Stripping Down to the Basics

If there is one thing I love most about the parkour community, it is the discussions among traceurs of personal philosophies and purpose of training. I have talked to many traceurs at jams, training sessions, and online about their views, and never once have heard the same words to describe their motivation. My philosophies on parkour have changed drastically in the several years since my introduction. As I delve into my personal beliefs on parkour, in no way do I mean to convince anyone that this is the way they should view parkour. I merely want to display my beliefs based on fact of how much I enjoy hearing others', and hope to spark those who read to ponder their motivation to train and how it has evolved since their introduction. I would first like to bring up the question, "what is parkour?"

In most definitions, parkour is mentioned as a discipline. Parkour is not a sport, for sport requires competition, which is a highly debated topic for another day. Nor do I see it as an art, because I believe art implies expression, which I would categorize under Freerunning. Also another debate for another day. Discipline, I believe, is the most important aspect to parkour's definition. Discipline in itself has many meanings, but two common definitions strike me as relating most to parkour: "1.) training that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties or moral character," and, "2.) control gained by enforcing obedience or order" (Merriam-Webster). Parkour as a discipline allows it to be up to the interpretation of the traceur's purpose/goals meant to be achieved. The discipline is used to achieve those goals. Thus this is why the question, "what is parkour?" is usually followed by, "what does parkour mean to you?"


To me, the philosophy behind my past motivation correlates to the first definition of discipline mentioned above. As I was introduced to parkour, I was amazed at the physical capabilities of the traceurs around me. I found this to be the core motivation of my training - to push my physical limits and overcome mental barriers in attempt to discover the capabilities of the human body in natural movement. I saw my training as an interpretation of the definition 1.), but in a physical aspect. I trained to take a movement, practice it and perfect it, in the pursuit of being able to push my limits onto the next extreme. My overall goal in this sense was to constantly exceed my physical capabilities. I no longer view this as my motivation to train. Looking back, I can only view it as a "go big" philosophy - a reckless method of training that wore down my body and completely lacked the 2.) definition.


As I fell out of training over the past year, due to my lack of motivation from my past philosophy, I tried to look to the core of parkour and why I should really train. Going back to its origins, parkour was founded off the ideals behind George Herbert's "Natural Method." Too lazy to cite sources at this point, but did a 20 page informational essay on parkour for a writing class a year or so ago, so I guess take my word for it. The "Natural Method" was based on the philosophy "be strong, to be useful," Etre fort pour etre utile. This philosophy outlines the idea that we should physically prepare our bodies for emergency situations, so that in the moment we can "be useful." Herbert was part of the french navy back in the day and spent some time in Africa where he witnessed natives who could effortlessly and efficiently maneuver themselves in their environment, yet were not necessarily muscularly built. Thus he based his natural method program around the fact that in an emergency situation, it is going to be more important to maneuver your environment efficiently than it will be to lift weights (which the armed forces fitness was based around at the time). Soon after the parcours (french military obstacle course) was created. The origin of the name parkour.


This simple idea - preparing for the emergency situation - is what I feel the core philosophy of parkour training should be based around, and is what I have started to base my training around. I am sure many will look at this as a "purest" philosophy, and in ways I suppose it is, but I feel this is the true goal of parkour. Very much like how martial arts is a discipline based on self-defense, the fight mechanism, I believe parkour to be a discipline based on escape-defense, the flight mechanism. Even if it is extremely unlikely a situation that actually requires parkour occurs, the discipline is in the preparation.


So how is this philosophy going to affect and change my methods of training from the past?


Let me start with a scenario - you are running, from something or to something, in that rare emergency situation. Ahead of you is a vault-able wall, but you cannot see the other side. Are you going to run and do a massive kong? No, and there is my point. In my past training, and in the training I see in a lot of traceurs, the movements are based on environments we know, not environments we do not know. The environments we do not know is what I believe parkour training is supposed to help us adapt to. Back to the scenario, we obviously do not have time to run up, see that there is a clearable gap for a kong, run back and then do it. So how would we approach it? I would run up and safety vault onto it, assess my options, and act accordingly. If its a gap, I jump it, if its a drop, then drop into a cat and land. No matter how efficient of a movement as a massive kong could be in its own right, it would not be used in the unknown elements. Safety comes first, efficiency second.


Thus I am "stripping down to the basics," trying to analyze the movements that truly prepare me for those situations in which I must be strong, to be useful. This training is going to be based on the 2.) definition mentioned earlier. My goal in the discipline of parkour is to master control of my body through a structured and ordered training based on safety and efficiency.