Common Debates in Parkour

Tricks and Acrobatics - Are they Parkour?

Many traceurs are interested not only in movements that allow them to clear obstacles, but movements that create visual flair as well. Whether these could be called parkour or not is a common subject for disagreement in the parkour community due to the originating idealism of parkour was solely based on the speed and continuation of movement from point A to point B.

The most commonly discussed movement is flipping, the basic move on others under question are based. As a flip tends to break flow rather than add to it, many would argue it is not parkour. Others suggest that a flip can be implemented into a run while remaining flowing and if this is done then it is parkour.

A common argument in favour of any movement being included under the banner of parkour is that since parkour is about being free to move how one wants, anything can be classed as parkour. This can be and has been applied to everything from acrobatics to stopping dead in a run.

Many believe that although performing acrobatic tricks is an art form in its own right it is not parkour, parkour should be only optimal movements for clearing obstacles in a flowing manner.

The originators of the discipline have however both stated in interviews that, although they do flips because they are fun, they do not consider flips to be a part of parkour.

Purpose-Built Training Areas

Parkour was created as a way of being free in one's environment, a method of flowing movement over whatever obstacles one encounters. As the aim is to be able to fluently move over any obstacle, not to perform certain tricks or movements, the idea of a place specifically built for parkour is one that is often disagreed upon.

One argument against parkour parks most commonly put forward is that one can't practice parkour in a park as one would not be true to (at least their take on) the philosophy behind parkour; that is, one would not be moving over obstacles designed to restrict or that restrict naturally. Another suggestion against such parks is that if a parkour park is built then officialdom may be less lenient of allowing people to practice in public places.

Those in favour of parks suggest that they would be excellent ways to practice movement in relative safety and security without the risk of getting in trouble for what they're doing. These parks would provide places where new free runners could learn techniques more safely than in the street, amongst more experienced practitioners of parkour. At a parkour park one could meet other free runners, adding to the social element many enjoy in parkour. They say that the park would be used for practicing their movement and improving their techniques, but not for the actual performance of parkour; this would remain in the usual outdoor environment. A great training area is one where one can express themself freely without police intervention.

Commercialisation and Growth

The changing of parkour, particularly its continuing growth into a mainstream activity, evokes polar reactions amongst members of the parkour community. The two differing opinions are that this growth will either see parkour blossom, or result in the death of its true meaning at the hands of corporate exploitation. The most heated proponents tend to be those of the latter opinion; unsurprising, as they argue a case for defence and action and consider that the art they hold dear as being under attack.

Those wary of the popularisation of parkour also cite the idea that parkour becoming larger might destroy the community feel they attribute to being part of what separates parkour from other activities and makes it special. They also suggest that with increased growth there shall be increased numbers of posers that involve themselves with the art purely for the image to be gained from it.

It has happened that many times when the position against parkour's growth has been put forward the person expressing it is being more sensationalist than rational. Vague references to 'commercialisation' (often where this term isn't defined or discussed, simply used as a popular word carrying some negative connotations) are common, as are complaints about parkour 'becoming like skateboarding,' though these references are also often vague and supposed to carry their own argument without back up. Some of these attacks may be reasonably dismissed as an irrational rant, made by people with limited information who are following a popular and seemingly the righteous argument.

Equally, there may also be considered to be a segment who in 'following the crowd' support the commercial development of parkour, failing to reason the arguments or research the likely consequences for themselves. Many would argue that those in support of the commercial development of parkour tend to be those involved in the sport fleetingly, and who are concerned more with the image associated with parkour than the activity itself. There is an increasingly large population of traceurs with well-reasoned arguments who consider that the development of parkour is proceeding too quickly and in a negative direction. David Belle himself is known to have expressed concern at the activities of those involved in the commercial development of parkour.

Some of those opposed suggest that large companies may attempt to make parkour-specific equipment, which might be fashionable amongst 'wannabe free runners'. They argue that since complying with trends (many people using the same equipment and clothing or trying to learn the latest cool moves or tricks, for example) actually detracts from the freedom from social expectations inspired by parkour, it is a negative thing.

The other side of the argument is that since no one is forced to comply with any societal pressures any trends in parkour won't affect those practicing for their own personal enjoyment or for the 'true' philosophy. In reality, many of the participants in parkour are teenagers, and subject to peer and media pressures; likely to be influenced to trade in their perfectly adequate existing footwear and clothing in favour of heavily branded 'PK trainers' and clothing merchandise.

Many comparisons for the growth of parkour are made with other extreme sports in the debate, most often skateboarding. These comparisons originate from both viewpoints, generally offering an alternative perspective on the same ideas. Those against growth often imply that skateboarding is bad for being commercialised, implying that corporations are interested only in money and not the sport itself. Those supportive of the growth counterargue that increased money in a sport is actually positive and that large companies supply equipment that would otherwise be unavailable, while consumers retain the option of whether to buy it.

As parkour has a large teenage appeal base, it can be argued that societal pressures and interest in fashions and fads are very strong, thus profit will be gained from parkour. Almost every other sport and art, from football to music, has been exploited in this way. It could be argued that these still retain much of their special feeling for those that love them but few could argue that many such interests and pursuits have not been spoiled by commercialism.

The poser argument is also used in the skateboarding comparison. That there are many poser skaters is often repeated. The pro-growth argue that no number of posers trying to maintain a parkour image is going to have any affect on a true traceur practicing the art, thus this is irrelevant.

The counter-argument is that short-term traceurs are likely to be less passionate and less respectful of the art form. The significant increase in the number of traceurs would also be an issue. These two factors could easily combine to develop a poor reputation for the participants of parkour and lead to restrictions on parkour-like activity through widespread application of anti-climb paint, increased and increasingly restrictive security personnel and other similar measures (as is already being seen at some areas of London previously popular with traceurs, but over-exploited by a few).

Most recently, as featured in the sequel documentary to Jump London, Jump Britain, computer game developers Core Design have been in the process of creating a parkour video game. For many, this could be construed as the beginning of a frenzy of media exploitation of parkour, and indeed the concept of the game seems utterly opposed or oblivious to the actual principles and motives behind it. Even so, the influx of youngsters playing the game who either attempt the unrealistic movements involved, simply continue to re-enact the goings on of the game in a virtual world, or how the game will affect the actual practitioners of parkour, (possibly idolising them), one cannot escape the fact that this game will have a huge impact on Parkour.