Für dich Marvin...Eine kleine Gute Nachtgeschichte über U$F

Ich erinnere mich noch, als wäre es gestern, wie wir ständig Zoff in der Szene über die Definitionen und Unterschiede von Parkour und Freerunning hatten. Amüsanter Höhepunkt war ein gewisser Heuchlerix aus Essen, der jedem Schläge androhte, der einen Flip zog. Mittlerweile hat sich das alles ja grundlegend geändert, auch wenn es trotzdem noch jede Menge Leute gibt, die beides miteinander vertauschen. Meiner jetzigen Meinung nach lässt sich Parkour und Freerunning auch nicht aufgrund von einzelnen Bewegungen unterscheiden. Wenn überhaupt sind auf der einen Seite der Effizienzanspruch und auf der anderen Seite die Akrobatikeinlagen nur Stilrichtungen der ursprünglichen Methoden der Founder. Le Art du Deplacement im Sinne der Yamakasis lässt sich vom Äußeren echt schwer fassen. Parkour ist wenigstens noch klar definiert, auch wenn Belle in seinen alten Promotionvideos weniger davon zeigt als Fourcan. Ich denke, der eigentliche Unterschied liegt in dem State of Mind, der mentalen und physischen Trainings- und Lebenseinstellung der Founder. Wenn man mit ihnen trainiert kommt man sich wie ein blutiger Anfänger vor. Sie pushen bis zum Umfallen und hauen dann immer noch einen raus OHNE Kamera und klatschende Freunde. Das ist true Dedication.

Ich liebe Bewegung, ganz gleich wie sie aussieht (ausgenommen Schlittschuhlaufen, Inliner, Golfen und Northern Walking...ok das schränkt es doch recht ein^^) aber die Werte, die mit der Philosophie verbunden sind und sich ganz klar gegen Wettbewerb und Vergleiche richten, sollten für echtes Parkour genauso gelten wie für echtes Freerunning.

Was weitaus interessanter an dem Artikel ist, ist die infame Art, wie U$F Profit aus der ganzen Sache schlägt.

Aus dem Australian Parkour Forum:

"The Public Misconception of Parkour (Why don't people like UF)
« on: October 15, 2007, 07:51:56 AM »
the article below is written by kaos, taken from another forum. it is a very good summation of the events that have happened over the last 4 years. it will be added to the parkourpedia soon. if yuo ever see people asking 'whats so bad about EZ/UF' or sebastien is the co-founder or many of the other mis conceptions then this is a good article to get them to read.



The Public Misconception of Parkour


David Belle's definition of parkour (fast efficient movement from one point to another) has been around since the coinage of the term in ~1998. People have attempted to change this definition many times over the past several years, claiming it was for the benefit of the public. Although the true definition remains among those dedicated to parkour, a view of the public's perception shows that mass confusion exists. There are several reasons why reporters and the general public make no distinction between parkour and freerunning, and commonly boil the definition down to "flips in the city." Many people get their first view of parkour from old David Belle videos. One would think that a video from the founder of the discipline would leave them with a good understanding of it. This, however, is usually not the case.

"The first images of parkour that began to spread around were not calculated to be representations of parkour, but rather to show the complete abilities of its practitioners, many of whom were also gymnasts, and to please the media." - Faelcind (WashingtonParkour.com)

