Parkour Techniques (Few vs. Many?)

[Philosofist]

Would it be more efficient to master a few techniques that can get you past a variety of obstacles? Or focus on a variety of techniques? After all, I want to train efficiency. Like in martial arts, people have a few moves they excel at to get the job done. Would it apply to here as well?

[SafeNSure]

...yes and no.

Probably true if all one does is getting over 4 or 5 feet vault-boxes, 3 to 8 feet wide in a urban environment, with the occasional wall-run or drop-and-roll thrown in between...
BUT that's not true Parkour (if such things exists), because it's not "overcoming obstacles in one's path using only the human body", with one's path being one's RANDOM path!

What if your path is along a rocky coastal zone, interrupted by tight, steep coves with breaking waves?
Suddenly my gym trained skills are not that useful anymore... O_o
My physical fitness, my mental attitude towards uninterrupted forward movement, my ability to safely gauging risks will become MUCH more helpful!

Parkour is training to be strong to be useful (firstly to yourself!), in overcoming obstacles in your random paths... its training one's body to achieve a strong, determined, safe mindset: it cannot be reduced to the mastery of a few techniques.

Same with Martial Arts, btw.: maybe training for a tournament, a championship, or even for a street-fight with that archenemy of ours could benefit from the mastery of one, "perfect" technique ("Karate Kid" anybody?...).

BUT reducing MA to one-on-one, weaponless close-quarter combat in a neutral environment (dojo, ring, cage, etc), is absolutely unrelated to the real-life art of fighting, combat or, even worse, of war, in different environments, with different weapons, and size or number of foes.
For a much better, even if still introductory approach to the wholesome world of martial arts, I recommend Miyamoto Musashi's classic...

The classic book for Parkour, instead, hasn't been written yet..
:)

[marisa]

"The classic book for Parkour, instead, hasn't been written yet.."

It's called The Matrix.

In which the traceur is Neo.
The Matrix is how we're expected to move.
The spoon is how you thought you had to move.
Agent Smith is the obstacle.
And Morpheus is the first pk vid you ever saw.

[Philosofist]

Well said.

[Fyrel]

Whoa.

[SafeNSure]

"...adaptation, improvisation!
But your weakness is not your technique...

You think that's air you are breathing now?"
;)

[puck]

EVERYTHING IS CLEAR TO ME NOW

[marisa]

FREE YOUR MIND!

[kingtheking]

talk about a revelation.

[SafeNSure]

It's all mental...

[hillexallen]

I think we should try to learn as many techniques as possible but NOT as fast as possible.

I would start with the basic ones, and get those down before you elaborate on them and learn more advanced techniques.

...and everything Giorgio said is true.

[puck]

I don't really have much authority over any of this, as I'm still learning myself, but here's an idea:

You ask if quantity is better than quality, if variety can trump excellence. You want to know, out of the two, which one is better to have.

Why not both?

It's a simple matter to train one move until you've mastered it, and then move onto the next one. This way, it's very possible to have mastery over a wide variety of moves. Am I missing something?

...and everything Giorgio and Alex said is true.

[SafeNSure]

Lol... @ Puck:
"Yes", you're missing something... else...

1.) we are all still learning ourselves.
:)

2.) it's NOT a "matter to train one move until you've mastered it, and then move onto the next one";
it's about mastering one's movement to the point that you don't perceive the various techniques as "moves"... IMHO, of course...
;)

Does it make sense?
Other than that everything Alex and you said is true.
:D