Topic: What are the types of parkour views and what do they mean?

[Bryan]

I noticed that there are different views with parkour (Purist, freestyle, ect.). But what do they mean? I will be thankful for whoever tells me.

[Jason C. Astor]

You just opened a can of worms

[Alec Furtado]

What do you think they mean? Purist stems from the word pure, i.e. the original form and meaning of parkour. Freestyle would imply "parkour" but with less adherence to the concept of "pure parkour." It's all personal preference, though some people spend time arguing the rationality of calling something parkour that doesn't fit the definition of parkour (though it could be related).

[Intern]

pure parkour generally means using whatever movements work best for you to overcome an obstacle as quickly and efficiently as possible. efficiency also implies the practitioners longevity in the sport. (joints etc)  Freerunning stemmed from parkour, was originally the same thing just in the english language.  it then turned into the idea of the original idea of parkour PLUS youre own personal flair. flips are not necesarily freerunning by themselves just as something with a flip is not necesarily freerunning, it can also be parkour.

[Mark Toorock]

Those should really just be removed as people really don't view it that way as much anymore They were never meant to contain or confine people's views but in retrospect that is how it appears.

[Eli]

Those should really just be removed as people really don't view it that way as much anymore They were never meant to contain or confine people's views but in retrospect that is how it appears.

Ah, so the days of the Great War are over then?

[Jason C. Astor]

Yeah, at this point everyone kinda just does their own thing and calls it Parkour.

I still consider Parkour what I considered it before... but I try not to talk about it with others anymore. Too much arguing semantics. As such, I have come up with my own terms when explaining it to people

[Stevie Leifheit]

Those should really just be removed as people really don't view it that way as much anymore They were never meant to contain or confine people's views but in retrospect that is how it appears.

Everything is meant to change in it's own good time.

I've always told people to find what works best for them and mold their movement around that. Whether or not you have a philosophy is to each his own. I embrace movement, that includes the moving along and reshaping of a sport.

[Alec Furtado]

Yeah, at this point everyone kinda just does their own thing and calls it Parkour.

Well there's nothing saying "You must do ____," so until there is, this is going to be the case. While parkour is -not- anything, you are free to exercise your creativity and ability. While there are things that parkour is -not-, that does not mean that you will be outcast if you do them.

Really, most of us are just happy to find another person to share the journey with, who loves to explore movement and does not do it in a way that is dangerous to themselves or others.

[7Erik7]

I noticed that there are different views with parkour (Purist, freestyle, ect.). But what do they mean? I will be thankful for whoever tells me.

Like with everything else - that's true - there are different views of parkour aswell.

Its just words people have come up with to put a name on their personal view on parkour. So even if people gave you an answer to that very question the answers would be very different. There are litterally  thousands of speeches and writing about what parkour is and what it isn't, if its pure, or not pure - and then you're into the freerunning VS parkour debate - and if you wish to read all this - be my guest, but it will only confuse you as it did for me and many others. It will most likely be a waste of time. Like reading people opinions about spaghetti.

There is no pure parkour, there is parkour, and its just a name that defines a certain way of thinking and training, and then there is of course your own motivation for training parkour. If you study the history of parkour (Julie Angel's book 'Cine Parkour' and 'The parkour & freerunning Handbook' by Dan Edwardes - its probably one of the the best materials for that purpose) you''ll learn a lot of what parkour is and what it isn't. From that point,  when you understand the essence of it, just go out and train. Do your thing and don't bother about labels, names, and definitions. Its highly subjective anyway. Its not the name that is important but the essence of the practise.

[Dan Elric]

There is a hard and soft view to parkour.

The hard (purist) view expresses a rigorous usefulness to parkour, stressing that true parkour must be inherently practical.  It is commonly viewed as the more conservative of the views, remaining "pure" to what David Belle intended, expressed best by, "be strong, be useful," which is considered to be the underlying foundation of what parkour really is.  While this sort of view does not exclude ostentatious movements such as flips, their use is only advocated when it can be used with high efficiency.  It contrasts freerunning as a completely independent entity; a discipline that is only an expression of the self, rather than the usefulness of the self.

