Parkour is a method of physical training that develops one's ability to overcome obstacles. It is not just the way you move that makes you a practitioner of Parkour, but the movement combined with the philosophy that defines it as Parkour. However, a lot of people have been asking the same question. Is Parkour a sport or an art form? In this essay, I will argue that Parkour should be qualified as an art form. This essay will attempt to defend two claims: Parkour doesn't have any regulating bodies because it would destroy the Parkour's definition ; and second, the non-competitiveness makes it an art form.
First of all, Parkour has no government or regulating body. No equivalent of the NBA or FIFA exists for Parkour. An objection that can come …show more content…
It's never been competitive. The only competition you have is within your own mind and body, tough competition is against its philosophy. Yet, some might say; what about the Red Bull Art of Motion? MTV's ultimate Parkour challenge? Barclaycard Freerun Championships? An answer to that is the following; those are competitions in which many well-respected athletes participate. They do because everyone needs to pay their bills. Even if they don't win, every runner who takes part in such competitions is guaranteed to get the media/public attention. For the athlete, such exposure equals job and of course, it means money. Parkour as a whole is not competitive. It's one of the most significant differences between Parkour and sports like basketball or soccer. When competition is added, parkour becomes nothing more than a glorified form of street acrobatics. To summarize, Parkour cannot be considered a sport, because it is non-competitive.
In conclusion, the main goal of this essay was to prove that Parkour should be defined as an art form. The arguments presented were that Parkour can't be defined as a sport because it doesn't have a regulatory agency and because it is non-competitive. Rethink, how can you qualify Parkour as a sport if it's against its
First of all, Parkour has no government or regulating body. No equivalent of the NBA or FIFA exists for Parkour. An objection that can come …show more content…
It's never been competitive. The only competition you have is within your own mind and body, tough competition is against its philosophy. Yet, some might say; what about the Red Bull Art of Motion? MTV's ultimate Parkour challenge? Barclaycard Freerun Championships? An answer to that is the following; those are competitions in which many well-respected athletes participate. They do because everyone needs to pay their bills. Even if they don't win, every runner who takes part in such competitions is guaranteed to get the media/public attention. For the athlete, such exposure equals job and of course, it means money. Parkour as a whole is not competitive. It's one of the most significant differences between Parkour and sports like basketball or soccer. When competition is added, parkour becomes nothing more than a glorified form of street acrobatics. To summarize, Parkour cannot be considered a sport, because it is non-competitive.
In conclusion, the main goal of this essay was to prove that Parkour should be defined as an art form. The arguments presented were that Parkour can't be defined as a sport because it doesn't have a regulatory agency and because it is non-competitive. Rethink, how can you qualify Parkour as a sport if it's against its