Should Parkour Be in the Olympics? Absolutely. (Part 2 of 2)

by Adam Dunlap on Aug.10, 2012, under Adam Dunlap, Articles, David Belle

If you are here but have not yet read Should Parkour Be in the Olympics? Absolutely. (Part 1), please click here to check it out :-)

#3. David’s View on ‘Parkour Competitions’
I can’t recall any extensive conversation David and I have had on Parkour competitions. It just has never come up, and in general it’s not really pertinent to current projects. But in addition to David’s Olympic viewpoint (already stated), I will tell you that in David’s Parkour City concept, he has proposed having a Parkour competition, and he even proposed and designed a Parkour competition course for it.

In summary, Parkour isn’t competitive, but you can still have competitions built on the spirit and purpose of the movement.

***
Update – August 13: David and I were walking around Lisses yesterday, so I probed a bit further and brought up the competition aspect again. Three points came out that I thought were worth emphasizing because they give more insight and show David’s heart towards competitions.

Sponsors would be ok, but the winner shouldn’t get a lot of money or anything like that. Maybe a trip/vacation would be a good prize.
The important thing would be to participate and be a part of it rather than winning.
Although time is involve and there would be a winner, he thinks of it as much as a “Sports Spectacle” as a competition.

***

Now one last thought(s) since this was supposed to be a blog that I wrote rather than simply one where I regurgitated and clarified David’s stance. I of course agree with David that Parkour could/should/would be great as an Olympic event. This was the thesis I was going to put forth even before asking him. However, because of how the Olympics work, I don’t see Parkour ever fitting in to the Games. And this is why:

The Olympics are steeped in tradition. You don’t see a lot of new events being let in.
Action sports of any kind (for the most part anything more dynamic than traditional events) are non-existent in the Olympics save for (as far as I know) snowboarding. And snowboarding isn’t as much of a new ‘event concept’ or ‘new action sport’ as it is a new method of navigation built on a previous concept which is skiing. The snowboarding half pipe is new so there is some precedent for the IOC being open to new things, but snowboarding seems to be the exception to this.
Most Olympic sports are always conducted, year after year, in the same way and this is part of the tradition. With the exception of slightly changed road courses for running and biking which cannot be avoided, and scoring rule changes which go on a sport by sport basis (take Gymnastics for example which no longer as a perfect 10 score) there is no dynamism in the Olympic Games that presents new challenges to athletes. In this way old records can also always be challenged. Because of this, I don’t see Parkour fitting in to the Games unless the IOC accepted a standard course that they never expected to change.

So there you have it. Should Parkour be in the Olympics? According to the founder, the answer to that question is a resounding yes. Or is to say rather that David would be very pleased and would support the entry of Parkour as a sport in the Olympics. Whether it ever happens is another question entirely. I, for one, hope it does.

P.S. Update #2 since I am here. Since the initial writing of this I have been made aware that BMX is now an Olympic sport. Good call, David : )

____________________

Adam Dunlap is the founder of Take Flight. In addition to his ongoing role at the company, Adam is currently working closely with David Belle in films and on other projects in order to advance Parkour in the US and around the globe. Previous projects of Adam’s include starting the Revolution Parkour gym in Portland, Oregon, and running various Parkour blogs. Adam is an avid Traceur and can often be found training both outside and at Parkour classes in whatever city he finds himself. Adam currently takes no salary from his work with Take Flight.

8 Comments for this entry

Aaron Parkour
August 15th, 2012 on 1:04 pm
If it doesn’t work for the olympics, what about the X-Games ?
Robert
August 15th, 2012 on 1:12 pm
The part 2 here I feel really clarifies and rectifies misunderstandings that came from part 1 “in summary, Parkour isn’t competitive, but you can still have competitions built on the spirit and purpose of the movement.” and the reference to it being more suited to a “sports spectacle” make this make a lot more sense and I agree from that viewpoint.
Take Flight
August 15th, 2012 on 2:42 pm
That may be a better fit! Thank you for your comments!
Take Flight
August 15th, 2012 on 2:43 pm
Robert, thank you for your comments! We thought that brought a lot more clarity to it too. Thank you for posting!
Tony
August 17th, 2012 on 7:27 pm
etre fort pour etre utile,

As an olympic sport, regardless of how DB thinks it should be approached by athletes, Parkour will end up being represented by people who have trained specifically to complete the olympic course in the fastest time. While absorbed in their training for this event (as olympic athletes are) they are not being strong to be useful, they are being strong for their competition. If anything removes parkour from its roots it is the divide between the movement and its purpose. An Olympic competition leaves little room for the why… It becomes about the spectacle and glorification of the best.

If David Belle thinks it’s a good idea, that’s fine, but unless he can truly reach out to every athlete who is competing in olympic parkour and say “hey guys and girls, remember its not about the competition, just be proud to participate” (and they are cool with that) then what is the point?
Take Flight
August 21st, 2012 on 2:30 pm
Interesting points, Tony. On a personal level, I have to agree with you regarding this. Parkour is a non-competitive discipline. It’s not about who is the best. It’s not about medals and recognition. And in my opinion, the olympics are all about competition and recognition. As much as I would like to see parkour become more widely recognized, it just wouldn’t be the same if you turn it into a contest.

Again though, these are my personal opinions, and I only got into parkour about 4 years ago, so I’m a relative newcomer. It’s David Belle’s thing. If he wants to take it in that direction, I won’t complain in the least bit. He’s already really helped open my eyes to what I’m willing to sweat and bleed for in my life, so like Adam said, he owes me jack-squat. Heck, even if Adam says it should be in the olympics, Adam introduced me to parkour and is my superior (plus my boss now), so that’s enough for me.

Anyways, thanks for the input!
Nathan
March 5th, 2013 on 6:31 pm
Tony got it spot on. The Olympics is pointless, it’s sport for sport’s sake, which is never a good thing. Who cares about the milliseconds shaved off in the hundred metres when all you’re using it for is to get to that finish line and to get your face on tv? Parkour should never be associated with this attitude, IMO.
Also, I think there shouldn’t be as much of this heirarchy thing going on, everyone has equal opinions when it comes to parkour, I have the greatest respect for David Belle, his opinions, and what he’s done for the community, but there was a parkour before there was a David Belle. One can take that in any way s/he likes! It’s a simple fact not disrespet :)
JM Bell
March 8th, 2013 on 8:28 pm
I was in agreement with Tony for a while, or at least I finally understood the opposition’s objection to competition, but then I really thought about it.

I am of the opinion that even though something could be used for the wrong reasons, or with ill intent, that should not be the reason to not allow that something to exist in the first place.
If we as humans never let anything come to be because it could be abused, or used in a way not originally intended, we would have nothing.
Prime example: The internet. It is used just as much for gaining knowledge (education) & conversing (socializing), as it is to look at porn & hate on others.
I am not sure how to explain it more clearly than that without another example:
In sci-fi films aliens with superior technology do not share their advancements or knowledge with the human race because they believe that humans will abuse it and kill each other with it, instead of helping each other with the given technology & knowledge. So humans are not given a chance to do either.

This reasoning that we should not do A because B could happen is a logical fallacy, and it is called the slippery slope.
http://pactiss.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A1.jpg