Determinants of olympic fencing performance and implications for strength and conditioning training

BRIEF REVIEW

DETERMINANTS OF OLYMPIC FENCING PERFORMANCE

AND IMPLICATIONS FOR STRENGTH AND

CONDITIONING TRAINING

ANTHONY TURNER,1 NIC JAMES,1 LYGERI DIMITRIOU,1 ANDY GREENHALGH,1 JEREMY MOODY,2

DAVID FULCHER,3 EDUARD MIAS,3 AND LIAM KILDUFF4

1Middlesex University, London Sport Institute, London, United Kingdom; 2Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff School ofSport, Wales, United Kingdom; 3English Institute of Sport, Lee Valley Athletics Centre, London, United Kingdom; and 4AppliedScience Technology Exercise and Medicine (A-STEM), Swansea University, Swansea

ABSTRACT

Turner, A, James, N, Dimitriou, L, Greenhalgh, A, Moody, J,

Fulcher, D, Mias, E, and Kilduff, L. Determinants of Olympic

fencing performance and implications for strength and condi-

tioning training. J Strength Cond Res 28(10): 3001–3011,

2014—Fencing is one of only a few sports that have featured

at every modern Olympic games. Despite this, there is still

much the sport science team does not know regarding com-

petition demands and athlete physical characteristics. This

review aims to undertake an analysis of the current literature

to identify what is known, and questions that must be answered

to optimize athlete support in this context. In summary, fencing

is an explosive sport requiring energy production predomi-

nately from anaerobic sources. Lunging and change-of-

direction speed seem vital to performance, and strength and

power qualities underpin this. In the elimination rounds, fencers

are likely to accumulate high levels of blood lactate, and so

high-intensity interval training is recommended to reduce the

intolerance to and the accumulation of hydrogen ions. Injury

data report the hamstrings as a muscle group that should be

strengthened and address imbalances caused by continuous

fencing in an asymmetrical stance.

KEY WORDS epee, foil, saber, lunge

INTRODUCTION

Fencing is one of only a few sports that have fea-tured at every modern Olympic games. Fencingtakes place on a 14 3 2-m strip called a “piste,”with all scoring judged electronically because of

the high pace of competition. The winner is the first fencerto score 5 hits during the preliminary pool bouts or 15 hits

should they reach the direct elimination bouts. During thepreliminary pools, bouts last for 5 minutes, whereas duringelimination, each bout consists of 3 rounds of 3 minutes,with 1-minute rest between the rounds. In general, fencinginvolves a series of explosive attacks, spaced by low-intensitymovements and recovery periods, predominately taxinganaerobic metabolism (44). Perceptual and psychomotorskills (i.e., the ability to quickly and appropriately respondto an opponent’s actions) prevail, and there is a great need torepeatedly defend and attack, and often, engage in a seamlesstransition between the 2. There are 3 types of weapon usedin Olympic fencing: foil, epee, and saber. In foil fencing,scoring is restricted to the torso; in epee, the entire bodymay be targeted; and in saber only hits above the waistcount.

In order for sport science and the practitioners of itssubdisciplines (e.g., biomechanics, physiology, and strengthand conditioning) to support these athletes, a review of thissport must first be undertaken, addressing the availablescientific research and synthesizing evidence based oncompetition demands and athlete physical characteristics.Such an analysis will help the sport science team inidentifying the key components that lead to successfulperformance. This article aims to undertake this reviewand in doing so, describes competition demands accordingto 4 subsections: (1) time-motion analysis, (2) physiology, (3)biomechanics, and (4) incidence of injury. Athlete physicalcharacteristics will subsequently be addressed. The articlewill then conclude with a perspective on future research andathlete testing protocols and training exercises.

TIME-MOTION ANALYSIS OF ELITE FENCERS

Fencing tournaments take place over an entire day (oftenlasting around 10 hours) and consist of around 10 bouts witha break of anywhere between 15 and 300 minutes betweeneach bout (36). Roi and Bianchedi (36) have reported thetime-motion analysis (TMA) data of the winners of themen’s and women’s epee and men’s foil at an internationalcompetition. In general, results reveal that bouts and actual

Address correspondence to Anthony N. Turner, [email protected].

28(10)/3001–3011

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research� 2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 10 | OCTOBER 2014 | 3001

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

fight time consist of only 13 and 5% of the actual competi-tion time, respectively, with a bout work to rest ratio (W:R)of 1:1 and 2:1 in men’s and women’s epee, respectively, and1:3 in men’s foil. On average, a foil fencer will work for 5seconds, whereas an epee fencer will work for 15 seconds(much of which is submaximal) before each rest period orinterruption. Furthermore, during each bout, a fencer maycover between 250 and 1,000 m, attack 140 times, andchange direction nearly 400 times in women’s epee andaround 170 times in men’s epee and foil. In addition, Roiand Pittaluga (37) reported a significantly greater numberof directional changes when comparing female fencers ofhigh and low technical ability (133 6 62 vs. 85 6 25, respec-tively; p # 0.05), suggestive of different tactical levels.

Wylde et al. (48) also examined TMA data during com-petitive bouts of elite women’s foil fencing and found a W:Rof 1:1.1. They further investigated the differences between15-hit, 5-hit, and team bouts with respect to the time that isspent on low-intensity (e.g., stationary or walking),moderate-intensity (e.g., bouncing, stepping forward/back-wards), and high-intensity (e.g., explosive attacking or defen-sive movements) movements. Differences were analyzedusing a magnitude-based Cohen’s (7) effect size with mod-ified qualitative descriptors (22) as follows: ,0.20 = trivial,0.20–0.60 = small, .0.60–1.20 = moderate, .1.20–2.00 =large, and .2.00 = very large. They found that high-intensity movements accounted for 6.2 6 2.5% of the totalbout time with a mean duration of 0.7 6 0.1 seconds anda mean recovery period of 10.4 6 3.3 seconds. The “large”difference between the bouts was found only for the greatermean duration of the low-intensity movements in the 15-hitbouts (6.1 vs. 4.5 seconds; of note, this included the restperiods that are not available in the others). All other differ-ences were “moderate,” “small,” or “trivial.” They, therefore,suggested that similar training plans could be used to phys-ically prepare fencers for 15-hit, 5-hit, and team bouts.

Finally, saber has been the subject of TMA (2), in which32 men and 25 women were analyzed during eliminationbouts across world cup competitions. Results reveal thatthe “explosive” reputation of saber is possible because ofshort bouts of action of ;2.5 seconds, interspersed with

longer recovery periods of ;15 seconds, producing a W:Rof ;1:6. On average, there are 21 lunges, 7 changes in direc-tion and 14 attacks per bout. Total bout time rarely exceeded9 minutes (including between-round breaks), with only ;70seconds of this regarded as the fight time.

