Technical Perfection

**veeco** · 08-28-2002 04:01 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jason:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mo:
Later in a fencer's career, once you have developed technical superiority on the strip, you will have to lift weights to increase your performance.
Veeco,
How long into fencing do you think weight lifting should start AND at what age??<hr /></blockquote>It's silly to think that you need to lift weights to be a good fencer.
Czajkowski did a series of experiments, comparing results in competitions with level of general physical fitness.
He found that for kids, there was a direct correlation: the more gernerally fit, the better the results.
But, as the fencer got older, the correlation got smaller and smaller till it disappeared entirely in adults.
Why? Kids have very little technique and fencing knowledge, so all they can rely on is physical fitness.
Once they get older and face experienced opponents, their general fitness doesn't amount to anything.
What Czajkowski also found was that fitness that is directly, or very closely, related to fencing (semi-specific and specific fitness) always has a positive effect on results.
So, lifting weights or doing lots of cardio isn't going to do much if you're an adult, because it isnt the kind of thing that you do when you're fencing.
Exercises that improve the power of your legs (meaning strength and speed--not slow heavy reps at the gym), that improve your reaction time, that improve your ability to change direction, and things like that are what will have an effect.<hr /></blockquote>And how do you plan on improving the power of your legs? (by the way power and strength are different things as you pointed out).

Usually most exercises that work on power are used using weights.

It's silly to think that not lifting weights is going to improve your fencing. Lifting weights correctly as part of a fencing specific program is going to improve your fencing. All Europeans are doing it, most successful Americans are doing it. As for the other nations, I don't know, but that seems a good enough sample for me.

**mfp** · 08-28-2002 04:02 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jason:
It's silly to think that you need to lift weights to be a good fencer.
Czajkowski did a series of experiments, comparing results in competitions with level of general physical fitness.
He found that for kids, there was a direct correlation: the more gernerally fit, the better the results.
But, as the fencer got older, the correlation got smaller and smaller till it disappeared entirely in adults.
Why? Kids have very little technique and fencing knowledge, so all they can rely on is physical fitness.
Once they get older and face experienced opponents, their general fitness doesn't amount to anything.
What Czajkowski also found was that fitness that is directly, or very closely, related to fencing (semi-specific and specific fitness) always has a positive effect on results.
<hr /></blockquote>Some background material:

Who is this Zbigniew Czajkowski fellow?

<a href="http://www.awf.wroc.pl/hum_mov/polish/04/papers/art01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.awf.wroc.pl/hum_mov/polish /04/papers/art01.htm</a>

Here's an article on the role of aerobic fitness in "anaerobic" sports with references to Z.C.:

<a href="http://www.stadion.com/free/nltr0999.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.stadion.com/free/nltr0999.pdf</a>

Here's an abstract of the Czajkowski research referred to above, on THE INFLUENCE OF PHYSICAL FITNESS AND PSYCHO-MOTOR ABILITIES ON FENCER'S RESULTS IN COMPETITIONS

<a href="http://www.awf.krakow.pl/konf/2exksummen.htm#04" target="_blank">http://www.awf.krakow.pl/konf/2exksummen.htm#04 </a>

And finally here's a link to an article called The Value of Timing in Tactics by Zbigniew Czajkowski:

<a href="http://fencing-club.uchicago.edu/timing.htm" target="_blank">http://fencing-club.uchicago.edu/timing.htm</a>

[ 08-28-2002, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: mfp ]

**Jason** · 08-28-2002 04:15 PM

Sure, you can do some semi-specific and specific exercises in the gym, but really its pretty limited.
It's true that a lot of fencers do weights, but a lot of them speak Russian, too.
Does that mean speaking Russian makes you a good fencer?
Weights (unless used for semi-specific and specific fitness) do about as much good as speaking Russan (maybe a little less good... its always good to chat it up with the Russian directors).
What's important to notice is that both good fencers and crap fencers do weights.
Did you see the bronze medal bout in foil at Sydney?
The only weights going on there, were falling over a belt.

[ 08-28-2002, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Jason ]

**Inquartata** · 08-28-2002 06:53 PM

The point about speaking Russian is really a non sequitur, Jason. It has nothing to do with fitness or athletics, which is what we were discussing, Weightlifting does.

