hard vs soft

[kidkunjer]

in martial arts there is a conscept of hard and soft disciplines. Hard would be most types of kung-fu, karate etc, and soft would be aikido, tai-chi-quan etc.
(forgive me i'm no expert on martial arts)
the discussion i'd like to start is to what extent do you think that this distinction can be made in an approach to parkour?
if the distinction can be made, where do you put yourself on the continuum between the two?
Is it possible to approach parkour from a purely hard or purely soft direction?
How might any of these things be achieved?

[ANTISFIT]

LOL at topic title
made me giggle (Y)

err, i wouldn't say either tbh
there are no real forms of parkour
parkour is pure efficiency

but in the terms of training parkour
i'd say more along the "soft" side
as most of my training is to be quiet and fluid

although, "hard" in the respects of training to be strong
explosive climb ups and such

[kidkunjer]

do you think that parkour will diversify (or homogenise) into schools of parkour in the same way that kung-fu has?
parkour is efficiancy, but there is more than one way to skin a cat (or vault a rail) and you can see in peoples technique, although superficially similar; some seem to brute-force it (and become quite smooth at doing it) while others slink and flow with minimal strain...

(its becoming dificult to describe what i mean so bear with me please)

[ANTISFIT]

yeah i know what you mean

i think the more brute force way of parkour is not the correct way
its alot more aggressive,
whereas parkour is like a self discovery art
and an art cannot be so brute

whereas, parkour should be done with minimal effort
its like a skill
skill shows minimum outlay of time and energy
which is this fluidity training

i heard a quote recently
"you can tell the level of traceur's simply by their landing, the quieter the landing is, the longer the training"

i can't see parkour diversifying like this
generally, when people see this flow from the flowy method, they'll tend to follow

[Lukman]

May 21, 2008 13:13:21 GMT (at)thumper said:

i can't see parkour diversifying like this
generally, when people see this flow from the flowy method, they'll tend to follow

If this is so, why are U $ F so popular?

[Ronin-ukpka admin]

''an art cannot be so brute'', boxing is an artform, often referred to as the noble art, and aggression is a part of that. a small point i know but still.

[ANTISFIT]

i guess so
but i meant in the form of a non competitive discipline
and quad, that wasn't my point
my point was about the technique of movement
if you look at most of the UF team atm, they have a nice flow in their movement

[Lukman]

Sorry, I was in a hurry when I wrote that. My point was in the diversification of methodology. There are those who wish to promote the art through action, those who wish to take it into schools, those who use it to help others, and those who use it to sell DVDS and hoodies.

Not all traceurs have the same methodology. One person may concentrate more on conditioning, while another may focus on understanding a movement. One person may train for efficiency, while another trains effectiveness.


As far as I see...

There are many parallels with martial arts here, even with the hard / soft dichotomy. There is a whole range of variation, not just between arts, but between schools, and the level to which you are taught.


If you train a "soft" martial art, but never condition, and never train the ability to cause physical trauma, you are limiting your ability to protect yourself and others. If you train a "hard" martial art, and only concentrate on generating maximum blunt impact trauma, you are limiting your ability to protect yourself and others.

If you train for strength, speed and power at the expense of control, adaptability and understanding, you limit your ability to traverse your environment. If you train for control, adaptability and understanding at the expense of strength, speed and power, then you limit your ability to traverse your environment.

I have met many martial artists and traceurs, but would not describe any of them as exclusively hard or soft.

[kidkunjer]

very interesting... lots to think about.

as a thought experiment, would it be possible to minimise the physical effort used in parkour to the extent of say aikido or taijiquan and it still be practical in any form?
and if it were possible would it still be parkour or would it have been developed into something like freerunning, another thing. (not meaning that it would BE freerunning at all, but that it would require another catagory as freerunning may do as distinct from grass roots parkour) ?

[chazwolf]

This is kind of interesting. When I first came to PK, and this site in particular, my initial interest was to learn 'some moves'. Now my outlook has matured and my researches, and own physical training, have taken me far beyond the desire to do any one particular thing - other than to be able to produce fluid, confident, efficient movement through my own environment- my house, my roads, the rocks and boulders and walls which lie within a 1/4 mile around my house.

kidkunjer, I tried to make my training as 'soft' as I could when I began - due mainly to a history of heavy sports and impact-related injuries. Then I realised that I'd been nannying myself too long, and that if I wanted a soft, non-contact physical pastime, I should take up Tai Chi. PK is about physical exertion, impact, explosive movement, and sometimes having to 'go that extra mile' - I think one really has to undertake hard training and soft, especially if one ends up doing PK in an unfamiliar environment which demand more exertion and raw power than usual. The ability to call upon reserves of aggression, or utilise explosive martial arts breathing techniques, f'rexample, can be very useful in a demanding situation.

I know what you mean about 'minimal effort' but I think that comes from a total mastery of fundamental movement, total confidence in one's ability, and a combination of mind, body and spirit training. The trick is to make it look 'effortless' to outsiders - like the swan gliding peacefully along the water, but with the feet unseen beneath the surface paddling like mad

Sorry if that turned into a bit of a tangent.