Competitions > General Discussions (Competition)
Competition in Parkour
Mark Toorock:
--- Quote ---Regarding competitions; if course we can question it. We can also question if it is a fact that the United States is called the Unites States. We can question whenever 1 + 1 equals 2 with the argument that everything is changing, that the history always change, and that each invidual experience and see things diffrently. We can question whenever parkour is based on movements or not. We can question whenever it competetive or not. But that points to a very unrealistic and dilusional view on life and that you're far removed from the actual reality. Whenever parkour is competetive or not cannott be answered with personal opinions, such as how each invidual experience parkour. Parkour has principles. Many people seems to forget that. Principles that were defined by the nine founders. The reason its called parkour is because it defines a certain way of training and thinking. When I say that it isn't competetive that's an opinion. What decides if this is a fact or not is whenever its in line with the reality or not. In this case its a fact because you can verify it in the history of parkour. You can study and understand the principles of it. These principles goes directly agianst competition and rather reinforce cooperation and personal training. You can also study it, understand it, and then ignore what you've just learned because it isn't in line with your personal agenda. That changes your personal principles, in doesn't change the principles in parkour.
--- End quote ---
Erik,
that's one of the most clearly written and well thought out presentations I've seen on just about any subject on here and I commend you for it.
I feel that it solves one problem, yet may bring another. If you are correct (and I have no reason to believe you are not) then Parkour is not competitive.
I can agree that this aligns with what the founders have said.
Now, the problem it brings about is this: Many people who do parkour are competitive and parkour skills are used in many competitions and there are competitions based around parkour.
So, parkour itself is not competitive, and I feel that this is best for practitioners of a discipline, it is more open and inviting to many more people that way. However on the flip side, and also reality, is that there are competitions which use parkour and competitions involving people who do parkour. So to me, BOTH seem to exist in reality. Perhaps this is why these discussions are so difficult to "solve".
Ryan A. Vetter:
--- Quote from: M2. on February 02, 2012, 07:15:28 PM ---Now, the problem it brings about is this: Many people who do parkour are competitive and parkour skills are used in many competitions and there are competitions based around parkour.
So, parkour itself is not competitive, and I feel that this is best for practitioners of a discipline, it is more open and inviting to many more people that way. However on the flip side, and also reality, is that there are competitions which use parkour and competitions involving people who do parkour. So to me, BOTH seem to exist in reality. Perhaps this is why these discussions are so difficult to "solve".
--- End quote ---
In philosophy and practices of confusionism, in an idealogical sense parkour competition cannot exist. In reality it's by nature we will force things to work, albeit trial and error eventually all problems will be handled. If it's to save a practice any face the contest format could be given a different name, to avoid any form of detestation.
7Erik7:
--- Quote from: M2. on February 02, 2012, 07:15:28 PM ---Erik,
that's one of the most clearly written and well thought out presentations I've seen on just about any subject on here and I
commend you for it.
I feel that it solves one problem, yet may bring another. If you are correct (and I have no reason to believe you are not) then
Parkour is not competitive.
I can agree that this aligns with what the founders have said.
Now, the problem it brings about is this: Many people who do parkour are competitive and parkour skills are used in many
competitions and there are competitions based around parkour.
So, parkour itself is not competitive, and I feel that this is best for practitioners of a discipline, it is more open and
inviting to many more people that way. However on the flip side, and also reality, is that there are competitions which use
parkour and competitions involving people who do parkour. So to me, BOTH seem to exist in reality. Perhaps this is why these
discussions are so difficult to "solve".
--- End quote ---
Thats true. In fact, most of what we learn is often used for a competitive sake in life or in sport. For our own best, or for others or both. But if I would take my skills to Ninja Warrior, or anything like that, I don't consider it as a parkour competition. Its just a competition of movements really. Its the same thing when I compete with people in school. Its just that, a competition. When I see Art Of Motion, its not the competition itself that is the problem. I have no problem with watching it. I have no problems with competitions in general. The performance of aspect is interesting. But the problem is that its not developed for parkour. If its used in parkour, its not parkour anymore, because it becomes purely physical with pre-defined rules. The essence gets lost. The reason for its existence is parkour. I doubt art of motion, parcouring, freerunning championship would exist without it. Parkour is misrepresented for commercial reasons. They're not telling the truth. They're not representing what was born in Lisses. They represent themselves and use whats around them for personal gains whenever its money, fame, or because they have fun at the competition. Any other name could be choosen, and they could have explained what they were really doing, but the commercial success by doing this was obviously to great to miss.