The soft view concerns itself with a more ambiguous approach to movement, often using freerunning and parkour synonymously.  While considered the more progressive of the two, it grounds itself in the fact the term "freerunning" was only ever meant to be a translation of parkour into English, and that they are one in the same.  This is emphasized best by Sébastien Foucan, insisting that the desire to move and its realization is parkour, whether useful or for expression.

[Jason C. Astor]

There is a hard and soft view to parkour.

The hard (purist) view expresses a rigorous usefulness to parkour, stressing that true parkour must be inherently practical.  It is commonly viewed as the more conservative of the views, remaining "pure" to what David Belle intended, expressed best by, "be strong, be useful," which is considered to be the underlying foundation of what parkour really is.  While this sort of view does not exclude ostentatious movements such as flips, their use is only advocated when it can be used with high efficiency.  It contrasts freerunning as a completely independent entity; a discipline that is only an expression of the self, rather than the usefulness of the self.

The soft view concerns itself with a more ambiguous approach to movement, often using freerunning and parkour synonymously.  While considered the more progressive of the two, it is grounds itself in the fact the term "freerunning" was only ever meant to be a translation of parkour into English, and that they are one in the same.  This is emphasized best by Sébastien Foucan, insisting that the desire to move and its realization is parkour, whether useful or for expression.

^ Eloquent, Simple, Wonderful  Well done

I love that you acknowledge that there is a Difference but that the difference is based on perspective.

I personally find myself leaning toward the Hard view but am not bound by it

[Ryan A. Vetter]

Parkour is exactly parkour, 1=1, that simple. Views of parkour, now that's just defining a subject which limits it to people views. Say I use parkour and practice because others don't, and if they ever did start, I could ignore them and know full-well I am better, if ever challenged to prove I'm better I'd just bombard people with questions of and about parkour... and their philosophy, and where they learned it, and their favorite movement, and how do they feel about Penny Flips, and what shoes do they prefer, and what place do they normally train, and how high can they precision just straight up, and the highest drop they've taken, and how to perform a landing, and how many youtube videos they had to watch before they were inspired.

I'd become a very huge dick, because here, when it becomes summer, I love nothing more than to f#ck with dumbass kids who "know everything."

[Dan Elric]

Parkour is exactly parkour, 1=1, that simple. Views of parkour, now that's just defining a subject which limits it to people views. Say I use parkour and practice because others don't, and if they ever did start, I could ignore them and know full-well I am better, if ever challenged to prove I'm better I'd just bombard people with questions of and about parkour... and their philosophy, and where they learned it, and their favorite movement, and how do they feel about Penny Flips, and what shoes do they prefer, and what place do they normally train, and how high can they precision just straight up, and the highest drop they've taken, and how to perform a landing, and how many youtube videos they had to watch before they were inspired.

I'd become a very huge dick, because here, when it becomes summer, I love nothing more than to f#ck with dumbass kids who "know everything."

Don't delude yourself.  Parkour is a very real word trying to describe something that's very difficult to describe.  The disagreements won't simply go away because you think it's simple; it's not.

Right now, there's really no reason to sway to one side or the other.  But there are some views I should elaborate on:

A view used as the basis of such groups as "Shut Up N' Train" encourage an apathetic outlook to finer details.  What parkour or freerunning is doesn't seem to matter.  The only thing that matters is that one is doing it.  In fact, the entire outlook is almost paradoxical, and practitioners who advocate it promote parkour, while at the same time dismissing what it is.

Another view could be referred to as parkour existentialism, which encourages practitioners to explore what parkour means to them, insisting instead that it's whatever one makes it to be.  It tends to promote the idea that parkour is a manifestation of the inner self, rather than something that could be defined concretely.

[Ryan A. Vetter]

Don't delude yourself.  Parkour is a very real word trying to describe something that's very difficult to describe.  The disagreements won't simply go away because you think it's simple; it's not.

Right now, there's really no reason to sway to one side or the other.  But there are some views I should elaborate on:

A view used as the basis of such groups as "Shut Up N' Train" encourage an apathetic outlook to finer details.  What parkour or freerunning is doesn't seem to matter.  The only thing that matters is that one is doing it.  In fact, the entire outlook is almost paradoxical, and practitioners who advocate it promote parkour, while at the same time dismissing what it is.