In summary, and noting the scarcity of available TMArelative to other sports, the W:R of each sword differs (1:1 inepee, 1:3 in foil, and 1:6 in saber), with saber seeming to bealmost entirely driven by anaerobic power production.Although epee (although much of which is submaximal)has longer fight times than foil and saber (15, 5, and 2.5seconds, respectively), it seems that each weapon is stillprovided with sufficient recovery to work at high intensitiesthroughout each bout. For example, within-round restperiods seem to be of ;15 seconds regardless of sword,and bouts rarely last for the allotted time, with only ;5%of a bout in foil and epee, and 70 seconds in saber wasactually spent on “fighting.” Perhaps, the most physicallydemanding aspects of the bout are incurred on changingthe direction and attacking on performing a lunge (and therecovery from this), which is a very frequent occurrence;indeed, the ability to quickly and efficiently use the lungemay be indicative of success (37). Therefore, regarding theprogram design, there is a clear need to develop change-of-direction speed (CODS), lunge speed, and ability to usethese over a possible 3 rounds of 3 minutes. We, therefore,infer that fencing is a predominately anaerobic sport and that“explosive” movements define the performance. Such con-clusions advocate strength and power training (and theirassessment) for the development of speed and the use ofhigh-intensity interval training (HIIT; using weapon-specific W:R) to contend with the repeated execution ofthese skills.

We also note that given the continuous execution ofCODS and lunging, a high incidence of muscle damageacross a tournament is likely, largely exacerbated by theplethora of eccentric contractions (34) generated during thelead leg foot strike of the latter (Figure 1C); although cur-rently not quantified, this is likely to be substantial. Becausemuscle damage reduces maximal voluntary contraction force(34) and therefore related functions such as jump height (28),

Figure 1. A–C (right to left). The lunge, commencing from the on guard position.

Strength and Conditioning for Fencing

3002 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchthe TM


it is likely that the efficacy of each lunge will graduallyreduce. As such, it is recommended that fencers be sub-jected to high eccentric loads as part of their strengthand conditioning program; muscles accustomed to eccen-tric loading show greater resistance to muscle damage thanthose which are not (29). Although it is possible for themuscle to adapt to eccentric loads by virtue of the “repeatbout effect” phenomenon alone (6,26), this adaptation willbe facilitated by resistance training where it is possible toexpose athletes to loads in excess of that experienced dur-ing training or competition. For example, training theeccentric phase of exercises (e.g., using loads in excess ofthe concentric 1 repetition maximum [RM]) and empha-sizing the landing components of Olympic lifts and plyo-metrics. Therefore, these should be used in conjunctionwith HIIT to further facilitate the continuous high-speedexecution of CODS and lunging.

PHYSIOLOGICAL DEMANDS OF FENCING

Only Milia et al. (27) have looked at the physiological re-sponses during competitive fencing. They tested 15 skilledfencers (2 women and 13 men; group is representative ofmid-upper level fencers) who regularly participated in compet-itions over the past 4 years. In comparison to a preliminaryincremental V_ O2max test (in which they reported low valuesfor aerobic capacity: 46.3 6 5.2 ml$min21$kg21), they foundthat a simulated 3 3 3-minute bout (while wearing a portablemetabolic system) only moderately recruited aerobic energysources, with V_ O2 and HR remaining below the anaerobicthreshold (AT). Similar behavior was observed for pulmonaryventilation and V_ CO2, again suggesting that fencing onlyimposed moderate respiratory and metabolic stress. Of note,they found that despite athletes performing below the level ofAT, lactic anaerobic capacity was moderately activated to sup-port the energy requirements of the combat rounds, withblood lactate remaining.6 mmol$L21 throughout (and peak-ing at 6.9 mmol$L21). They attributed this to the much greateruse of the arms during combat compared with the incrementaltest used to assess AT, and the arms greater composition offast-twitch fibers compared with the legs. This was considereda better indication of fencing’s anaerobic energy demand and issimilar to that of Cerizza and Roi (5), where blood lactateconcentrations of men’s foil fencing bouts (measured 5 minutesafter bout) were quantified. Scores averaged 2.5 mmol$L21

during the preliminary bouts and were then consistently above4 mmol$L21 (and as high as 15.3 mmol$L21 in the winner)during the elimination bouts. Furthermore, across 3 practice 5-hit sparring bouts (thus simulating the pools) against differentopponents, national and international level epee and foilfencers (13 women and 15 men, average age of 16.8 years)had an average blood lactate concentration of 1.7 mmol$L21,and heart rates were between 120 and 194 b$min21. Again(when considering W:R and actual fight times reported above)these data reveal fencing’s anaerobic dominance but specifi-cally, identify that the pools (5 hits) predominately derive

energy from the alactic system, whereas the eliminationrounds (15 hits) from the lactic acid system.

Similar to Milia et al. (27), Rio and Bianchedi (36) alsoreported that although the average aerobic capacity offencers (52.9 ml$kg21$min21) is greater than that of thesedentary population (42.5 ml$kg21$min21), it is clearlylower than that of aerobic endurance–based athletes (e.g.,62–74 and 60–85 ml$kg21$min21 in long-distance cyclistsand runners, respectively) (47) and again may be suggestiveof the relatively small role a high (.60 ml$kg21$min21)V_ O2max has to fencing. To gain further insight, and becauseof the little (direct) data available in fencing, it may be pru-dent to look to the indicative results of empirically similarsports (given their intermittent, explosive nature) such aswrestling, boxing, and mixed martial arts (MMA); even bas-ketball and ice hockey may hold merit. All are considered asanaerobic sports, with the primary energy system for the first2 considered to be the phosphogen system, followed byanaerobic glycolysis, whereas the others consider them ofequal importance (35). When interpreting these data, it isimportant to note that rounds are fewer than boxing (3 vs.12) and shorter than both wrestling and MMA (3 vs. 5 mi-nutes). Of course, although basketball and ice hockey sharea similar intermittent nature, they occur over a longer dura-tion and incur fewer interruptions to play. Collectively, a casemay be built to suggest that aerobic energy system contri-bution may be relatively small and predominately involvedin the submaximal movements of the on-guard position andduring recovery periods (inter- and intrabout). In addition,although the energy system requirements of each weaponwill inevitably differ, it is in the opinion of the authors thatnone will significantly tax the aerobic system to the extentthat training need to directly target its development; this willinstead be indirectly developed by virtue of (more sportspecific) HIIT (19). Of note, although the aerobic systemfacilitates recovery from high-intensity exercise, enablingthe athlete to perform subsequent bouts in quick session,only moderate values (e.g., 50–60 ml$kg21$min21) arerequired, with values above this not translating to quickerrecovery times (20). Similar findings have been identified inice hockey (4) and basketball (21), and the review of Elliottet al. (10) has described how traditional aerobic training (i.e.,long, slow-distance running and in contrast to HIIT) is det-rimental to strength and power output (which seem criticalfor lunging and CODS identified above and discussed furtherbelow) and their development.

