Author Topic: Flow... let me get this straight...  (Read 9184 times)

Offline Kyle Rudolph

  • Killed Karma.
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • Karma: +91/-70
  • Pokemon Master
    • View Profile
    • GorillaPK
Re: Flow... let me get this straight...
« Reply #60 on: July 13, 2011, 08:44:18 PM »
I'm gonna go train. Hope to see you guys there.
Aren't we all running?

www.tricksession.com
www.iifym.com
www.broscience.com


Kyle "Kyper" Rudolph
American College of Sports Medicine Personal Trainer
U.S. Army Healthcare Specialist
St. George's Medical School Student: Orthopedic Surgery Class of 2015

Offline NOS - from Parkour Mumbai

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 387
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Parkour Mumbai
Re: Flow... let me get this straight...
« Reply #61 on: July 14, 2011, 12:34:57 AM »
Just chipping in to say, I agree with all of Adam's posts so far.

Offline DaveS

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 652
  • Karma: +12/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Flow... let me get this straight...
« Reply #62 on: July 14, 2011, 04:17:54 AM »
Basics give people the tools to work from in order to advance themselves.
People already have the tools they need to advance themselves. We all have the ability to learn and develop. All anyone needs are the right challenges so that they can use that ability.

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.
You provide people with a dozen movements, I provide people with a dozen obstacles which require a dozen different solutions. Same variety, same wide base to use as a foundation.

Your way people learn those movement techniques faster. My way people learn to think for themselves. For your people to learn to think for themselves they need to leave your way, need to stop being taught, and when they do so they have to follow exactly the same path as everyone does when learning to think for themselves. Trying things, making mistakes, and correcting them. The difference is that instead of that learning process using small, basic movements, it now has to use bigger, more demanding movements, with greater consequences of failure. That the movements are more demanding is compensated for by the increased knowledge of movement that they've been given, but the fact that mistakes result in more serious consequences isn't compensated for by anything.

My people make mistakes when they're slow and low, yours will make mistakes when they are high and fast. We get to the same place until yours seriously injure themselves.

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.
Trees produce their own roots and manage quite happily.

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?
It's proven that it does what it does, which is to get people to do harder movements quickly, and either increase the rate of serious injury or reduce a person's capacity to think for themselves depending on which path they choose later on. For the modern sporting world peak achievement is more highly valued than either long-term safety or individual thinking, which is why sports use it, but Parkour doesn't have that same values system.

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.
Discussions turn heated when people don't know how to deal with the fact that others don't agree with them. In their view they've explained everything perfectly, they are obviously right, and so if there's still a problem then it must be the other side that is at fault. Since it's so obviously a fault with the other side, it must be obvious to everyone including the other side. If it appears regularly then they must be doing it deliberately. Just to be on the safe side though, they feel they had better tell everyone that it's definitely a fault with the other side. Just in case anyone thought there was another possibility. They don't need to go into any detail though, because it's so obvious, and of course they've already explained everything perfectly. Just tell people that the other side is being deliberately wrong and everything's solved.

or...
~ Dave
NorthernParkour and the British Parkour Coaching Association

Offline Adam McC

  • Delicious
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
  • Karma: +209/-43
  • Level 1 Sexability Certified
    • View Profile
    • Lehigh Valley Parkour
Re: Flow... let me get this straight...
« Reply #63 on: July 14, 2011, 06:00:02 AM »
People already have the tools they need to advance themselves. We all have the ability to learn and develop. All anyone needs are the right challenges so that they can use that ability.
You provide people with a dozen movements, I provide people with a dozen obstacles which require a dozen different solutions. Same variety, same wide base to use as a foundation.

Your way people learn those movement techniques faster. My way people learn to think for themselves. For your people to learn to think for themselves they need to leave your way, need to stop being taught, and when they do so they have to follow exactly the same path as everyone does when learning to think for themselves. Trying things, making mistakes, and correcting them. The difference is that instead of that learning process using small, basic movements, it now has to use bigger, more demanding movements, with greater consequences of failure. That the movements are more demanding is compensated for by the increased knowledge of movement that they've been given, but the fact that mistakes result in more serious consequences isn't compensated for by anything.

