language altogether. To me, the moves are as much of parkour as the concept and philosophy. Does that make what I do something other than parkour? Am I still so new to the discipline that I'm just not "getting it"?

[max eisenberg]

i wrote a really long, semi angry post and then realized that everything everyone has said has been almost completely biased one way or the other.

experience is the only way to learn parkour. you can all charge for you vault classes but, the good students go home and experiment for hours. the poor students wait till next week to drill the exact same moves.

if you really think there is a difference between teaching methods you completely miss the point of this whole discussion. the only difference is the teacher. to be more honest and direct i think everyone here is being absolutely stupid. you dont learn jack shit about parkour until you feel it. take any new comer and explain what to do with you arms during a jump, now tell them to do it... watch the hilarity ensue. you probably werent taught the little stuff, you learned most of it on your own and you know what? its the little stuff that makes parkour what it is. its that trial and error that makes you have a better understanding of why you do what you do.

no two moments are the same, no two vaults, jumps or rolls are the same no matter how many times you have put yourself in that scenario. only time spent practicing a bunch of different options lets YOU pick the one best for you. i dont give a shit what anyone has to say, if you want to dead lift holding the weight away from your body, go for it.

will you get the best outcome? probably not, will experience end up showing you the best way? probably so. i doubt ANYONE here was told how to do something, shown how to do something and then could just automatically do it. it takes careful consideration and practice of an array of skills to be a traceur. parkour is not about vaults, jumps and flips, if thats all you teach your doing it wrong and you should quit teaching parkour forever.

if you dont couple physical skills with mental understanding of why you do what you do you are absolutely, 100% failing as a teacher. if you dont like, tough shit because you know its true. parkour is less about getting over obstacles and more about breaking down your own walls. when you open yourself up completely to a situation there are no labels, there are just actions.

[Adam McC]

i wrote a really long, semi angry post and then realized that everything everyone has said has been almost completely biased one way or the other.

experience is the only way to learn parkour. you can all charge for you vault classes but, the good students go home and experiment for hours. the poor students wait till next week to drill the exact same moves.

if you really think there is a difference between teaching methods you completely miss the point of this whole discussion. the only difference is the teacher. to be more honest and direct i think everyone here is being absolutely stupid. you dont learn jack shit about parkour until you feel it. take any new comer and explain what to do with you arms during a jump, now tell them to do it... watch the hilarity ensue. you probably werent taught the little stuff, you learned most of it on your own and you know what? its the little stuff that makes parkour what it is. its that trial and error that makes you have a better understanding of why you do what you do.

no two moments are the same, no two vaults, jumps or rolls are the same no matter how many times you have put yourself in that scenario. only time spent practicing a bunch of different options lets YOU pick the one best for you. i dont give a shit what anyone has to say, if you want to dead lift holding the weight away from your body, go for it.

will you get the best outcome? probably not, will experience end up showing you the best way? probably so. i doubt ANYONE here was told how to do something, shown how to do something and then could just automatically do it. it takes careful consideration and practice of an array of skills to be a traceur. parkour is not about vaults, jumps and flips, if thats all you teach your doing it wrong and you should quit teaching parkour forever.

if you dont couple physical skills with mental understanding of why you do what you do you are absolutely, 100% failing as a teacher. if you dont like, tough shit because you know its true. parkour is less about getting over obstacles and more about breaking down your own walls. when you open yourself up completely to a situation there are no labels, there are just actions.

Max, be careful with your arrogance. I've had this conversation with you before, in the past. I don't think you have the right to tell everyone here that we are being stupid. You do understand that you are addressing people who teach, organize, and instruct Parkour, in some cases, for a living?

Obviously, people learn through feeling. Please don't speak to me as though I don't realize this. People learn through their experiences. That's why we don't lecture Parkour, we teach it. But in order for learning to take place, there needs to be a structure to operate within. Argue this all you want, but it's fact. It's how kids at school learn, it's how college works, it's how the workplace operates, and so on, and so on. There needs to be structure to learn from.

We're well aware that Parkour is about physical development, that a teacher's responsibility is to help each person grow individually, and that people learn through their experiences. This, is obvious. The discussion is about the methods we use to -reach- this point. And until you actually have to organize and professionally instruct these things, I'd appreciate it if you used a humbler tone than "i think everyone here is being absolutely stupid"

Nothing personal, brother. I just want you to keep things in check, and keep this conversation on it's proper course. And criticism followed by obvious concepts really isn't a proper course. There is a difference between teaching methods. Because those methods capacitate a particular degree of experience and therefore learning in each student, and that is what we are discussing here.

