PARKOUR VS. FREERUNING

When parkour first hit the English-speaking world, it was given another name: "free-running," mostly for ease of use.

The two terms have created a wildly enthusiastic schism which has only served to heighten the popularity of the two arts.

Purists argue that, while very similar to parkour, free-running/free-flowing is more liberal when it comes to the rule of not moving backward. On this side of the argument, parkour in its purist form is meant to be only practical and efficient; the fewest moves, executed in the best manner, while free-running allows moves to be purely aesthetic.

Groups like Urban Freeflow are lambasted by many for "prostituting" the art of parkour through participation in high-profile media projects; television advertisements, film projects and corporate events.

However, in light of David Belle's contributions to television and film, and those of parkour's other founders, this position is difficult to support. Other arguments against the purists' position have been that commercialization and competition in other sports does not diminish individual experience; rather, it's what one makes of the sport.

As of today, official parkour competitions do not exist. If purists have their way, they never will. Urban Freeflow's foremost writer, Dan Edwardes, argues that "competition already exists on many levels within the free-running community: friends challenge each other to improve upon their most recent efforts; training partners push each other during sessions, even involuntarily; members of the same crew feed off each other's energy and achievements as they seek new boundaries to break."

Either way, the schism has resulted into one art, two ways. The art of overcoming urban obstacles, pushing ourselves to imagine, discover, and explore.