David Belle's early videos were not meant to teach the public about parkour, but to promote him for his movie career. It seems that he did not know they would shape the public's perception of parkour for years to come, or that they would provide fuel for those who would use his own videos against him. But these videos are only one piece of the puzzle. There were documentaries, websites, and individuals who would try to rename and redefine parkour for their own benefit. One such individual and perhaps the most notorious player in parkour was Paul Corkey (EZ).
EZ was an entrepreneur with one failed t-shirt business under his belt already, Choke Athletics. While running Choke Athletics EZ used multiple fictitious internet identities to promote his site and clothing line while denouncing his rivals on their own sites. EZ's practice of lies and deceit was exposed by the organization SFUK, and Choke Athletics was eventually dissolved as a result of EZ's poor business practices.
On February 8th 2003 EZ met up with UK traceurs to train for the first time, and founded the website Urban Freeflow (UF) two days later. UF would use edginess, youth lingo, flashy cartoons, and other stylish images to draw in youngsters. The site would serve as EZ's second t-shirt business, and would eventually be the world's leading source of misinformation on parkour. EZ used the same shady tactics employed with Choke Athletics on Urban Freeflow, but this time he had complete control. With multiple accounts on his own forum, he and his business partner Mark Toorock (M2) would guide the public opinion by posting propaganda, deleting any comments that did not fit their goals, and banning any member that spoke against them. UF was one of the few places to talk about parkour on the internet. That, coupled with their hip flashy cartoon image immediately gained them popularity among youths and recognition from the media.
In September 2003 the documentary Jump London aired on Channel 4, a public-service British television station, broadcast to all areas of the United Kingdom. It featured Sebastien Foucan, Jerome Ben Aoues, and Johann Vigroux, former training partners of David Belle. A producer named Guillaume Pelletier offered the term 'freerunning' to Foucan as a way for English speakers to better understand parkour. This was a natural progression for Foucan since he had parted with Belle in order to promote his own "way" which focused on beautiful flowing movement, rather than speed and efficiency.
Jump London opens with this quote, "This is Parkour, the anarchic new sport of Freerunning. Freerunning is a new urban sport and was created by Sebastien Foucan, born out of the childhood games of him and his friends." With two brief sentences from the narrator, with the help of Pelletier, Foucan renamed Belle's art of parkour, and cemented himself as its founder in the minds of people all across the UK. When asked later in an interview, "Why don't you create your own art, instead of changing David Belle's Parkour to suit your opinions?" Foucan replied, "I don't want to create anything?people wanted!...I never change anything." When juxtaposed with the content of his website, where he proudly states that he co-founded parkour, this quote seems conflicting. Foucan co-founding the discipline is not entirely true since Belle and others were practicing before he joined them. There were other aspects of Foucan's site site that did not coincide with this quote. He outlined the philosophy of his method, stated how he coined several relevant parkour terms, and claimed himself as a parkour Ambassador to the world. Foucan would also state that, "freerunning was an idea of?Guillaume Pelletier who worked with us at the time of Jump London. He really thought free running was a better way to understand parkour and I believed him because my English wasn't so good."
Although the terms parkour and freerunning were used synonymously in the documentary, Jump London featured Foucan's ideas rather than Belle's parkour. Foucan took elements of parkour and mixed them with his own ideas saying that you must move forward, but also emphasizing the movement being fantastic, pretty, and elegant rather than efficient. Naming Foucan as the founder of parkour gave the film credibility and made it more marketable. Although it was beneficial for the producers to have the star of their film be "the founder," omitting David Belle would benefit Foucan's career as well. This was the beginning of the mass confusion about the definition of parkour that exists today.
On July 21st 2004 the parkour.net (.NET) forums were created by Jerome Lebret as a place for traceurs dedicated to le parkour. This forum would eventually become home to the most respected voices in the world wide parkour community, and would be endorsed by David Belle. It would be the place where the confused masses from around the globe would come to learn about parkour. Although some members had been practicing long before the documentary, Jin of .NET said, "A lot of us started after watching Jump London in September last year." Despite viewing the skewed documentary, the original group of .NET members showed a good understanding of parkour, "a lot of the time they talked about flips, which I don't even think is a part of Parkour," said Owen in response to some media coverage. However, they seemed to initially accept the term freerunning, as it was used synonymously with parkour on their forums without objection.
At the beginning of January 2005 Jump Britain, the sequel to Jump London aired in the US and UK. The documentary featured the inexperienced UF Krew as its stars alongside Sebastien Foucan who had joined the ranks of UF. Once again Belle was omitted as if he did not exist, and a horrible misunderstanding of parkour was put forward. The tone of the documentary was summed up when Paul Joseph (Blue) made this uneducated statement, "What's so hard about this? You put on some trainers, walk out your door, do a jump...you're freerunning...stand on a little wall jump off that you're freerunning! (EZ smiles and nods in agreement)" This statement which does not apply to parkour or Foucan's method showed the level of understanding in the UF Krew. In essence they were saying that parkour, which takes years of training to achieve a proficient level, is as easy as jumping off a wall. This foolish statement would then spawn many even more foolish acts by the youngsters joining UF after Jump Britain. Also featured in Jump Britain was the new freerunning video game. UF had expanded their efforts to capitalize on parkour by signing a deal to star in the video game. It had characters performing impossible acrobatics and inefficient poses throughout a cityscape.
At the end of January 2005 the negative influence of Jump Britain began to rear its head on UF. .NET members started to show disdain for the topics of discussion on UF which seemed to be focusing on flashiness. When young UF members said foolish things such as, "ive jumped off a school," and "im making a signature move" this prompted a .NET member to say, "If someone says something like that on this forum, I think we should ban them for life." Still, as time passed the meaning of parkour became increasingly diluted on the UF forums. The lack of valuable content on UF would begin a slow but continuous migration of the more intuitive new comers over to .NET.
In the same thread .NET members make the first mention of a difference between parkour and freerunning illustrated in these quotes about the new freerunning video game, "I don't think we have to worry, the game is called 'Free-Running? NOT Parkour," and "Lets hope that no-one decides to associate the game with what we do." When clips of the new freerunning game featuring the UF Krew appeared it was clear that they were not portraying parkour. Although Foucan and UF would continue to call freerunning and parkour one and the same, it became increasingly obvious to .NET members that the term freerunning was no longer synonymous with parkour. This began the separation of parkour and freerunnig into two different disciplines.
The need for .NET members to distance themselves from the term freerunning seems to have spawned from the false image put forward by UF and propagated by its members. UF was associated with the term freerunning which now seemed to represent running through a city and doing flips, grabs, and stalls. Being concerned with profit rather than parkour, UF would change its stance based on the general consensus of its members. In order to protect their investments UF continued their efforts to change the definition of parkour to include flips and other unnecessary movement.
A member new to the .NET forums asked for clarification about parkour. He pointed out that Belle's videos seemed to be filled with what people claimed was not parkour. This is a key example of the quote from Faelcind. People could not discern what parkour was from the videos in which Belle was showcasing his range of skills. Members Dave and Andi clarified that flips and gymnastics are not part of parkour with these quotes "this is a back flip - it's not parkour but its fun to do," - Belle, and "the gymnastics and the martial arts are not a part of the parkour" - Foucan. Finally the new member added this. "ok so flips aren't parkour, fair enough I can live with that. Still confuses the fuck outta people who see David doing them all the time..but hey whatever." This last statement surmises Belle's lack of involvement in the global parkour community to this point. Other than appearing in this French TV report on parkour which was spread via the internet by those other than Belle, he offered little explanation to the global scene. As more new members inquired about the difference between parkour and freerunning on .NET the replies became more precise, "a lot of pointless moves are put into freerunning and Parkour is the?pure movement from A to B." (Owen)
On February 2nd 2005 Mark Toorock (M2) the co-owner of UF attempted to create a new definition of parkour for the Urban Freeflow community. .NET members frowned upon this act because there was already a clear definition. M2 would guide the discussion to favor UF's standpoint on parkour which still included showmanship. He became known for using over complicated arguments, legal jargon, and bullying to win arguments over opposing members.