[aerosfcity]

you dont find enlightenment, without first being able to find your breath.

Its hard to teach that "mental understanding" without first having a grasp of that idea which you are trying to understand.  Basic technique cueing and repetition is a wicked accessible way for most (insert choice noun for new students here) to begin to even tickle the underlying forces and philosophies that make it a true discipline.  


I like listening to the zen masters who coach a few times a week while jamming and philosophize from their cubicle computers put down dudes who work full time actually coaching and spreading that "mental understanding" every day. Its cute.  I know i coach about 800 classes a year which ends up being about 1000 hours just professionally in facilities, not including the local outdoor jams and classes.There are tons of guys here in the US, and this forum, who work as much if not more. Max, you should definitely count to ten, breathe for a moment, and then really consider the amount of live experience these guys have actually interacting with hundreds of (insert choice noun for new students here) before saying they are trying to sell your discipline.

[Joe Brock]

Why do I comment in these posts with Dave?  I know that they're going to go crazy at some point.  I guess it's entertaining.

Max...I love the fact that you liked my dead-lifting analogy.  This lets me pick up on a very precise point.  Yes, you can deadlift with your arms straight in front of you!  It's really inefficient, and hilarious, but I guess it could be done.  You can also begin a clean with your elbows bent.

...but there is a reason for not doing these things.  Having #400 straighten out your arms for you is almost 100% certain to cause an injury that will bother you for the rest of your life. 

We don't land stiff-legged on our heels for a reason, and it's a good thing to communicate this to newcomers/beginners/noobz/whatever.

[DaveS]

How do you see repetition as going backwards? Repetition simply implies drilling, lets say, a specific movement, until it becomes comfortable and easy. From the beginning to the end of that session of repetition, the individual has made progress from barely being able to do it, to being comfortable and able to do it any time. Repetition is designed to help you progress, to improve your skill and comfort and ability. How is this going backwards? I agree, for beginners, it's all about achievement and progress. I simply do not understand how you don't see that repetition gives them exactly that.

I don't think it is a difficult concept to understand. If you take a step forwards then in order to repeat that same step you have to first take a step backwards. You need to go back to where you were.

And Dave, Mark has a point. Arguing semantics of words seems silly, don't you think. If we spend the conversation on what -you think- "beginner" means versus what I think, versus "newcomer" and so on, we go nowhere. That's just twisting things to be right. Not logic, not helpful.

I don't think that was the point Mark was making. We're not arguing semantics. I made a point without clarifying what I meant, Mark disagreed with one interpretation of it, I then clarified my point, and then he made a joke about it all.
I think there's a better chance of a fight in the 'Parkour pants' thread.

I personally don't find it necessary to re-invent every move from scratch, or dispensing with words and language altogether. To me, the moves are as much of parkour as the concept and philosophy. Does that make what I do something other than parkour? Am I still so new to the discipline that I'm just not "getting it"?

I'm not suggesting that we ourselves have to forget what we know every time we come to an obstacle. Of course we should look to use methods and techniques that we're familiar with. I'm also not saying that words and language have no place in Parkour, just that they shouldn't form the basis for it.
What I'm saying is that it is better for you if you have created your own techniques and methods, because the not only do you understand them better but you also develop other skills you can use elsewhere. Trying to finding ways to get past the obstacles we face is the heart of Parkour, not only do we not need anyone else to do it for us but doing so would defeat the purpose of Parkour.
You can work out for yourself whether that's an accurate description of what you do.

We don't land stiff-legged on our heels for a reason, and it's a good thing to communicate this to newcomers/beginners/noobz/whatever.

The reason I don't land stiff-legged on my heels is that I learned that it was a bad idea when I was first learning to move. Nobody had to tell me, I picked it up myself.

What is the benefit of telling someone something, when they can learn it for themselves and get better results by doing so?