My people make mistakes when they're slow and low, yours will make mistakes when they are high and fast. We get to the same place until yours seriously injure themselves.
Trees produce their own roots and manage quite happily.
It's proven that it does what it does, which is to get people to do harder movements quickly, and either increase the rate of serious injury or reduce a person's capacity to think for themselves depending on which path they choose later on. For the modern sporting world peak achievement is more highly valued than either long-term safety or individual thinking, which is why sports use it, but Parkour doesn't have that same values system.
Discussions turn heated when people don't know how to deal with the fact that others don't agree with them. In their view they've explained everything perfectly, they are obviously right, and so if there's still a problem then it must be the other side that is at fault. Since it's so obviously a fault with the other side, it must be obvious to everyone including the other side. If it appears regularly then they must be doing it deliberately. Just to be on the safe side though, they feel they had better tell everyone that it's definitely a fault with the other side. Just in case anyone thought there was another possibility. They don't need to go into any detail though, because it's so obvious, and of course they've already explained everything perfectly. Just tell people that the other side is being deliberately wrong and everything's solved.

or...

There's just a few assumptions I'd like to correct about this. Firstly, who says the "movements" I would be teaching are more dangerous and bring someone to a higher level? When I say teaching someone movements, I am talking about the very basics, the foundations from which people grow on. Proper landing, rolls, precisions, safety vaults, monkey/kongs, lazy vaults, etc. This stuff is no higher off the ground than what people might naturally perform under your method. In fact, most people I encounter who do things on their own without instruction are doing things far too high off the ground. By learning specifics, they aren't skipping any steps, like you seem to say. They aren't starting at a more dangerous point. If anything, they are at a safer point, because they have been shown movements to work from that we know are effective and won't result in injury due to being in a bad position or not knowing what to do next. Will there be no risk of failure? Of course not, there will always be that risk of them falling while trying these movements and learning to customize them to the obstacles they face, but that's the trial and error process that they go through and learn from. So yet again I say, the method works. Your argument against this method is completely based upon the assumption that showing them specific moves makes them skip steps and end up going too high and too fast, and that's just simply not true at all.

We're not making robots, by teaching them movements. It's not like we show them these moves, make them the same person as the student behind them, and then telling them to go home! Like words in a vocabulary, they do not encompass everything but they give you something to work from, so you can speak, or in this case, move well enough to continue practicing and continue developing.

As for injuries, I'm not sure how you can claim that as fact? If you've never taught using these methods for an extended period of time, and since there's no real proper research on this kind of thing (if there is, please present it to me now), you have no way of knowing if this sort of thing increases the chances of injury! All you have is your theory, which you seem to be presenting as some kind of fact. Which illustrates my problem with you. Your way or the highway, even if it's not necessarily fact. In the years I've been teaching, I've had one person get injured to the point of they had to stop training for the day. That seems pretty low to me. And that injury was due to a fall during a conditioning drill, it had little to do with technique of any kind.


As for your discussion piece, that is indeed one way a discussion turns heated. However, I don't think that's the problem here. I've seen plenty of people in discussions on here where people don't agree. And it rarely reaches the level of heat that almost all of your topics end up in. Because disagreements happen left and right, but after a few exchanges of opinion, normal people begin to integrate, they begin to find common ground, target in on the essential difference in perspective, and then properly accept that it's simply a difference in perspective, and not a matter of right or wrong. Or, if someone is wrong, they realize it, and move on. That's how discussions work. People talk, someone learns, or both learn. Discussions with you involve someone sharing, you shutting them down, offering your reasons, someone responding back, defending themselves from your attack, and then you continuing to shut down their defense every time until they completely diminish from the discussion, leaving you 'victorious'. But nobody learned, because you don't integrate with anybody else, and they just got consistently attacked by your superior intellect until they had nothing more to say. Whether they had something of value to offer or not. That's what frustrates me. There's no compassion in your messages, only a desire to be correct.



As for the discussion

•Lehigh Valley Parkour Community Founder
•Level 1 A.D.A.P.T. Certified
•Urban Current Member

Offline DaveS

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 652
  • Karma: +12/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Flow... let me get this straight...
« Reply #64 on: July 14, 2011, 03:59:31 PM »
There's just a few assumptions I'd like to correct about this. Firstly, who says the "movements" I would be teaching are more dangerous and bring someone to a higher level? When I say teaching someone movements, I am talking about the very basics, the foundations from which people grow on. Proper landing, rolls, precisions, safety vaults, monkey/kongs, lazy vaults, etc. This stuff is no higher off the ground than what people might naturally perform under your method.
I don't think those are basic movements at all. All of those movements you listed are dynamic movements. They require a degree of speed and strength in order to perform and involve times when you have very limited control over your motion (such as when you're in the air). They are all much harder than slower movements like stepping, balancing, crawling or climbing, where you can pause or stop at any point, and which I would consider the actual basics of movement. It's not so much the height differences (although since most of the movements you listed involve leaving the ground yours are of course higher) as the relative lack of control that seriously reduces safety.