What I think we can achieve is to setup an "Urban Freeflow community definition of Parkour"

If we as members of the community can by and large agree to this, then it becomes in a sense irrefutable, nobody can tell us that it is not our definition. They can say they don't agree, or they don't like it, but not that it is not our definition.

So, I feel that there is a difference between an understanding and a definition. I feel there is a need, or at least a usefulness for a definition. I feel that we as a community represent a large cross-section of traceurs, and are as capable as any other group of coming up with a definition for ourselves of Parkour.

Later that month M2 came on the .NET forums to defend the UF freerunning video game. He would use Belle's promotional videos as ammunition. His argument was that misrepresenting and attempting to redefine parkour for profit was no different than Belle using his full range of physical abilities in promotional videos. .NET members dismantled this argument by showing that Belle made a clear distinction between what is shown in his videos and what is really parkour. UF on the other hand attempted to pass off their definition as parkour to the public. Sadly, UF's audience, which consisted of 8000 impressionable youths, did not have the benefit of .NET member's wisdom as many of them were banned from the UF forums and their posts often deleted.
What EZ and M2 lacked in parkour skills, they made up for in business savvy. Running their site as a dictatorship, they were able to mold the young minds of their members. With celebrities like Foucan and the UF Krew pushing their new commercialized version of parkour on the largest audience in the world, they would cement misunderstanding for years to come.
At the beginning of June 2005, UF performed what is considered the most egregious act in the history of parkour. They announced that they would "now be promoting the art of 'Freestyle Parkour.'" Recognizing that their large member base (then over 9000 kids) was split over the definition of parkour, UF coined a new term that they felt was "loose enough to be beyond any limiting definition." The focus of the argument on their forums arose from UF's own efforts in Jump Britain. When UF used its might to endorse freerunning, they created a rift in the parkour community. Although outnumbered, the voices of those who knew the true definition of parkour were stronger than the hordes of young voices that UF had molded. The true traceurs rejected the term as an oxymoron and a blatant attempt to prostitute the art. They saw that it would only lead to more confusion. This controversial move by UF prompted some of their moderators to leave the site. EZ then posted an article that attempted to paint Belle as the original freestyle traceur once again using his old promotional videos against him. Despite this tactic the term freestyle parkour would eventually fade into the background. Unwilling to admit their mistakes UF glorified the term on their main pages calling it an attempt to achieve "absolute freedom of movement ."
On June 28th 2005, Companies House, the organization that incorporates and dissolves limited companies in the UK, announced that Urban Freeflow had failed to comply with company law. For two years UF had not submitted accounts or taxes. This illegal business practice left EZ and M2 with a ?1,000 fine. It is difficult to say why UF did not follow company law. Since EZ had done the same thing with Choke Athletics, perhaps he had found a loophole in the system. Perhaps the ?1,000 fine was outweighed by benefits of not filing. The site had over 12,400 members and seemed to be thriving, so financial trouble was unlikely. In any case, it is safe to say that something occurred to create friction between EZ and M2. When EZ started his new company Urban Free Flow in July 2005 (note the space between free and flow) M2 was not included.
The dissolution of UF was a blessing in disguise for M2. After running the USA pages of UF he had established a following among the American members. After losing his minority share and ability to profit in the company, M2 started work on a new website. Three months after UF dissolved M2 left stating that the "differences of opinion have been hard to reconcile." A few weeks later on November 6th, 2005 American Parkour (APK) was launched. There then began an exodus of American UF members over to APK. Although APK's business model showed striking similarities to UF, it followed the rightful definition of parkour from David Belle and would eventually finalize the separation between parkour and freerunning in the US.
Other positive steps were being made to ensure parkour was spread correctly. The .NET members were now battling an influx of new confused members. Belle had recognized the existence of mass confusion over his art, and on August 2005 embarked on a world tour with his new organization PAWA (Parkour Worldwide Association) to "help spread and teach parkour the right way." The effectiveness of PAWA was short lived however, and it would eventually lose sight of its original vision. In June 2006 Belle would leave PAWA making this statement.