[Adam McC]

I don't think it is a difficult concept to understand. If you take a step forwards then in order to repeat that same step you have to first take a step backwards. You need to go back to where you were.
I don't think that was the point Mark was making. We're not arguing semantics. I made a point without clarifying what I meant, Mark disagreed with one interpretation of it, I then clarified my point, and then he made a joke about it all.
I think there's a better chance of a fight in the 'Parkour pants' thread.
I'm not suggesting that we ourselves have to forget what we know every time we come to an obstacle. Of course we should look to use methods and techniques that we're familiar with. I'm also not saying that words and language have no place in Parkour, just that they shouldn't form the basis for it.
What I'm saying is that it is better for you if you have created your own techniques and methods, because the not only do you understand them better but you also develop other skills you can use elsewhere. Trying to finding ways to get past the obstacles we face is the heart of Parkour, not only do we not need anyone else to do it for us but doing so would defeat the purpose of Parkour.
You can work out for yourself whether that's an accurate description of what you do.
The reason I don't land stiff-legged on my heels is that I learned that it was a bad idea when I was first learning to move. Nobody had to tell me, I picked it up myself.

What is the benefit of telling someone something, when they can learn it for themselves and get better results by doing so?

To your first response, it depends whether you're looking at the big picture. I am looking at the big picture, because that's what Parkour training is about, to me. But that's simply my perspective, it isn't necessarily "correct". In the small picture, repeating a movement once more may indeed be stepping backwards, if you're ready to progress forwards in that moment, but in the big picture, you make forward progress by drilling a movement because you become more comfortable with it. I can tell countless stories from my own training to illustrate this progress that wouldn't have been made without repetition if you like, but I don't think that's necessary. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying. Repetition does still give you progress, it's simply over a longer term. It's training for the future, not just for that moment.


As for the rest of your point, here's the deal. You've seemed to rest your position as follows: You don't necessarily think names have no place in Parkour, and you don't necessarily think that we should never have some kind of familiar base. You simply think that the highest level of learning occurs when we teach ourselves something, rather than having it shown and solved for us by another person. Yes?

In that case, then the foundational basics and essential techniques are a path to that! That's what I've been saying forever, but you seem to stubborn to agree with, since you have to only have things right the way -you- express them. My method sometimes involves teaching someone, say, a safety vault, a certain way. Once they become familiar with it, they will switch up their legs and their landing foot and their distance and speed and hand placement and direction and so on, and so on. Learning how to take that movement and mold it to themselves and that movement, thus going through that learning process you believe in. Self-discovery. But they need a place to start from, an area to discover on. And that's why I believe in the basics. And that's why I don't see anything wrong with them, just as I don't see anything wrong with some straight up-exploring with no direction, either. Yet again I say:

Both are legitimate methods that lead to the same place!

So can we please just act like we're sharing methods and learning from each other, instead of trying to prove to each other our ideas are more correct than the other? I would have a lot more respect for you, Dave, if you learned to integrate with other people's opinion, instead of standing so rigidly by your ideas. I've never once seen you openly admit being wrong, or admit having learned something from someone on this board, or admit having your perspective changed. I've been here for a while, and I've learned a lot of things from a lot of people. Including you. I'd like to see more of that from you. Maybe other people have some things to share also.

[Mark Toorock]

@ Max - this post just shows how little you know what actually happens in a gym where people lear4n parkour.

@ Dave - it wasn't really a joke, if you want to keep changing the meaning or usage of words in the middle of a discussion then I'm out.

I agree with Adam here - any argument has two sides and usually BOTH of those sides have some validity. To me, to not see the other side as valid is simply limiting your own understanding of something. There are positives and drawbacks to just about anyhitng in the world and many of these can be minimized or amplified by how they are applied. A great teacher can use a crappy system and still get good results, a poor teacher can use a great system and still get crappy results. A person can train themselves and learn many things, or a person can train with an instructor and potential save a lot of time and save a lot of unnecessary trial and error and instead spend their time on more useful trial and error.

I feel like Dave feels that instructing with a "system" means taking away any creativity and any of the self learning, where this is simply not true. Both of these methods can, do, and should co-exist in any program where someone is teaching anything- including parkour.

[DaveS]

To your first response, it depends whether you're looking at the big picture.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. For it to be useful you need to look at training a certain way, from a broad perspective, and that's actually quite a difficult thing to do. I wouldn't expect people coming new to Parkour to necessarily be able to do that.

In that case, then the foundational basics and essential techniques are a path to that!

No, they're not. Being told exactly what to do is not a path to working out how to do things yourself, it's a path towards doing what you're told, the exact opposite. You can only learn to work things out for yourself by practicing working things out for yourself.

People don't come to Parkour with the ability to do everything themselves. That's the end goal, not the starting point. With a good system of learning you introduce control to the student gradually. Getting past the physical obstacles is the most basic and simple task involved in Parkour though, so it's the first thing practitioners take control over. It's what you start with.

