Common Debates in Parkour Cardiff

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 Growt...