Now, one can say it is useless. Perhaps it would be informative to know whether there is any correlation between lifting and fencing results, for which we'd need to know how many and which top world fencers do or don't do it. If most or all of the elite do so, or don't, that would let us draw conclusions. Anecdotal evidence or "it just doesn't make sense to me" are not great grounds for deciding. Are you basing your opinion on personal knowledge of the exercise methods of top fencers, or are you just guessing or going by what some physiologist told you, or taking it on pure logic, or what?

In the end it's like anything else in the sports world: the utility of weights will depend on the individual, the program, the exercises and so on. It will be useful to some and not to others. we can't just make blanket statements either way, at least without more solid evidence than we have got...

BTW, maybe both positions are correct ( blessed are the peacemakers, so they say

). Technically, if you are moving a weapon or doing footwork exercises, you are in fact lifting weights---your own body weight...

**mfp** · 08-28-2002 07:31 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Inquartata:
Now, one can say it is useless. Perhaps it would be informative to know whether there is any correlation between lifting and fencing results, for which we'd need to know how many and which top world fencers do or don't do it.<hr /></blockquote>I believe you might have missed his point ... weightlifting or any other form of exercise training isn't of any great use to fencing unless it helps develop abilities and skills that directly or indirectly useful in competition. Generic weightlifting exercises that result in (say) a neck as big as your head or a massive chest probably aren't going to do much for your fencing.

So instead skip classic "weightlifting" for perhaps something more akin to "training with weights" by working specific muscle groups related to certain specific fencing activites and skills. That'll be much more useful in fencing than being able to benchpress a small truck. But even when doing fencing specific training with weights, don't overdo it -- remember that the best training exercises for "combat sports" have been found to be those exercises that are similar in motion, rate, intensity and exertion to the activities of the sport for which you're training.

[ 08-28-2002, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: mfp ]

**jspierre** · 08-29-2002 07:47 AM

I think what's plagued the weighlifting discussion in fencing is that it seems its merits are mostly debated only using antidotal evidence, passionately presented by proponents and opponents at the same time. Not sure if anyone has systematically, and in a relatively controlled way assessed the the impact of weightlifing on fencing performance. This is actually a fairly complex question, and any study would have to be carefully designed and implemented for the results to be valid enough to allow for generalizations to be made.

I think at a minimum one can say, like the statement on a toothpaste tube, "weightlifting when combined with a general program of fencing development will lead to positive performance results." Unfortunatley, I don't think that we could add, "Clinical studies have proven that...." in front of that statement yet.

Maybe somone knows otherwise?

**JEC** · 08-29-2002 08:08 AM

Furthermore, are you training "endurance" or "strength"? As a physician, scientist, and fencer, I have not seen any convincing evidence to support either position. I recently did a MEDLINE/PREMEDLINE search (1966-7/02), there are a few articles regarding fencing, but none that address this issue. One problem is that most of the science on fencing has been done in Eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union, and rarely published in journals listed in those lists.

The real question is:
Fencer A only does fencing and no particular cross training.
Fencer B spends some of that "fencing" time doing cross training.
Who would be ahead? The answer is unknown.

**veeco** · 08-29-2002 10:00 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mfp:
Here's an abstract of the Czajkowski research referred to above, on THE INFLUENCE OF PHYSICAL FITNESS AND PSYCHO-MOTOR ABILITIES ON FENCER'S RESULTS IN COMPETITIONS

<a href="http://www.awf.krakow.pl/konf/2exksummen.htm#04" target="_blank">http://www.awf.krakow.pl/konf/2exksummen.htm#04 </a>
<hr /></blockquote>From the article:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Sixty fencers were divided into four groups according to their age and length of training:

13 years of age and below,
14 - 17 years of age,
18 - 20 years of age,
above 20 years of age.
The numerous and various tests included assessment of:
all-round fitness,
semi specific, specific physical fitness and most elementary technical skills,
chosen psycho-motor abilities (speed and accuracy of motor reaction, visual motor co-ordination etc.).
The results if these tests indicate that:
The correlation coefficient between all round physical fitness and fencer's competition results diminishes markedly with the age and training experience of fencers from 0,81 in the youngest group, through 0,68, 0,39 to 0,29 in the senior group. It shows that the all-round fitness is important only in a very young age and in the first stage of training. Later on its significance diminishes. Among senior fencers the all-round fitness does not influence competition results, it only provides active rest, psychological relaxation, prevention of traumas and facilitation of after effort recovery.
The correlation between physical all-round fitness and semi-specific and specific fitness (as well as most elementary skills) gradually diminishes 0,87, 0,79, 0,66, and 0,39. It shows again that the value and significance of all-round fitness in later stages of training is greatly overrated.
The correlation between specific fitness and contests results in competitions diminishes very little and is always - in all stages of fencing and all ages of fencers - very important (0,95, 0,84, 0,80, 0,75).
The correlation between the efficacy and contest results of fencers and psychomotor abilities constantly increases - from 0,62 among the youngest group to 0,75 among seniors (above 20 years old). It means that in all stages of training and with fencers of different ages one should pay a lot attention towards development of psycho-motor abilities (speed of motor response, visual motor co-ordination, speed and accuracy of perception etc.).
Generally in fencing one should respect the principle of specificity and (individualization) of training. One ought to choose exercises, which develop abilities and skills directly or indirectly useful in competition. The Coach must try to ensure among his pupils' positive transfer of skills from exercises to competitions.
<hr /></blockquote>Basically, this is a statistical experiment, which is flawed, as all statistical experiments.

The data gathered was gathered on a pretty small sample (60 fencers). There is no break down on how many fencers where in the group 1, how many in group 2, etc. There is also no data as to how many fencers in group 1 where training with weights and how many where not.

Also, one has to take into account the fact that some of these fencers who did not train with weights might have been blessed with exceptional talent for the sport which nonetheless doesn't mean that they would not be even better if they had an appropriate training regimen that included weight training.

**veeco** · 08-29-2002 10:17 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jason:
Sure, you can do some semi-specific and specific exercises in the gym, but really its pretty limited.
<hr /></blockquote>There is a wide range of both plyometric and non plyometric exercises available.
I recommend you PM Mergs who sent me a pretty good program. I also recommend you look at this website:

<a href="http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/siteindx.htm" target="_blank">http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/siteindx.htm</a>

It's geared towards track and field, but there are a lot of exercises, all categorized. There is also a wealth of information, including a section on plyometrics, and there is also a full page dealing with the complex training system, which I am going to add a link to:

<a href="http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/complex.htm" target="_blank">http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/complex.htm</a>

What this says is that in order to increase the perfromance and number of Type IIb fibers in your muscles, a combination of strength training and plyometrics is the most adequate exercise. These Type IIb fibers are the fast twitch fibers which are the ones which are the most necessary in fencing, because they are responsible for the speed at which force is attained in a moment.

It's true that a lot of fencers do weights, but a lot of them speak Russian, too.
Does that mean speaking Russian makes you a good fencer?
Weights (unless used for semi-specific and specific fitness) do about as much good as speaking Russan (maybe a little less good... its always good to chat it up with the Russian directors).
What's important to notice is that both good fencers and crap fencers do weights.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Did you see the bronze medal bout in foil at Sydney?
The only weights going on there, were falling over a belt.<hr /></blockquote>I did. I did not see any beer belly on either Chevtchenko or Ferrari.

[ 08-29-2002, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: veeco ]

**edew** · 08-29-2002 11:31 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by veeco:
[...]

It's true that a lot of fencers do weights, but a lot of them speak Russian, too.
Does that mean speaking Russian makes you a good fencer?
<hr /></blockquote>It's spah-cible. (Hey, that's an English/Russian pun joke...gettit?)

**jspierre** · 08-29-2002 01:57 PM

There also seems to be a belief in certain fencing circles that plyometrics is a valuable training approach for developing power (see above thread).

What's your view JEC?

**3ngu4rd** · 08-29-2002 02:06 PM

Perhaps technique isn't the most important thing in fencing, but it's definitly up there. I believe you have to have the drive to fence before you can even think about form and technique.
Another thing is, there are so many different forms of 'technique', so how can someone actually dis another's form? It might just be another type of technique... that might not make sense, but I know where I'm coming from...

**mfp** · 08-29-2002 02:58 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by veeco:
Basically, this is a statistical experiment, which is flawed, as all statistical experiments.