By learning specifics, they aren't skipping any steps, like you seem to say. They aren't starting at a more dangerous point. If anything, they are at a safer point, because they have been shown movements to work from that we know are effective and won't result in injury due to being in a bad position or not knowing what to do next. Will there be no risk of failure? Of course not, there will always be that risk of them falling while trying these movements and learning to customize them to the obstacles they face, but that's the trial and error process that they go through and learn from. So yet again I say, the method works. Your argument against this method is completely based upon the assumption that showing them specific moves makes them skip steps and end up going too high and too fast, and that's just simply not true at all.
My point has nothing to do with skipping steps.

Learning to get past obstacles involves lots of separate learning processes. We learn better technique, learn to get better at how to judge obstacles, at how to make our own decisions, at how to choose which obstacles to try and get past, at knowing what we can do, and at many other things besides. Every learning process has to involve making mistakes. When a skill is new we make lots of mistakes, but as we become more familiar with it we make fewer and fewer mistakes, and also smaller and smaller mistakes. We judge the correct distance more and more often, and when we do still misjudge it we misjudge it by less and less.

A big mistake with any part of our practice will result in an injury. If you seriously misjudge an obstacle or your own ability, then you fall and get injured just the same as if you make a big mistake with choosing what technique to use. However, fewer mistakes results in fewer falls. Making smaller mistakes results in falls that are not as bad. If you land an eighth of an inch out on a precise jump you're less likely to fall badly then you would be if you were out by six inches.

It's not that people that get taught how to move are going too high or too fast, is simply that after spending time being taught how to move they're going higher and faster than they were at the start. If you have progressed further with learning how to move then you'll be dealing with harder movement. That means that the movement they are learning will involve being faster and higher, because they're two of the ways in which your ability to move progresses. If you misplaced your foot by six inches during a precision jump to a wall then you're much more likely to injure yourself than you would be if you did the same thing while walking. If you hit something while running faster you'll cause more damage.

You can make mistakes with simple movements without suffering the same consequences that you get from harder movements, because the injuries that happen when you're performing simple movements will be smaller than those injuries that happen when you're performing harder ones.

The start of every learning process involves making big mistakes and getting injured as a result. If you start all the learning processes while the movements are simple then all the big mistakes happen with simple movements, with minor consequences. If you wait and start some of the learning processes later on, when the movements are no longer simple, then big mistakes will happen when the consequences are more serious. In simple terms, you'll make a big mistake on a bigger jump.

As for injuries, I'm not sure how you can claim that as fact? If you've never taught using these methods for an extended period of time, and since there's no real proper research on this kind of thing (if there is, please present it to me now), you have no way of knowing if this sort of thing increases the chances of injury! All you have is your theory, which you seem to be presenting as some kind of fact. Which illustrates my problem with you. Your way or the highway, even if it's not necessarily fact. In the years I've been teaching, I've had one person get injured to the point of they had to stop training for the day. That seems pretty low to me. And that injury was due to a fall during a conditioning drill, it had little to do with technique of any kind.
I'm just explaining what my belief is and why I think that way. In my experience, from 7 years of practicing, 6 years of coaching and 4 years of coaching coaches, there's a clear correlation between people who don't start developing in a balanced way at the start and people who get seriously injured. People that are taught to move do fine in classes (there's no excuse for serious injury occurring in a class whatever's being taught) but make mistakes frequently outside of classes.

That might not be your experience, and you're perfectly entitled to base your own views on your experiences over mine whatever they are, but that is mine.

As for your discussion piece, that is indeed one way a discussion turns heated. However, I don't think that's the problem here. I've seen plenty of people in discussions on here where people don't agree. And it rarely reaches the level of heat that almost all of your topics end up in.

The discussions I'm involved in often end up with the other side getting heated because in most of the discussions the very views I'm challenging are the views that cause people who hold them to get heated in discussions. I tend to represent self-determination, self-responsibility and self-control and therefore I often stand opposed to the competitive ego-driven and unquestioning attitudes which cause anger.
~ Dave
NorthernParkour and the British Parkour Coaching Association