Another view could be referred to as parkour existentialism, which encourages practitioners to explore what parkour means to them, insisting instead that it's whatever one makes it to be.  It tends to promote the idea that parkour is a manifestation of the inner self, rather than something that could be defined concretely.

Or you can say it's called a philosphy, don't be a coward, shut-up and train is one philosphy of parkour. I say it's that simple and I allow it to be that simple, you desire it to be complex. It's okay, I know you're scared to let the little things go, but you can be a hoarder.

[Dan Elric]

Or you can say it's called a philosphy, don't be a coward, shut-up and train is one philosphy of parkour. I say it's that simple and I allow it to be that simple, you desire it to be complex. It's okay, I know you're scared to let the little things go, but you can be a hoarder.

I support that there is little rational reason to embrace such views.  Whether I care about the details, if you want to call it that, or not, doesn't change the fact that the details are there.

[steve dahlin]

I could only explain my views on parkour through video, I don't think humans have a word for the feeling you get when doing parkour.

[Paul Exter]

Simply, parkour politics.

Ignore it and enjoy what you are doing!

[Jason C. Astor]

God- A supreme being that is worshiped or feared
God- The name of the Judieo-Christian Creator
God- An idiosyncrasy used to express extreme emotion (God!! That was a delicious sandwhich)
Gawd- Napoleon Dynamite

For those of you that don't know where I'm going with this. Most words have multiple meanings and uses depending on the user and conversational situation. 

But I digress, There is a continuing argument of to two things.
1- Is parkour a system of Training and nothing more or is it a means to express oneself through movement?
2- Is Parkour a system of training to move Quickly and efficiently through ones world? Or is it any type of movement? Is Parkour and Freerunning the same thing

Without pushing my opinion on you all to strongly; let's try to analyze each question.

  Is Parkour simply training? Is anything simply what it is, or does it give birth to other things, does it come from other things? Did you appear in this world in a blink of an eye and leave without effecting anything? Ask yourself something simple. If you didn't have Parkour or anyother Physical outlet, where would you be.. who would you be? Would you be a body builder, Spending hours trying to make yourself visually pleasing to others, tanning for hours? Would you just play video games in your free time? Would you have a concern for what you eat? You wouldn't be in as good of shape, other people wouldn't be as attracted to you or show you the same respect, you wouldn't have the physical and mental confidence that comes from overcoming challenges the way we do as we train. Although the word Parkour may just be a word, so is God, so is Love, we can't deny that the thing it self means so much more to us.

  Is Parkour about moving efficiently through ones environment or is it just about moving? Are all Martial Arts Parkour? How about Breakdancing or Ballet? I'm not saying that a Person can't do and be multiply things but if you saw a man Running a Marathon on Bostons streets, would you call him a traceur? Are all CrossFitters doing Parkour? Is the baby who just learned to walk doing Parkour? All these things are Physical, Motion Based Arts; are they all Parkour?
What divides Parkour from football or any thing else?

 

[Ryan Sannar]

There is a hard and soft view to parkour.

The hard (purist) view expresses a rigorous usefulness to parkour, stressing that true parkour must be inherently practical.  It is commonly viewed as the more conservative of the views, remaining "pure" to what David Belle intended, expressed best by, "be strong, be useful," which is considered to be the underlying foundation of what parkour really is.  While this sort of view does not exclude ostentatious movements such as flips, their use is only advocated when it can be used with high efficiency.  It contrasts freerunning as a completely independent entity; a discipline that is only an expression of the self, rather than the usefulness of the self.

The soft view concerns itself with a more ambiguous approach to movement, often using freerunning and parkour synonymously.  While considered the more progressive of the two, it grounds itself in the fact the term "freerunning" was only ever meant to be a translation of parkour into English, and that they are one in the same.  This is emphasized best by Sébastien Foucan, insisting that the desire to move and its realization is parkour, whether useful or for expression.

Thanks ^

There are two ways to see the importance of this debate/defining/etc... I believe. Internally and externally. Internally parkour is for you, what you choose to do with it. Self improvement/showing off/a profession/a life philosophy, whatever, that's all you. I personally think whatever your reasons parkour still makes us all better people.

That I think is what should be expressed externally. That we do this to become better people and that everybody has their own reasons for it.