In summary, it seems that the pool bouts rely more on thealactic system (and therefore PCr as fuel), whereas theelimination bouts rely more on the lactate system (andtherefore glucose as fuel). Currently, data are not availablefor saber but following what is reported herein, saber is likelyto predominately tax the alactic system across both types ofbout. Finally, although a fencer may compete over an entireday and face several bouts, the majority of this time is spentin resting (;87%); therefore, recovery interventions, such as

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchthe TM

| www.nsca.com



cooldowns, hydration, and nutrition and those that affectthermoregulation, are likely to prove beneficial (althougha discussion of these is beyond the scope of this article)and anecdotally, are often overlooked. It is a common mis-conception that a high aerobic capacity will fend off fatigueacross the long days that make up fencing competitions. Itshould also be noted that Milia et al. (27) found that none ofthe studied variables (HR or blood lactate) returned to restinglevels during the 3 minutes of final recovery and concludedthat athletes need to use specific training programs that canimprove this ability. Coupled with the TMA data presentedabove, data again support an HIITapproach for fencers, as inaddition to being specific to the “stop-start” and explosivenature of fencing, these can be manipulated to evoke highblood lactate responses, while challenging and thus adaptingthe recovery process, including decreasing the accumulationof, and increasing the tolerance to, hydrogen ions (43).

BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF FENCING

The “On-Guard” Position

Fencing uses an “on-guard” position (Figure 1A) in whichthe Fencer “bounces” in preparation for attack. This positionenables a rapid manipulation of the base of support andtherefore the center of mass, whereby the fencer can quicklytransition from attack to defense and vice versa. This abilityis fundamental as to cope with an opponent’s feint (orindeed attack), a fencer must be able to quickly transitionfrom a current or intended action to a new one that canaccommodate this. Although this is determined largely byperceptual and psychomotor skills, a fencer must have thephysical requisites to capitalize on this. Given the bounce,

semisquat position and rapid response required, a logicalinference is to suggest exercises that training rate of forcedevelopment and plyometric ability would be beneficial.Although the on-guard position is yet to be examined, theattacking lunge has been examined and is described below.

The Lunge

By far, the lunge (Figures 1A–C) is the most common form ofattack, with others including those derived from in-stance coun-terattacks (e.g., following a parry) and the fleche (Figure 2).Furthermore, with around 140 attacks per competition andaround 21 per bout, the significance of the lunge and theneed to optimally execute this repeatedly is clear. Croninet al. (8) have addressed the lunge performance and its de-terminants, and although not specific to fencing, there islikely some applicable transfer. Maximal strength and power(against a resistance of 50% 1RM) of the preferred leg wasmeasured on a supine squat machine, and compared withlunging performance assessed through a linear transducer(data sampled at 200 Hz) attached to a belt, strapped tothe trunk. The 31 male recreational athletes had to lungeto a cone (1.5 times their leg distance) and back as rapidlyas possible; the maximum velocities recorded were 1.64 and1.68 m$s21, respectively. It was found that time to peak force(TPF) was the best single predictor of lunge performance(velocity out to the cone; r = 0.74), which accounted for 54%of the explained variance. The best 3-variable model forpredicting lunge performance was TPF, leg length, and flex-ibility (measured as the linear distance between the lateralmalleolus of each leg during a split in the frontal plane),accounting for 85% of the explained variance. The investi-gators concluded that lunging performance was based on

Figure 2. A–F (left to right). The Fleche is initiated from a lunge position (2a) whereby the back leg is powerfully driven forward of the lead leg (2b-e). The hitwould have been made before the lead foot hits the ground again (2e) but the body continues forward (2f) due to the high momentum generated.




several physical and anthropometrical measures, whichshould form part of an athlete’s fitness testing battery.

Gholipour et al. (13) cinematically analyzed the fencinglunge in elite and novice fencers. Using 3 cameras (50 fps), itwas revealed that the elite group lunged further (1.17 vs.1.02 m) although slower (1.82 vs. 1.46 seconds), the leadleg knee had less initial flexion (20 vs. 388) but greatermid-phase extension (51 vs. 188), exhibited greater hipflexion in the final stage of the lunge (53 vs. 408) and con-trary to popular belief, the armed hand and leg moved simul-taneously (as opposed to the former preceding the latter). Incontrast, Gutierrez-Davila (17) examined (using 3D videoanalysis recording at 500 Hz) elite vs. medium-level fencerswhile lunging and reported an average movement time of601 vs. 585 milliseconds, respectively (here timing was stop-ped when target contact was made), but the former againcovered a significantly (p , 0.001) greater distance of 1.4 vs.1.13 m. Interestingly, the flight phase of the lead foot in elitefencers represented 36 milliseconds, the rest was regarded asthe acceleration phase, whereby the force required to lungewas generated. In addition, this group, unlike the mediumlevel comparison group that made a simultaneous forwardmovement of the foot and sword arm, executed a temporalarm-foot sequence. As a result, the elite was quicker to reachmaximum velocity in the initial extension of the arm (31 vs.45% of the total movement time) and average sword hori-zontal velocity (4.56 vs. 3.59 m$s21), subsequently achievingmaximum horizontal velocity of the foot later (75 vs. 58%).They suggested that results highlight the importance ofstarting the advance with a rapid thrust of the arm, followedby a lunge forward with the lead foot. The temporal arm-foot sequence is required for correct technique and alsodetermines the right of way (priority) in foil and saber com-petitions. According to the international federation of fenc-ing the rules state that: “the attack is the initial offensive actionmade by extending the arm and continuously threatening theopponents target, preceding the launching of the lunge or fleche.”In summary, although the arm-foot sequence contradicts thewell accepted “ground up” based kinematics of most sports,for example, baseball (31), javelin (46), and tennis (25), pri-ority ruling dictates this. As such, fencers must be trained toquickly extend their arms independent of force generated atthe legs, and thus supports the use of strength and powertraining targeting the upper body.

Stewart and Koetka (38), noting an arm-foot sequence,found the only kinematic variable demonstrating a significantrelationship to lunge speed was the maximum angular veloc-ity at the elbow (r = 0.62). They also found that the overallspeed of the lunge is not as dependent on how fast themaximum angular velocities of the lead elbow and kneesare, as how soon these maximum velocities can be reached;similar to Cronin et al. (8) the training rate of force devel-opment seems fundamental. These investigators also mea-sured speed using a camera collecting data at 50 Hz.However, low-frequency data collection such as this (error

rate620 milliseconds) may be unable to distinguish betweenlevels of athlete. For example, Tsolakis et al. (41) found a sig-nificant difference in lunge time of only 30 milliseconds(measured at 250 Hz) between elite and subelite fencers; thismay not have been detected at 50 Hz. In addition (as afore-mentioned), the flight phase of the lead foot represented 36milliseconds, this again may be a too short variable to mea-sure at low frequencies. Although more data are required todetermine lunge time, speed, and movement mechanics, itmay be prudent to collect these at frequencies above 50 Hz.