The data gathered was gathered on a pretty small sample (60 fencers). There is no break down on how many fencers where in the group 1, how many in group 2, etc.
<hr /></blockquote>Have you read the article? Otherwise it might be a bit much to jump to conclusions on what is or isn't broken down in it based on only the summary/abstract.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />There is also no data as to how many fencers in group 1 where training with weights and how many where not.<hr /></blockquote>Again, how do you know what is or isn't specifically in it without reading it?

But it's true there's nothing specifically about weight training in that research (at least that I recall). The research involved testing and profiling a population of fencers looking for any correlation between fencers' results in competition and those characteristics considered pertaining to "all-round physical fitness" or those considered to be specific or semi-specific fitness characteristics.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Also, one has to take into account the fact that some of these fencers who did not train with weights might have been blessed with exceptional talent for the sport which nonetheless doesn't mean that they would not be even better if they had an appropriate training regimen that included weight training.<hr /></blockquote>Maybe they would or maybe they wouldn't. You don't know for sure, do you? The fact that some people or some countries that do well in fencing include (say) weight training or eating stinky cheese in their routine doesn't prove that either improves their fencing performance. Either, neither or both of those activities might do more harm than good towards results in fencing when compared to other training activities.

Again, you claimed:

Later in a fencer's career, once you have developed technical superiority on the strip, you will have to lift weights to increase your performance

And "based on what?" is the question that immediately springs to mind. If the French epee team started jumping off bridges would you feel compelled to add that to your training routine? Lifting weights (or jumping off bridges) could actually be detrimental to that team's potential performance. [Not to mention jumping off bridges while holding weights].

As for research on training and performance related to fencing, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot. If you stick to Medline, you'll find very little on fencing and what is listed there typically involves research on groups much smaller than Czajkowski's sixty.

For example, there's an article describing the investigation of certain physiological characteristics of seven 1983 NCAA Div I champions. It reported that the aerobic capacities of these seven fencers were found to be only slightly higher than active men of comparable age, and substantially lower than world-class endurance athletes. While that's interesting, based on this alone we don't know if that's because fencing doesn't need a high aerobic capacity, or if these fencers would have done better if they did have greater aerobic capacity (and how would "doing better" be measured for champions?) Or if the 1983 NCAA Div 1 champions just sucked compared to fencers in other years or other countries.

Then there's other research that involved some members of the Swedish Men's epee team. In contrast to the NCAA fencers studied, it reported that "the results showed that epee fencers have a high maximal aerobic power". Hmmn. The variables involved between the two reports raise lots of questions. What could explain the differences? Epee fencers alone vs the NCAA 3 weapon fencers? Swedes vs Americans? NCAA level fencing vs World level fencing? Or could it be the Swedish Men's Epee team of that year had a coach who forced his fencers to run marathons in their training? If so, it may or may not have any effect on their fencing performance, but it certainly could have helped them excel on tests of max aerobic power.

Other articles you can uncover on Medline include training and reaction timing studies on fencers in France and New Zealand,and a report of a small study of some British male epee fencers. There's also an article involving a study of some US Olympic fencers, but I have yet to read the full text of that.

So there's not much to be found on fencing and training via the journals Medline covers.

If you branch out and start digging elsewhere, you'll start running into research and papers by Czajkowski and his colleagues. Some reports are available in English, but others only seem to be in Polish or Russian. But from what I've uncovered so far, it seems the eastern european researchers have done far more research investigating the subject of the role of training in fencing than has gone on in the west.

[ 08-29-2002, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: mfp ]

**JEC** · 08-29-2002 03:44 PM

Agree with mfp.

**veeco** · 08-29-2002 03:59 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mfp:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by veeco:
Basically, this is a statistical experiment, which is flawed, as all statistical experiments.

The data gathered was gathered on a pretty small sample (60 fencers). There is no break down on how many fencers where in the group 1, how many in group 2, etc.
<hr /></blockquote>Have you read the article? Otherwise it might be a bit much to jump to conclusions on what is or isn't broken down in it based on only the summary/abstract.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />There is also no data as to how many fencers in group 1 where training with weights and how many where not.<hr /></blockquote>Again, how do you know what is or isn't specifically in it without reading it?

