After mainstream recognition of parkour steadily grew in the early 2000s through smaller action films and documentaries, it gained real prominence by way of being featured in a major motion picture when, in 2006, Sébastien Foucan appeared as a character using parkour to escape James Bond in Casino Royale. At the same time, at the grassroots level, parkour had developed its own distinct culture and industry. Communities, organisations, teams, coaching, and performance businesses emerged around the world, sharing values and communicating online through forums and social media.
With participation and interest in parkour at an all-time high, the ground was fertile for the introduction of competition. It was no surprise that big businesses saw this opportunity for spectacle, advertising, and the associated profit that could be derived from investing in parkour as a sport so early on. In the year following the release of Casino Royale, Red Bull launched the first ever major parkour competition, the Art of Motion, held in Vienna, Austria.
This first-ever major competition, in the mid-2000’s, was met with a mixed reception. Many online forums had already hosted long-standing debates between more traditionally aligned practitioners, who were steadfastly against the notion of competing, and early contemporary practitioners who were optimistic about its contributions to the sport’s culture.
Anti-competition sentiment, although usually aligned with traditional views of parkour as a practice, or a discipline, or an art, was a widely held view within the community. In those early days, it seemed the majority of those voicing their opinions were against it. Their main points of contention were that pitting practitioners against each other for prizes or medals would risk losing the "spirit of parkour"—that being the culture of non-competitive practice, the individual relationship with risk management, the altruistic philosophy of the founders, and the intrinsic motivation to seek and overcome challenge.
They argued that extrinsic motivation such as awards, fame, or money would lead people to engage in parkour for the wrong reasons and, as such, would destroy everything that made the sport as unique and life-changing as they had found it to be, as well as making the practice more dangerous. However, despite the highly emotive and fraught arguments that were happening online, competitions continued to go ahead, and practitioners began to see themselves more as athletes in the process.
In 2009, Red Bull held two more competitions—the first again in Vienna, and the second later in the year in Helsingborg, Sweden. In this same year, Barclaycard launched its first and only ‘World Freerun Championship’ in London, which was also televised and aired on BBC Three. These, and many of the following Red Bull Art of Motion competitions, served to boost the profiles of many of the top-performing athletes at the time.
Although beginning as invite-only, competitions would eventually add open qualifiers, requiring non-invited athletes—or those who weren’t pre-qualified from previous competitions—to travel to the site the day before and fight for a spot in the main event.
The early 2010s saw the establishment of more grassroots competitions, such as Air Wipp Challenge in Sweden, Apex International in the USA, and the North American Parkour Championships in Canada. As these were smaller and were run by each country’s respective communities, organisers had more freedom to experiment with the format and rulesets they presented to athletes. Air Wipp adopted an approach which catered to the live audience, while Apex International and the North American Parkour Championships sought to create competitions that reflected other legitimate and established sports competitions.
Towards the end of the 2010s, yet more grassroots competitions arose—from the ambitious head-to-head speed courses at Hop the Block in the Netherlands, to the relentless and chaotic Project Underground in Northern England, and the eclectic style-battle format of Gizmo Battles in Hamburg. There have also been many unsanctioned, local outdoor competitions around the UK in the last few years under the UK Parkour Takeover League and beyond — each operating from and serving the needs of their local community. These grassroots competitions provided platforms for athletes around the world to experiment with competitive formats. Much of the innovation that sprouted from these grassroots projects have gone on to inform the modern global competitive formats. (like FIG’s attempts at parkour competitions — which we’ll get to in a minute).
While competition certainly has had a significant effect on the trajectory and culture of parkour, it cannot be said that the spirit of the sport has been lost. It is often visibly present within these competitions. Athletes are seen cheering on their competitors, celebrating their wins, and commiserating their losses. There are very few who would describe their motivation as ever being purely for the benefits brought by competition, and practitioners continue to explore their personal relationship to the sport through art and media.
Competitions certainly have seen their fair share of injuries, but at no higher incidence than any contact sport. The fact remains that any sport practiced at a high enough level and under pressure inevitably will lead to accidents. Even still, rulesets are implemented in such a way that excessive risk-taking is not rewarded. As such, movement quality is encouraged and rewarded, while being out of control is penalised.
Additionally, we see the principle of non-competitive practice reconciled with competition. Practitioners and athletes maintain respect and friendship with their peers and rivals within competition. You can often even see favoured contenders helping each other—even within competitions themselves. However, even with all of these positive outcomes, we cannot pretend the sport is not at risk of influence by outside forces.
One contentious development within this area has been the involvement of the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG). After stating the intention to bring the sport to the Olympics as a gymnastics discipline, many of the sport’s communities and national organisations came together under the title Parkour Earth to challenge FIG’s encroachment and misappropriation, desiring recognition for the sovereignty of parkour.
Many worry about the introduction of top-down regulation from such a large and powerful organisation over a sport that holds freedom, individual expression, and exploration as its most important values. Again, despite widespread backlash, FIG competitions went ahead. Much in contrast to the grassroots competitions, which often reward innovation and seek to replicate the sport as it is practiced outside, FIG competitions have opted for codified and restrictive rulesets that arguably do more to create the undesired outcomes the community was worried about when competitions first came into the sport.
Looking forward, competition does not seem to be going anywhere—for better or worse. Many practitioners and athletes attend these events as a chance to catch up with friends from distant communities, as a means to learn more about themselves and their practice, and as an opportunity to build a profile within the industry.
Competitions serve an important purpose for many, giving further purpose to their training without overshadowing the original and more intrinsic reasons for their practice. But competitions, and the interest they attract, are not without risk—and important work must be done to ensure that the history, philosophy, and spirit of parkour are not lost in the wake of powerful interests.
Written by Tom Taylor - @movementpower