Quantitative data describing the kinetics of the lunge, withrespect to push-off and landing forces, have only beendetermined by Guilhem et al. (16). They used a 6.6-m-longforce plate system where elite female sabreurs (Frenchnational team;N = 10) performed a lunge preceded by a step.From this, displacement and velocity were calculated andcompared with dynamometry strength testing of the hipand knee. The fencers’ center of mass traveled 1.49 m in1.42 seconds and at a peak velocity of 2.6 m$s21, generatinga peak force of 496.6 N, with a maximal negative (braking)power at front-foot landing equaling 1,446 W. Maximalvelocity was significantly (p # 0.05) correlated to the con-centric peak torque produced by the rear hip (r = 0.60) andknee (r = 0.79) extensor muscles, as well as to the front kneeextensors (r = 0.81). Also, through EMG analysis, theyshowed that the activation of rear leg extensor muscles, thatis, gluteus maximus, vastus lateralis, and soleus, was corre-lated to LV (r = 0.70, 0.59, and 0.44, respectively). Collec-tively, their findings illustrate that the ability to moveforward and to decelerate the body mass as quickly as pos-sible is a fundamental performance determinant of fencingand supports the use of strength training as previouslysuggested.

Finally, Gresham-Fiegel et al. (15) analyzed the effect ofnonleading foot placement on power and velocity in the fenc-ing lunge (the swords used were not defined). Although thetoes of the leading foot generally point directly toward theopponent, the angle of the back foot may vary greatly amongfencers, from acute (facing forward) to obtuse (facing slightlybackward). In their study, experienced fencers executed lungesfrom 3 specific angles of back foot placement and from thenatural stance. Foot placements were measured as the angle ofthe back foot from the line of the lead foot and were delimitedto an acute angle (458), a perpendicular angle (908), and anobtuse angle (1358). The angle of natural stance was also deter-mined (which ranged from 68 to 1008) and assessed for eachparticipant. Velocity and power were measured with a lineartransducer (recording at 200 Hz) revealing that a perpendicularplacement of the foot produced significantly (p# 0.05) greaterpower (peak = 849W; average = 430W) and velocity (peak =1.21 m$s21; average = 0.61 m$s21) during lunging.

In summary, the lunge dictates the need for bothconcentric and eccentric strength. The back leg mustdrive/accelerate the body over almost 600 milliseconds(17) before the lead leg can leave the ground and travel


| www.nsca.com



around 1.4 m. Greater concentric strength of the back leg,and the rate with which this is developed, will enable quickerand longer attacks. Because it is generally desirable to keepthe back foot in contact with the ground, and perpendicularto the plane of attack, extension at the ankle is limited, soknee and hip extensor force may be most important. Leadleg knee flexors (namely the hamstrings) must then controlrapid knee extension during the flight phase to enable highangular velocities at the knee and reduce the likelihood ofinjury; the high incidence of hamstring strains in these ath-letes (discussed below) may be indicative of the need totarget these muscles. Finally, the front knee extensors mustexert high braking forces at landing; the eccentric forcesexperienced by the lead leg are likely to be high and maybe evidenced by the greater thigh cross-sectional area of thelead vs. back leg (213.45 vs. 208.22 cm2) (40). The ability toquickly arrest this forward momentum, that is, reducing therequired knee flexion, may reduce the transition time tochange direction and return to on-guard position. Thiswould decrease the time the opponent has to counter attackshould the lunge be unsuccessful. Considering there are 21lunges per bout, it is clear that not all lunges are successful. Infact, there is more chance of missing than scoring, thusrecovery mechanics are an important component. Lead footcontact time, although dependent on surface and shoe type,lasts ;700 milliseconds (39), and (excluding surface andfootwear) may be a function of eccentric strength in the qua-driceps, as landing is made with the heel thus minimizingcontribution from the muscles of the ankle.

Although eccentric strength has only been indirectlyassessed through reactive strength index (discussedbelow), maximum strength and power have received moreattention with TPF (albeit in lunges common to racketsports) and squat and countermovement jumps (CMJs)(discussed below) identified as strong predictors. Thestrong correlation between strength and power tasks (r =0.77–0.94) (3), and the additional time over which a lungeis executed compared with the majority of other sportsmotor skills (e.g., 600 vs. #300 milliseconds) (50), shouldsee maximum strength take higher precedence in thelunge. Finally, as this movement is initiated through a pre-stretch of the back leg, it also uses the stretch-shorteningcycle (SSC) and thus this also needs to be targeted. Forexample, Tsolakis et al. (41) reported that continuous fenc-ing steps with rhythmic changes in direction are activatedby SSCs, which in turn influences the subsequent propul-sive concentric muscle contraction of the following lunge.More research describing the kinetics and kinematics withthe lunge is required. Arguably the time taken to hit thetarget, the distance of the lunge and their derivative, lungevelocity, are most important; determining how athletesoptimize these may be key. More data are required tosee the contribution made from strength, power, flexibility,and stature attributes of the athlete. Data should also rep-resent the ability to recover from a missed lunge and lunges

made from a “flying” start (i.e., preceded with a change ofdirection or forward steps).

Currently, data again suggest the use of strength (includ-ing eccentric) training coupled with plyometric and ballistictype exercises to reduce ground contact times and enhancethe rate of force development, respectively. Squats anddeadlifts seem good exercise choices (particularly thelatter) as they target the knee and hip extensors, alsobench press and seated medicine ball throws, for example,as they target upper-body strength and power develop-ment, respectively. The development of reactive strength(and thus reduced ground contact times) coupled with“deep” squats (below parallel) or split squat exercises canhelp target the gluteal muscles and collectively train a fastrecovery from the lunge back to on guard. Given the pro-longed ground contact times (;700 milliseconds) and flat-footed front leg drive (i.e., not involving ankle extension),hip and knee extensor strength may take on added impor-tance here. Finally, Nordics and stiff-leg deadlifts can helpreduce the high incidence of hamstring strains, and increas-ing adductor flexibility may enhance (or at least not limit)lunge distance.

The Fleche

The fleche (not applicable to saber; Figure 2) is perhaps bestdescribed as a “running” attack. Again, like the on-guardposition, little data are currently available but as coached,require that from the on-guard position (Figure 2A), theback leg is forcefully brought in advance of the lead leg insuch a way that the foot of the back leg steps over theopposite knee (Figure 2D). Because of the high momentumof the movement, the fencer is unable to stabilize their posi-tion at landing (Figure 2E) and will thus bring the movementto a halt after a “run.” Furthermore, the fencer aims to strikethe opponent before landing, so Figures 2E–F representdeceleration phases. The physical requirements of thismovement are expected to be similar to that of the lunge.

