Talk:Parkour

Assistive equipment

Would Soap shoes, shoes which can grind on rails, ledges be considered assistive equipment. 213.149.61.214 (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The lack of equipment is part of the definition of parkour. Something like that is a better fit with skateboarding. ··gracefool 💬 00:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

That is "equipment" designed for parkour; grinding on feet is a parkour element. Sure, strictly speaking it's equipment but it's just minimal assistance, something like talcum powder. Sure, skateboarders can use them, but they do the grinding with skateboards; when they grind on feet they are not skateboarders at that moment / they do not skateboard. 213.149.62.88 (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Using soap shoes would be extremely risky as it is greatly unpredictable. Also grinding and sliding on feet is a quite scarce move in parkour Adrian Jökull Bihr (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Injuries and deaths

I am somewhat concerned that much of the subsection ==== Injuries and deaths ==== should be carefully recontextualized or trimmed, as major clinical claims are implicitly being made without any reliable medical sourcing. For example, "many parkour experts tend to view serious physical injury as a deviation from true parkour" may be understood by some as pristine theory trumping all. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to trace any obvious MEDRS. Which is regrettable. 86.172.165.132 (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

As a frequent traceur i cam say that the phrase you specofocally referemced males simply no sense but the rest of the section seems accurate to me. Although at the end of the section it cites someone claiming that a lot of innuries arent reported but in my personal experience injuries in parkour are deemed just as serious as anywhere else and anything unreported is minimal Adrian Jökull Bihr (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Wiki parkour leavenotrace.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Definition of parkour

The definition of parkour here seems very narrow compared to its broader, contemporary use. While there is a historical definition of parkour that emphasises efficient movement, contemporary usage has expanded beyond this. For example, a lot of parkour, while efficient in its movement, is not efficient in its choice of route when navigating an obstacle, and many routes might double-back on themselves, often repeatedly.

I think there's also scope also to convey the idea that parkour's definition has been contested, and it is often characterised by being difficult to define.KiellWiki (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Describing Parkour as moving from point A to point B in the fastest and most efficient way possible [...] is historically incorrect and logically flawed.

It is historically incorrect because contemporary academic studies of Parkour describe it as a training method(Julie Angel, Ciné Parkour, p.17-20), David Belle, Parkour, p.8), (Je Saute De Toit En Toit, interview with David Belle).

There is also a logical contradiction with defining Parkour as such. If the proposition moving from point A to B the most efficient way possible is true, then it logically follows that obstacle course running - or even running itself - is Parkour. Such narrow definition excludes too much of Parkour, and therefore, it cannot be correct. It's like saying that because Karate contains kicks and punches, and martial arts can contain kicks and punches, all martial arts is Karate.

There is also a second, more major contradiction. Raymond Belles Parcours method, which was all about repeating the same route over and over again for an extended amount of time and without stopping, was used to test reslience and strenght, perfect techniques, and teach practitioners to be able to execute movements by gut without having to plan or think before hand. In Parkour: From the origins to the practise, p.84, David Belle describes such methods as similar to Katas or Tao in martial arts where the goal is to become more aware of your body in relationship to its surrounding. This is where aesthetics, freestyling, and acrobatics belong.But if Parkour is defined as moving from point A to point B the fastest and most efficient way possible such definition excludes training methods mentioned above, thus, causing another logical contradiction.

The point is this: the apperent dilemma you brought up - e.i. the fact that many movements in Parkour, or even the choices of routes while navigating obstacles isn't always efficient, vanish if Parkour is understood exactly as its founder says: a training method. ParkourHistory (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as the French perfecting the art of running away. 24.69.97.22 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)