Originally posted by R

---

If two people have the same goal in parkour obviously you can just compare how well they achieve it. And by goal I mean a specific physical goal as in 'I want to be fast at passing obstacles' or 'I want to do 50 foot diving kongs' these things you can test and it doesn't matter if you are achieving them by using power or technique if my goal is doing big kongs and Insidious does bigger kongs then he's better at it, simple.

If you have a vague, unspecific goal in training it's probably harder to say who's better. If you just want to train parkour for fun I don't know if you can compare two people, see who's having more fun and say therefore he's better at parkour. Aside from things like, general athleticism and the ability to climb stuff, that everyone seems to agree is a good thing I don't know how you would objectively compare two people who do parkour without any specific goal.

Why do you never have this problem with sports like chess or boxing or chess-boxing? Because the people who invented these sports and played them weren't whiney emo kids they were men who realized that sports have rules. These rules allow you to focus your training towards something specific and allow you to objectively measure ability and progress.

The Frenchmen gave us statements like "Parkour she iz zee air and ze grass. Watch ze cat see 'ow she moves be like 'er," the English guys gave us "Hey man I bet I could kong onto that, are you filming this, okay...(kongs onto it) ... aw wicked man! pk4life! Let's do it again from different angles so I can edit it." Basically all I'm saying is you can do whatever you like, and call it parkour and claim you're the best in the world at it because there is no such thing as parkour.

Also the video is boring as hell but since you are the best in the world who am I to complain?

---