Frere et al. (12) provide a kinematical analysis of thefleche, analyzed at 240 Hz in 8 male expert fencers. Thegroup was split into an early (n = 4) and late maximal elbowextension group. The former presented 2 peaks in horizontalvelocity; one of the weapon hand and the other as the bodyleans forward into the attack phase. The latter group pro-duced only 1 peak, which they described as optimal, despiteit not conforming to the rules (as aforementioned). Thegroup that simultaneously extends their arm and lunges for-ward removes the delay between velocities, thus allowingthe fencer to hide the type of attack. As described above,however, this will not grant the fencer priority and reducesmaximal elbow angular velocity and horizontal and verticalvelocity of the hand (656 vs. 4308$s21; 1.88 vs. 1.47 m$s21;2.07 vs. 1.57 m$s21, respectively); it seems there are pros andcons for each.

Unlike the lunge, TMA data describing the frequency ofthe fleche and its success rate are not published. The




assumption from this is that the lunge is used to a far greaterextent and thus sport scientists must first address thismovement before using resources to better determine andoptimize fleche mechanics.

RISK OF INJURY

Perhaps, the most insightful research project to investigateinjuries in fencing was conducted by Harmer (18), whocollected data from all national events organized by theU.S. Fencing association over a 5-year period (2001–2006). In total, over 78,000 fencers (both genders), from8 to 70 years of age and across all weapons were investi-gated. Throughout this period, all incidents that resulted inwithdrawal from competition (i.e., a time-loss injury [TLI])were documented from which the incidence and character-istics of injuries were calculated. This value was determinedas the rate of TLIs per 1,000 hours of athlete exposures(AEs), with 1 AE equaling 1 bout. There were 184 TLI intotal, at a rate of 0.3/1000AE. The TLI of foil and epee wassimilar and highest in saber (0.26 vs. 0.42/1000AE). Strainsand sprains accounted for half of all injuries and contusionsfor 12%. The lower extremities accounted for most injuries(63%) and mostly involved the knee (20%), thigh (15%, 3quarters of which were hamstring strains), and ankle(13%). Finally, above the hip, TLI of the lumbar spine(9%) and fingers (7%) predominated.

Harmer (18) concluded that the risk of injury in Fencing isvery low with the chance of injury in football and basketball50 and 31 times greater, respectively. When injury doesoccur, it is most likely to occur at the knee, hamstring strainsare the most common type of injury and male sabreurs arethe most at risk. Because fencers tend to use (and thereforedevelop) the anterior musculature more than the posterior,and one side of the body more than the other, this may leavethem exposed to muscle strains in the weaker muscles (asexampled by the higher incidence of hamstring to quadri-ceps strains). More specifically, Guilhem et al. (16) warn thatrepetitions of the lunge or maintaining the on-guard positionover prolonged periods may cause pathologies such as theadductor compartment syndrome and the compression ofarteries in the iliac area because of hypertrophy of the psoasmajor (Cockett syndrome), or induce osteoarthritis. A differ-ence of 15% is generally used as a clinical marker of bilateralstrength asymmetry and significant risk of injury (23).Strength training may be able to address this imbalanceand increasing antagonist muscle strength. Pertinent to per-formance, an increase in antagonist muscle strength mayincrease movement speed and accuracy of movement (24).This has been hypothesized to occur because of alterationsin neural firing patterns, leading to a decrease in the brakingtimes and accuracy of the limbs in rapid ballistic movements(24). In essence, strength balance is also needed to break theagonists succinctly in rapid limb movements and as such,increases in hamstring strength will enable faster velocitiesof knee extension. Of course, strength training will also

enable the weaker limb (typically the back leg) to betargeted.

Recently, research has investigated foot strike character-istics and injurious potential; epidemiological investiga-tions propose a positive relationship between impactshock magnitude, rate of repetition, and the etiology ofoveruse injuries (30,33). Trautmann et al. (39) used pres-sure insoles, covering the whole plantar aspect, to collectplantar pressure data (sampled at 50 Hz) of the lunge per-formed with 3 different shoe models: the athletes’ ownfencing shoes (used for training and competition), Ballestra(Nike, Beaverton, OR, USA), and Adistar (Adidas, Herzo-genaurach, Germany). Results showed higher peak pres-sures at the heel compared with the midfoot, forefoot,hallux, and the toes (551.8 vs. 156.3, 205.4, 255.6, and170.4 kPa, respectively). The heel also had the highestimpulse (179.2 N$m; followed by the forefoot: 175.6N$m) and contact time (705.4 milliseconds). The newshoes (Adistar and Ballestra) were able to significantly (p, 0.005) attenuate impact pressure more than the fencer’sown shoe, but this may have been a consequence of wear.Subsequently, shoe-cushioning characteristics should beconsidered as an extrinsic risk factor for overloading ofthe lower limbs, with meniscal and chondral lesions ofthe knee considered as an expression of such repetitivetasks. Harmer (18) suggested teaching athletes to checkinsole wear and to maintain good quality insoles, andTrautmann et al. (39) advised that improved cushioningbeneath the heel and metatarsal heads could be advanta-geous in preventing an injury during competition or train-ing. In addition, fencers should be limited in performinghigh-demand tasks, especially the lunge, during recoveryfrom an injury (39).

Greenhalgh et al. (14) performed a similar study, buthere the dependent variable was the training surface: con-crete with an overlaid vinyl layer (COVL); wooden sprungcourt surface (WSCS); metallic carpet fencing piste over-laid on the WSCS; and aluminum fencing piste overlaid onthe WSCS. An accelerometer measured accelerationsalong the longitudinal axis of the tibia at 1,000 Hz. Resultsidentified that a significantly (p # 0.05) larger impactshock was experienced during a lunge on the COVL(14.88 6 8.45 g) compared with the others (which aver-aged ;11.6 g). Furthermore, the 2 types of piste used hadno significant effect on the impact shock when overlaid onthe WSCS compared with the WSCS on its own. Resultssuggest that injuries related to impact shock may bereduced using a WSCS rather than a COVL surface, duringfencing participation.