So can we please just act like we're sharing methods and learning from each other, instead of trying to prove to each other our ideas are more correct than the other? I would have a lot more respect for you, Dave, if you learned to integrate with other people's opinion, instead of standing so rigidly by your ideas. I've never once seen you openly admit being wrong, or admit having learned something from someone on this board, or admit having your perspective changed. I've been here for a while, and I've learned a lot of things from a lot of people. Including you. I'd like to see more of that from you. Maybe other people have some things to share also.

Changing minds is not what discussion is about. Discussion is about clarification of ideas. You clarify yours, other people clarify theirs, and we all benefit. If some minds get changed then so be it, sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't, but it's nothing to get worked up over. What matters are your own views. You'll always be frustrated if you demand things from others.

I'll change my mind when I find something that I think is both new and significant, the same as everyone else. Find me something that fits that description, and then we'll see what happens.

@ Dave - it wasn't really a joke, if you want to keep changing the meaning or usage of words in the middle of a discussion then I'm out.

No words' meanings were changed, only clarified. When people misunderstand I find it's useful to clarify exactly what was meant. It's up to you though, you can argue against a view that doesn't exist if you like

I feel like Dave feels that instructing with a "system" means taking away any creativity and any of the self learning, where this is simply not true. Both of these methods can, do, and should co-exist in any program where someone is teaching anything- including parkour.

No, that is not my feeling at all. It's fine to do things systematically, but for an activity which is designed to help people do things themselves it's not fine to use a system that does everything for them.

[Adam McC]

Wow. I'm sorry Dave. I really respect your intelligence, but you have no capacity to understand whatsoever. You're completely missing my point in every way. Not because you can't understand it, but because you refuse to, because it would involve you giving in a little. So all that remains is your ego. And I can't give any more energy into that.

You teach how you like. I'm going to teach the way I know works, the way that I am currently doing, which is changing lives. And I'm going to participate on this board the way I know works. By sharing, complimenting, integrating, learning, and changing. If you can't see the beauty in that, I have nothing more to say. You keep living in your own world of self-righteousness. I'm going to continue my path of learning and changing from the people around me.

[DaveS]

I doubt that insulting people is going to help people understand your point. I responded to what you posted, if you meant something different then it's up to you to clarify.

Everyone has a starting point. The basis for developing your ability to get past obstacles is simply your current ability to get past obstacles. We all have some ability to get past obstacles, and we can all start from there. If we encourage people to start from a more advanced position then it just means that when they start doing things themselves they have to begin with harder obstacles. That's not helpful.

[Adam McC]

I doubt that insulting people is going to help people understand your point. I responded to what you posted, if you meant something different then it's up to you to clarify.

Everyone has a starting point. The basis for developing your ability to get past obstacles is simply your current ability to get past obstacles. We all have some ability to get past obstacles, and we can all start from there. If we encourage people to start from a more advanced position then it just means that when they start doing things themselves they have to begin with harder obstacles. That's not helpful.

No, every person so far has understood and agreed with me, except for yourself.

Basics give people the tools to work from in order to advance themselves. If I tell a beginner to overcome an obstacle their way, they'll pick one or two methods, and then slowly perfect and through trial and error, make those couple of movements effective and flexible, and their own. But since I gave them nothing except the drive to overcome, that's all they've done.

If, on the other hand, I provide them with a dozen specific movements, and allow them the time to work on those motions and become familiar with them, they discover the movements for themselves, and create variation upon variation of all those movements, multiplying and then multiplying again their ability to create, innovate, and discover. It's not about discovering for them, it's about using established tools to make them progress faster. Hence my roots analogy. Roots of a tree. The more roots, and the stronger they are, the more the tree can grow and expand in so many ways. The smaller the roots are, the less of an ability to expand it has.

This is a proven method, it's worked for all the years I've spent teaching. It's also worked for countless people on this board. So what is it, inside you, that makes this impossible to accept? That maybe, just maybe, other people have things of value to offer as well, and that your way is not the only way?

That's my problem, here, Dave. Instead of this being a proper discussion where we share and grow, every discussed with you turns into an argument, because you put each and every person on the defensive, because all you do is attack what they do, with the reasoning that your way is better. Why do you think every discussion you're in gets relatively heated? It's frustrating, and tiring! Just have an open heart, man! Share some love, stop being so damn stuck up about your own ways, and accept that maybe other people know as much as you, and quite possibly, more.