While competitions exist in the reality, its doesn't exist in its principles. I can do the same thing. I can take any name and definition, any sport, and do what I want with it. I can be a part of an organization and do completely the opposite of what the organization expect of me. But this doesn't change the organizations principles, the sports original principles, and so on. Its the same thing with the 'traceurs' who did a commercial shot for tobacco. Its obviously for personal gains, Because we're often free to do what we want. I could talk bad about you and (if I knew you) but it wont change you, no matter how incorrect I represent you, no matter if people would believe me. I could just around training 'parkour' and with a can writing tags, and damage private property. Its completely the opposite of what parkour is about but I don't have to care. No one can stop me to represent things in my own way. I could just say I do it because I feel good about it, because I have diffrent views, blabla. Its just a question whenever we do it or not and for whats the real reasons. But I wouldn't necessary consider it as very ethically to do so. While parkour isn't competitive by fact, not everyone in the world is there to live up its principles, my principles, yours, the founders or anyone else. I could eat all kinds of stuff before going into a competition in the olympics, stuff that arent allowed. But I do it because its good for me. No matter if its against the principles (and even rules) in the olympic games I can do it. But my view on this wont change the obvious facts: its not allowed. With parkour. its just a matter of representing it in a good way. Thats life I guess. While most people would say its against parkours principles to damage property, the competition aspect is really the same - and at the same time - practially impossible due to the fact that more than the physical part has to be considered. Its also against it but people can get personal gains from it really easy. Its good for them. So of course some people choose to use it.
What is most interesting with is discussion in my opinion is that people often get upset when you question what they do regarding competitions, if its right, wrong, and why etc. Its easy to go with the flow I guess but harder to question it. If people think this discussion is repetitive, look at the competition. Its repetitive aswell. Because its also a form of communication.
Shamas:
--- Quote from: 7Erik7 on February 03, 2012, 01:24:31 AM ---Thats true. In fact, most of what we learn is often used for a competitive sake in life or in sport. For our own best, or for others or both. But if I would take my skills to Ninja Warrior, or anything like that, I don't consider it as a parkour competition. Its just a competition of movements really. Its the same thing when I compete with people in school. Its just that, a competition. When I see Art Of Motion, its not the competition itself that is the problem. I have no problem with watching it. I have no problems with competitions in general. The performance of aspect is interesting. But the problem is that its not developed for parkour. If its used in parkour, its not parkour anymore, because it becomes purely physical with pre-defined rules. The essence gets lost.
--- End quote ---
I agree with you in the sense that Parkour as its pure form/ pure entity is, in and of itself, not competitive. I do believe that it can be used competitively, and there is nothing wrong with that. I believe that there shouldn't be any real debate further than this, as it clearly states that both are able to exist without conflict. It stands to reason that if events use Parkour in their competitions there shouldn't be an issue. On the flip side, we need to point fellow practitioners of Parkour to the principles of Parkour and (more importantly) clearly define the established criteria of debates such as this one.
For example, people should be able to look at this thread and not debate whether it is good or bad to compete with aspects of Parkour, but they should rather be focusing on whether they want to train in the Pure Parkour sense, Competitive sense, or Both.
As for the representing and misrepresenting, we have to do as any community or fellowship would and show our fellow traceurs what the discipline actual signifies. I believe that doing this with patience and clarity will allow more people to be open to the true values of the core principles themselves. For those who misrepresent Parkour, I don't believe that tagging, disruptive, sloppy, and vulgar people who chose to skip the core training are really traceurs. I believe that they are tricking fools who are going to injure themselves in the long run, either by accident or by wear and tear. So, they will get theirs. Parkour will live on as it should through all of those who practice it as it should be/as it is.
Ted Heistman:
I am new to this forum. I am kind of a Free Spirit. I've been doing some thing similar to Parkour for over 20 years off and on. I started when I was 15 running in the woods by myself, just feeling alive, jumping over logs, weaving in and out of trees, balancing on rail road tracks and fences, crossing streams jumping from rock to rock, scaling walls.
Later I did free Rock climbing. I also like to bushwack through wilderness areas and go on really long runs in the woods. I am not highly skilled or anything. I can't do flips. But for me this was like a Spiritual practice. It helped me build confidence and self reliance.
I just learned the name "parkour" from the internet and I think that French guy Belle seems like a cool guy. I agree with his philosophy.
I just recently lost 25 lbs and have gotten in really good shape. I would like to do this with some people for fun in a casual way but get serious about it. I think competition is the wrong way to go.
I also would hate seeing it be like something with a bunch of rules where you need to pay to learn how to do it and get "certified"
People try to do that with everything fun like kayaking even. I went on a 150 mile canoe trip the day after I bought a canoe. That's how I learn. I am not a big fan of beurocracy.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version