The data above again describe the need to develophamstring strength and warns of the overuse injuriesgenerated subsequent to continuous fencing in an asymmet-rical stance (Figure 1A), which never alternates. Conse-quently, it would be prudent to include training that putshigh landing loads through the back foot (thus training the


| www.nsca.com



weaker limb) and exercises such as the split jerk and splitsnatch (here the stance is reversed), which similarly have flat,front-foot landings, are advised. Of course, single jumpsfavoring this side would be advantageous too. When per-forming HIIT (as advised above) it may be advisable tonot use, or at least limit the use of fencing footwork in theirorthodox stance. Instead, either their stance can be switchedor use non- or reduced weight-bearing activities. Althoughthis is less sport specific, ultimately the W:R ratios can stillbe used to evoke high blood lactate response and invokeadaptations centering on the tolerance and recovery fromcontinuous explosive exercise. Finally, the use of the varioussquats and deadlift exercises, in addition to reduced trainingexposure to their fencing stance, should facilitate the reduc-tion of lower-back pain.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Tsolakis and Vagenas (40) examined differences in selectedanthropometric, strength-power parameters, and func-tional characteristics of elite and subelite fencers. Thirty-three fencers (18 women and 15 men) from the GreekNational Team (age, 19 6 3.5 years; body height,175.6 6 7.6 cm; body mass, 66.1 6 9.1 kg; systematic train-ing, 8.4 6 2.9 years) were classified as elite (n = 14, eachhaving competed in the Olympic games and/or Worldchampionships) or subelite according to their internationalexperience. Compared with subelites, elite fencers aretaller (178 vs. 173 cm), leaner (13 vs. 16% body fat), havea higher squat jump (31.94 vs. 25.74 cm), CMJ (35.47 vs.31.04 cm), and reactive strength index from a 40-cm box(1.48 vs. 1.38). They also compared lunge time and shuttletest scores, where again elite athletes performed better(180 vs. 210 milliseconds and 12.43 vs. 13.28 seconds,respectively). Time of lunge was measured through 4 pho-tocells (measuring at 250 Hz) placed at a lunge distance of2/3-leg length, with the height of the photocells adjustedto be interrupted by the chest. This setup indicates whyresults are markedly different from what is reported above,thus making comparisons difficult. For the “shuttle test,”photocells were placed at the start and end of a 5-m dis-tance. As fast as possible, the fencer moved with correctfencing steps forward and back between them coveringa total distance of 30 m.

In a similar study, Tsolakis et al. (41) correlated anthropo-metric and physiological traits with performance-specificpatterns in fencing. The results (as reported above) wereused to estimate which variables best predicted performance,as measured by time of lunge and shuttle test describedabove. Their results revealed that the squat jump, CMJ,and reactive strength index were all significantly correlatedto lunge time (20.46, 20.42, and 20.41, respectively) andshuttle test scores (20.70, 20.63, and 20.44, respectively).As can also be noted here, concentric explosive strength andSSC mechanics are important qualities of fencing perfor-mance. In particular, the best single predictor for the time

of lunge and shuttle test was squat jump, although all lower-body power tests showed significant relationships. This find-ing is in line with the suggestions made above regardingimportant characteristics of the lunge, in particular, the sig-nificance of maximum strength.

The results above reveal some key anthropometric data(including strength and power characteristics). Arguably,these could have been correlated to more direct measuresof lunge ability and more specific measures of fencingagility. For example, measuring a full lunge rather than onethat is determined by leg length dimensions would alsoaccount for flexibility and arm span, which have also beenidentified as important factors. Furthermore, the timetaken for the chest to break through the beam may notrepresent the time taken for the sword to make contactwith the target; it also neglects the significance of armvelocity, which is considered fundamental. That said, itsability to differentiate between the levels is indicative of itsmerits, especially as its measuring equipment is relativelymore common place in training facilities. Finally, althoughthe shuttle test described above can distinguish betweenthe levels, it arguably measures CODS over a greaterdistance and time than a fencer may be expected toperform in any single point; also, changes in directionare likely to be over varying distances. Perhaps, a shorteragility test is warranted, from which predictor variablescan be calculated. It would be useful to have TMA datathat identify average distances covered and changes indirection per point, noting that each sword may demon-strate a different profile.

PERSPECTIVE

Research questions that may help optimize sport sciencesupport for fencers are listed below. They suggest currentgaps in knowledge and, in line with the context of thisreview, center on identifying the physiological demands ofcompetition and the fundamental physical characteristics ofperformance. Such knowledge will determine appropriatemeasures by which performance can be judged andenhanced. In the absence of these answers, Tables 1 and 2suggest tests and exercise, respectively, that may best relateto these outcomes.

Questions for Future Research

1. What anthropometric variables and dynamic measures ofstrength and power affect lunge velocity, using time anddistance to target as dependent variables?

2. What anthropometric variables and dynamic measures ofstrength and power affect recovery time from a lunge,measured as time of foot strike of lunge to return to onguard (and thus an out of range position)?

3. Using elite athletes at a major competition (with dataseparated by sword and gender), what are the averagework and rest times (and the ratio between them),




TABLE 1. Battery of fitness tests suitable for fencing athletes.

Anthropometry (limb length): Height, sitting height (leg length), arm span, and thigh circumference. Limb lengths (8) andthigh circumference (41) have been shown to relate to lunge performance. Asymmetries noted in the latter may also beindicative of injury risk (discussed below)

Anthropometry (body mass and composition): Weight and body fat percentage (%BF). In elite fencers, body fatpercentage is ;14% and is related to lunge and agility performance (41) and is suggestive of nonfunctional mass.Compared with other sports (albeit weight classed), however (42), this is quite high and as such we recommend scoresof ;8%

Anthropometry (range of motion): Adductor flexibility, measured as the linear distance between the lateral malleolus ofeach leg during a split in the frontal plane, is predictive of lunge performance (8) and allows fencers to maximize the useof leg length

Injury risk: Asymmetry between lead and back leg may be indicative of injury risk and can be assessed through thighcircumference and single-leg jump height. A difference of 15% is generally used as a clinical marker of bilateral strengthasymmetry and significant risk of injury (23). The same is true for agonist vs. antagonist strength and in the legs, and isusually assessed through the ratio of quadriceps concentric strength to hamstring eccentric strength to represent theirfunctional relationship; the ratio should be 1:1 (1)

Power: Generally measured through a countermovement jump (CMJ) or a power clean. The latter is technically demandingand requires equipment not available in the field; hence, the CMJ is more common place. Elite fencers have beenreported to jump ;35 cm (41), but again we recommend scores better than this and, anecdotally, should be .50 cm.Rate of force development or time to peak force is also considered to influence lunge performance (8) and is usuallyassessed through the force-time curve generated within an isometric mid-thigh pull (45)

Stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) ability and leg stiffness: These components are likely involved in the on-guard position,change of direction mechanics, and force output. Leg stiffness may also be involved in the recovery from anunsuccessful lunge. Although SSC ability can be determined by the CMJ or the elastic utilization ratio (CMJ-squat jump)(49), the reactive strength index is considered as the preferred method (11). This is calculated as jump height (followingstepping from a box) divided by ground contact time, with elite fencers scoring ;1.5 (41). Leg stiffness describes theability of the leg to resist flexion, with the assumption that force is better transferred to the tendons. Dalleau et al. (9)have provided a simple way with which this can be calculated in the field. Higher values of leg stiffness may provide theability to minimize lead foot ground contact time, estimated as ;705 milliseconds (39) and thus improve recovery

Strength: The direct assessment is typically measured through 1RM back squat or an isometric mid-thigh pull (45). Wheretechnique and mobility are insufficient, the latter is preferred. In the field, strength is generally measured through squatjump and is related to lunge and agility performance with elite fencers averaging a height of 32 cm (41), againanecdotally, this should be .40 cm

