How do we define parkour

Outdoors Articles » Parkour » How do we define parkour

Parkour is defined by many as this: a philosophy which is directly applicable to both the physical and the spiritual with which one can learn to overcome any obstacle which may present itself.

Parkour is also defined by many as: Awesome tricks and stunts.

As well as this, there are thousands of other definitions varying from practitioner to practitioner. However, which one is the right one, and who has the right to decide? Does it actually matter at all what a practitioner's definition is, as long as they train and enjoy what it is they're doing?

The best place to begin is probably the beginning of parkour itself, back when human beings were still hunter gatherers and had never heard of brick, mortar or asphalt and tree's were still just referred to as "gurgh". At this time our main form of movement was our feet, and as our species progressed, we gradually adapted more and more to our environment and invented new ways of moving through it. Now let's skip forward a few thousand years. A very many few thousand years.

It is the year 1902 and a French soldier Georges Herbert is stationed in Saint Pierre, Martinique when a volcano explodes. The ensuing chaos gave Georges Herbert a major revelation and led to his motto which still holds true in today's practice of parkour, "etre fort pour etre utile" which means: "be strong to be useful." After having been fascinated by the indigenous tribes and the way they moved he developed what he called his "methode naturelle", which involved learning all indispensable athletics. He broke these down into ten individual groups: Walking, running, jumping, quadrupedal movement, climbing, balancing, throwing, lifting, self-defense and swimming. As well as the physical importance, high moral standards are also stressed in "methode naturelle."

Decades later, a soldier named Raymond Belle, situated in Vietnam has a son and teaches him about "methode naturelle". This influences his life to such a major extent that his son, David continues the practice for himself and ends up bringing it to the Parisian suburb of Lisses. David Belle becomes friends with Sebastien Foucan and together with others of the town they develop their own art which they dub l'art du desplacement. After this the whole thing gets a bit hazy. However, the basic gist is that both David Belle and Sebastien Foucan went their separate ways for their own reasons.

We have now reached the early two thousands and the documentaries "Jump London" and "Jump Britain" have been made. Sebastien Foucan has coined his own philosophies on Parkour and this has such a dramatic effect as to both directly and indirectly create Freerunning. My preferred definition for Freerunning is: the practice of moving through one's environment as fluidly and efficiently as possible while also applying aesthetics to one's movements. However, it isn't my place to judge others on their own views and there are a lot of different ideas on it out there.

So here we are. It is the present day, and if you look on any forum dedicated to Parkour or Freerunning, you will doubtless find an innumerable amount of arguments, threads and posts all in relation to the one big question. What the hell is it? Yes there will be one person who says "actually this is what it is" and I'm sure beneath that person's comment you will find a million other people all arguing the point. I, personally, would like to ask everyone who is so hung up on all of this a few questions of my own. Who cares? Why do you care? What does it matter what someone else thinks? Of course there's always room for healthy debate. I mean there are definitely a million and one things that parkour isn't. There are also many things that parkour is but but free-running isn't. But again I ask, why does it matter? David Belle once said in an interview that when people come up and challenge him on what he is doing he replies with "Why do you care, I'm not bothering you, what I'm doing right now has no affect on you." That is definitely a paraphrase but what he means by it isn't only relevant to non-practitioners. In fact, I would say it is even more relevant to us, the Traceurs and Free-runners. There is no point in inflicting our own beliefs of the generally consented view of parkour upon the public unless we practice what we preach. Parkour is meant for everyone, not only those who believe a certain thing is exactly a particular way and "what right has anyone got to say any differently?". How are newer people supposed to want to learn if the first hurdle they encounter is this drunken stammer of a community? We, who embrace no singular definition and can't even agree to disagree- so just separate into groups of people who believe different things, and therefore can't mingle.

I'm guilty of discriminating against people in some way or other too, and so is just about everyone else I know.

As we have seen, over the past few decades parkour has changed it's face and it's name so much that it has become a fugitive of it's own creation. So, let's just stop all the arguing and focus on ourselves. By this, I mean let's stop isolating each other. Let's stop all this pointless confusion and agree that any definition of parkour which encompasses the basic values and gives a positive input to the practice of the sport can be accepted as a persons own opinion and isn't wrong. After all, aren't parkour and free running all about individuality, fun and having a positive impact on the world?

I will end on this note; Parkour is to me a philosophy which is directly applicable to both the physical and spiritual with which one can learn to overcome any obstacle which may present itself. It is also a visually pleasing endeavor and artistically satisfying act and encompasses most of my beliefs in its philosophies. It has become my best friend and like a friend, it is complex, changes over time and I will never know the absolute true definition of it.

But then again that's just my opinion.