Because of noted abuses and in order to avoid any philosophical and commercial takeover of Parkour, David Belle informs you that he does not guarantee any site, association or company of production pretending they are "official", where only the name they gave each other is official.

One month prior to Belle's public statement, Foucan made one of his own. After insisting that freerunning and parkour were the same in February, Foucan made this ambiguous statement after much prodding from M2,

Everything I'll say it's no more Parkour, it's freerunning! Freerunning it's a lifestyle and an attitude.
Freerunning is to see your environment differently and being able to utilize it to develop yourself!
My Parkour lifestyle is Freerunning. My way has no name. Freerunning is the name people have given to my way! Freerunning is following your own way, and this is my way.

Unlike most traceurs, M2 wanted parkour to be a competitive sport. As shown in this quote, "I think that a Freerunning competition would be a much better idea and business venture" M2 knew that there was opportunity behind freerunning. He jumped at the chance to establish freerunning as its own unique discipline. Many others were just happy to see Foucan's discipline further distanced from parkour. Foucan would make his intentions clearer in a later interview, "I'd like Freerunning separate from Parkour?I don't practice Parkour I practice Freerunning which is different." The community was satisfied, and it seemed as though the days of misconception were coming to an end. Even UF would post definitions distinguishing the two disciplines. However, there was one powerful force of misconception that remained unaccounted for.
By the end of 2006 forums all over the world were flooded with videos from youtube. Youtube, founded on February 15th 2005, was a place for people to share their videos on the internet. Those who were brand new to parkour or freerunning and who had little understanding of the arts would post videos after training for only a short period of time. With residual confusion left over from Foucan, UF, and the two Jump documentaries these videos were often horrible misrepresentations of both disciplines, and usually made no distinction between parkour and freerunning. To further complicate the issue Belle's original videos resurfaced. The self promotional clips which used acrobatics to further his early movie career were inevitably labeled as parkour. As the popularity of youtube exploded, the misunderstanding spread. With Belle's mislabeled videos and those of the massive number of uneducated new comers, the general public's understanding of parkour fell into remission. A sample of 25 news articles from February through March 14th 2007 found that 52% of the reporters labeled parkour and freerunning as the same. A survey of 50 people who had heard of parkour in San Francisco found that %100 of the people defined parkour as "acrobatics or flips in the city." Furthermore, that same %100 percent had seen videos labeled as parkour youtube.
Youtube had revived the efforts of Foucan and UF, and diminished those of the .NET members. It would seem that the words of EZ were coming true when he said, "(parkour) is NOT controlled by the likes of David Belle or Sebastien Foucan. They are now simply players on a big field that continues to grow daily? Nobody has to answer to them." EZ recently sold the UF brand to AT New Media who plan to "commercialize Urban Freeflow without diluting the edginess and exclusivity that attracts young people to the brand." At the moment it seems that the new ownership of UF comes with old misconceptions. A recent article called UF a "Free Running organization," and said that freerunning and parkour were the same. With UF now run by a company that seems to know little about parkour or freerunning many members of the UF team have decided to quit.
Despite all that has happened, dedicated traceurs like those on .NET still spread the correct message about parkour every day. Belle made another statement informing the public that he cannot guarantee that individuals and organizations such as UF correctly represent parkour. He continues to travel around the world teaching parkour so that it may be passed on correctly. Perhaps one day there will be widespread understanding, but as parkour grows in popularity more companies look to exploit it. It seems as though it will continue to be an uphill battle."

super,jetzt haben wir 2012 und das verständniss ist gleich geblieben!