Lunge ability. The fencers should be able to position themselves at a self-determined distance from the target. Thisenables them to select what they perceive to be an optimal combination of speed (or time to target) and distance (these2 variables may share an inverse relationship) and allows them to maximize the use of their arm span, leg length,flexibility, and lower-limb power. High-speed cameras ($100 fps) should be used if time to target is to be calculatedwith appropriate accuracy (#10 milliseconds); distance can be determined with software that is freely available. Lungerecovery time should also be recorded

Change-of-direction speed (CODS): Tsolakis et al. (41) have tested this over a 5-m shuttle, totaling 30 m and taking elitefencers ;12.5 seconds to complete, but this may not best represent the available time-motion analysis data. We advisethat distance should be around half of this and have varying distances to promote quicker consecutive changes indirection. These changes would also reduce the work time in line with the approximate time per point and a shorterdistance will also provide a better indication of max speed. We would thus speculate that an agility test consisting of 2-4-2 m shuttles would be appropriate but this may differ between swords. It may not be advisable to get the fencer tolunge at the end of each shuttle as, although increasing specificity, it may reduce the test’s ability to differentiatebetween fencing skills, that is, CODS vs. lunging vs. recovery mechanics. Instead, the latter 2 can be targeted ina separate test (discussed above). Of course, this test (and the one below) should be conducted using fencing footwork

Repeat lunge ability: This test assesses the fencer’s ability to meet the physiological demands of the sport, that is, theirability to recover between bouts of high-intensity fencing and tolerate lactate accumulation. As above, this protocol maydiffer between swords, not only in the distances covered but also in the work to rest ratios (W:R) used. Theeffectiveness of any protocol would need to be checked against HR and lactate responses measured duringcompetition. It may be best to include lunging within this test as the drive and especially the recovery phases of this arelikely to induce more fatigue than the changes of direction. Anecdotally, a 4-m shuttle with them lunging to the 4-m line,repeated 5 times per set with a total of 5 sets and 10-second rest between the sets could be suitable. Because this testassesses power endurance, the upper threshold for distance and changes in direction has been selected and the lowerend of recovery chosen, that is, 10 vs. 15 seconds. In line with others, total or mean time should be monitored to improvereliability (9,32)

Aerobic capacity: Based on the above, this need not be tested. However, fencers should have above average levels(.50 ml21$kg21$min21) to ensure recovery mechanics are not compromised


| www.nsca.com



changes in direction, distance covered, and lunges per-formed per bout? These data can be used to developappropriate agility and repeat lunge ability tests.

4. What are average heart rate and blood lactate values offencing competitions across sword and gender and howdo these compare to training sessions aimed at increasingfitness?

5. How much fatigue does a fencing competition generateand what interventions or fitness parameters can reducethis?

REFERENCES

1. Aagaard, PS-P. A new concept for isokinetic hamstring: Quadricepsmuscle strength ratio. Am J Sports Med 26: 231–237, 1998.

2. Aquili, A and Tancredi, V. Performance analysis in sabre. J StrengthCond Res 27: 624–630, 2013.

3. Asci, A and Acikada, C. Power production among different sportswith similar maximum strength. J Strength Cond Res 21: 10–16, 2007.

4. Carey, D, Drake, M, Pliego, G, and Raymond, R. Do hockey playersneed aerobic fitness? Relation between VO2max and fatigue during high-intensity intermittent ice skating. J Strength Cond Res 21: 963–966, 2007.

5. Cerizza, C and Roi, GS. “Physiological aspects of sport. The basic,fundamental characteristics of the young fencer.” Sports & youtheducation. Milan: Ghedini Publisher (1994): 89–96.

6. Clarkson, P, Nosaka, K, and Braun, B. Muscle function afterexercise-induced muscle damage and rapid adaptation. Med SciSports Exerc 24: 512–520, 1992.

7. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.

8. Cronin, J, McNair, P, and Marshall, R. Lunge performance and itsdeterminants. J Sports Sci 21: 49–57, 2003.

9. Dalleau, G, Belli, A, Viale, F, Lacour, J, and Bourdin, M. A simplemethod for field measurements of leg stiffness in hopping. Int JSports Med 25: 170–176, 2004.

10. Elliott, M, Wagner, P, and Chiu, L. Power athletes and distancetraining. Physiological and biomechanical rationale for change.Sports Med 37: 47–57, 2008.

11. Flanagan, EA. The use of contact time and the reactive strengthindex to optimise fast stretch-shortening cycle training. StrengthCond J 30: 33–38, 2008.

12. Frere, J, Gopfert, B, and Nuesh, C. Kinematical and EMG-classifications of a fencing attack. Int J Sports Med 32: 28–34, 2011.

13. Gholipour, M, Tabrizi, A, and Farahmand, F. Kinematics analysis oflunge fencing using stereophotogrametry. World J Sport Sci 1: 32–37,2008.

14. Greenhalgh, A, Bottoms, L, and Sinclair, J. Influence of surface onimpact shock experienced during a fencing lunge. J Appl Biomech 29:463–467, 2013.

15. Gresham-Fiegel, C, House, P, and Zupan, M. The effect ofnonleading foot placement on power and velocity in the fencinglunge. J Strength Cond Res 27: 57–63, 2013.

16. Guilhem, G, Giroux, CC, Chollet, D, and Rabita, G. Mechanical andmuscular coordination patterns during a high-level fencing assault.Med Sci Sports Exerc 46: 341–350, 2014.

17. Gutierrez-Davila, M. Response timing in the lunge and target changein elite versus medium-level fencers. Eur J Sport Sci 13: 364–371,2013.

TABLE 2. Exercises to improve fencing performance and to reduce the risk of injury.

Lunge performance. Given the correlations between lunge velocity and knee and hip extensor strength, glutealactivation (16) and time to peak force (8), and between lower-limb power and lunge time (41), we suggest the afterexercise: Below parallel squats, split squats, and deadlifts to develop strength, weightlifting, and their derivatives (e.g.,mid-thigh pulls) and box jumps to develop rate of force development and lower-limb power. Also, because of thelunge’s arm-foot movement sequence, and the need to develop high sword-arm velocity, strength and power exercisethat target the upper body are recommended. For this, we recommend the bench press and seated medicine ballthrows

Lunge recovery speed. Although this is an untested variable, we advise high braking (eccentric) strength in the kneeextensors to quickly arrest knee flexion at landing, and high levels of reactive strength to reduce ground contact time.The former can be trained during the negative repetitions of the squat at loads .1RM concentric squat strength, andthrough the landing phases of weightlifting exercises. The latter may be developed through plyometric exercises,focusing on minimizing ground contact time

Change-of-direction speed (CODS). This has been linked to the reactive strength index (41); therefore, plyometrics isagain recommended

Continuous execution of lunges and CODS during a bout. Best developed through the use of high-intensity intervaltraining (HIIT), which mimic the stop-start and explosive nature of the sport. The work to rest ratios should bemanipulated to evoke high blood lactate values indicative of elimination bouts (27) and thus reduce the intolerance toand accumulation of hydrogen ions.

Asymmetry-related injuries. Given fencing’s asymmetrical stance and continuous high-impact lunges, these are verylikely to occur and prevention involves training the antagonists and the weaker side (back leg). For the former,hamstring exercises such as Nordics and the stiff-leg deadlift are recommended. For the latter, high-impact loadsshould be experienced in the back leg, which can be achieved by single-leg jumps and using the split jerk and splitsnatch, ensuring this leg is at the front for these exercises. Finally, it is important to limit time in the orthodox fencingstance thus HIIT drills may be best if they are completed in the unorthodox stance or performed using nonweight-bearing exercises altogether. Here, it is the accumulation of blood lactate that is important rather than the specificityof the movement




18. Harmer, P. Incidence and characteristics of time-loss injuries incompetitive fencing: A prospective, 5-year study of nationalcompetitions. Clin J Sports Med 18: 137–142, 2008.

19. Helgerud, J, Hoydal, K, Wang, E, Karlsen, T, Berg, P, andBjerkaas, M. Aerobic highintensity intervals improve VO2max morethan moderate training. Med Sci Sport Exerc 39: 665–671, 2007.

20. Hoffman, J. The relationship between aerobic fitness and recoveryfrom high-intensity exercise in infantry soldiers. Mil Med 162: 484–488, 1997.

21. Hoffman, J, Tenenbaum, G, Maresh, C, and Kraemer, W.Relationship between athletic performance tests and playing time inelite college basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 10: 67–71, 1996.

22. Hopkins, W. A Scale of Magnitudes for Effect Statistics. 2002. Availableat: sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html. Accessed March 17,2013.

23. Impellizzeri, F, Rampinni, MM, and Marcora, S. A vertical jumpforce test for assessing bilateral strength asymmetry in athletes. MedSci Sports Exerc 39: 2044–2050, 2007.

24. Jaric, S, Ropert, R, Kukolj, M, and Ilic, D. Role of agonist andantagonist muscle strength in rapid movement performance. Eur JAppl Physiol 71: 464–468, 1995.

25. Johnson, C and McHugh, M. Performance demands of professionalmale tennis players. Br J Sports Med 40: 696–699, 2006.

26. McHugh, M. Recent advances in the understanding of the repeatedbout effect: The protective effect against muscle damage from a singlebout of eccentric exercise. Scand J Med Sci Sports 13: 88–97, 2003.

27. Milia, R, Roberto, S, Palazzolo, G, Sanna, I, Omeri, M, Piredda, S,Migliaccio, G, Concu, A, and Crisafulli, A. Physiological responsesand energy expenditure during competitive fencing. Appl PhysiolNutr Metab 39: 324–328, 2014.

28. Miyama, M and Nosaka, K. Muscle damage and soreness followingrepeated bouts of consecutive drop jumps. Adv Exerc Sports Physiol10: 63–69, 2004.

29. Newton, M, Morgan, G, Sacco, P, Chapman, D, and Nosaka, K.Comparison of responses to strenuous eccentric exercise of theelbow flexors between resistance-trained and untrained men. JStrength Cond Res 22: 597–607, 2008.

30. Nigg, BM and Segesser, B. Biomechanical and orthopedic conceptsin sport shoe construction. Med Sci Sports Exerc 24: 595–602, 1992.

31. Oliver, G and Keeley, D. Pelvis and torso kinematics and theirrelationship to shoulder kinematics in high-school baseball pitchers.J Strength Cond Res 24: 3241–3246, 2010.

32. Oliver, J. Is a fatigue index a worthwhile measure of repeated sprintability? J Sci Med Sport 12: 20–23, 2009.

33. Pohl, M, Mullineaux, D, Milner, C, Hamill, J, and Davis, I.Biomechanical predictors of retrospective tibial stress fractures inrunners. J Biomech 41: 1160–1165, 2008.

34. Raastad, T, Owe, S, Paulsen, G, Enns, D, Overgaard, K, Crameri, R,Kiil, S, Belcastro, A, Bergersen, L, and Hallen, J. Changes in calpainactivity, muscle structure, and function after eccentric exercise. MedSci Sports Exerc 42: 86–95, 2010.

35. Ratmess, N. Adaptations to anaerobic training programs. In:Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. T. Baechle and R.Earle, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008. pp. 93–119.

36. Roi, G and Bianchedi, D. The science of fencing: Implications forperformance and injury prevention. Sports Med 38: 465–481, 2008.

37. Roi, G and Pittaluga, I. Time-motion analysis in women’s swordfencing. In: Proceedings of the fourth IOC Congress on SportSciences, Monaco, 66, 1997. pp. 22–25.

38. Stewart, S and Kopetka, B. The kinematic determinants of speed inthe fencing lunge. J Sports Sci 23: 105, 2005.

39. Trautmann, C, Martinelli, N, and Rosenbaum, D. Foot loadingcharacteristics during three fencing-specific movements. J Sports Sci29: 1585–1592, 2011.

40. Tsolakis, C and Vagenas, G. Anthropometric, physiological andperformance characteristics of elite and sub-elite fencers. J HumKinetics 23: 89–95, 2010.

41. Tsolakis, C, Kostaki, E, and Vagenas, G. Anthropometric, flexibility,strength-power, and sport-specific correlates in elite fencing. PerceptMot Skills 110: 1015–1028, 2010.

42. Turner, A. Strength and conditioning for Mauy Thai athletes.Strength Cond J 31: 78–92, 2009.

43. Turner, A and Stewart, P. Repeat sprint ability. Strength Cond J 35:37–41, 2013.

44. Turner, A, Miller, S, Stewart, P, Cree, J, Ingram, I, Dimitriou, L,Moody, J, and Kilduff, L. Strength and conditioning for fencing.Strength Cond J 35: 1–9, 2013.

45. West, DO. Relationships between force–time characteristics of theisometric midthigh pull and dynamic performance in professionalrugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 25: 3070–3075, 2011.

46. Whiting, W, Gregor, R, and Halushka, M. Body segment andrelease parameter contributions to new-rules javelin throwing. Int JSport Biomech 7: 111–124, 1991.

47. Wilmore, J and Costill, D. Physiology of Sport and Exercise (3rd ed.).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.

48. Wylde, M, Frankie, H, and O’Donoghue. A time-motion analysis ofelite women’s foil fencing. Int J Perform Anal Sport 13: 365–376,2013.

49. Young, W. Laboratory strength assessment of athletes. New StudAthlet 10: 88–96, 1995.

50. Zatsiorsky, V. Biomechanics of strength and strength training. In:Strength and Power in Sport, Vol. 2. P. Komi, ed. Oxford, UnitedKingdom: Blackwell Science, 2003. pp. 114–133.


| www.nsca.com



Documents

Determinants of olympic fencing performance and implications for strength and conditioning training