But it's true there's nothing specifically about weight training in that research (at least that I recall). The research involved testing and profiling a population of fencers looking for any correlation between fencers' results in competition and those characteristics considered pertaining to "all-round physical fitness" or those considered to be specific or semi-specific fitness characteristics.

<hr /></blockquote>No I did not read the article because I did not find it in its entirety. All pages I found that mentionned the article only contained the abstract. Either it's not translated from Polish or I'd have to shell out some money. But as you mention, my initial post was that weight lifting is a good way to increase your performance. I never said that the better your overall health or fitness level the better your results are.
That's why I dismissed the article as not being relevant, not because I don't believe in Me Czajkowski's research.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Also, one has to take into account the fact that some of these fencers who did not train with weights might have been blessed with exceptional talent for the sport which nonetheless doesn't mean that they would not be even better if they had an appropriate training regimen that included weight training.<hr /></blockquote>Maybe they would or maybe they wouldn't. You don't know for sure, do you? The fact that some people or some countries that do well in fencing include (say) weight training or eating stinky cheese in their routine doesn't prove that either improves their fencing performance. Either, neither or both of those activities might do more harm than good towards results in fencing when compared to other training activities.

Again, you claimed:

Later in a fencer's career, once you have developed technical superiority on the strip, you will have to lift weights to increase your performance

And "based on what?" is the question that immediately springs to mind. If the French epee team started jumping off bridges would you feel compelled to add that to your training routine? Lifting weights (or jumping off bridges) could actually be detrimental to that team's potential performance. [Not to mention jumping off bridges while holding weights].
<hr /></blockquote>Based on numbers. I don't know all of them, but I can say with a high level of confidence that the majority of the top 32 male fencers in the world in epee and sabre currently have or have had some weight training program. I am not talking about a single particular team, but about the top 32 fencers in the world in those weapons. That's data that you cannot dismiss.
Note that I did not include foil because I have not had any interactions with high level foil fencers so I don't know about their training methods.

The other reason why I mentioned that later in a fencer's career, once you have developed technical superiority on the strip, you will have to lift weights to increase your performance is that it is common sense: if you take 2 persons who have studied the technical aspect of fencing for the same time with the same level of ability, the only thing that can differenciate them is their ability to execute those technical moves with more power or more strength. This ability will be somewhat linked with the amount of time they have spent in the gym, along with genetics.
So if you want to put all chances on your side, yes, you have to lift weights. If you want to rely on your technical superiority, then you'd better be really really good. The reason why I say this is that I think that it's harder to create a sufficient enough gap in technical ability with today's top level fencers to beat them.
Today's high level fencers have had the technique ingrained in them while they were very young, they mastered that when they were juniors, because current coaching methods don't rely on teaching technique for the sake of teaching technique, but rather they rely on very specific exercises that are geared towards teaching automatic response (trained reflexes).

Finally, I think that there is kind of a problem with a lot of fencers. There seems to be an elitist mindset that fencing is such a different sport from the others that it just cannot be taught like the others, it has to have a special treatment. I'm sorry, but a lot of sport have "special" qualities that make them individual and different from the others. Yet a lot of these sports are taught and coached much the same way. I don't see why fencing should be different from all these sports.

[ 08-29-2002, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: veeco ]

**achilleus** · 08-29-2002 10:41 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by veeco:
[QUOTE

Finally, I think that there is kind of a problem with a lot of fencers. There seems to be an elitist mindset that fencing is such a different sport from the others that it just cannot be taught like the others, it has to have a special treatment. I'm sorry, but a lot of sport have "special" qualities that make them individual and different from the others. Yet a lot of these sports are taught and coached much the same way. I don't see why fencing should be different from all these sports.<hr /></blockquote>I totally agree. I've met a number of fencers who believe that strength and speed are not neccessary for fencing. And that working out for fencing is ridiculous, even though every other sport has realized the benefits of incorporating weights in their training regimen.

Also, I looked at the studies and they left out some key points, like health benefits. All athletes lift weights to reduce the chance of injury, and speed recovery time. After all, fencing like all sports over-works some muscle groups, and neglects others.

Also, how a stronger body will allow an athlete to execute correct technique for longer periods of time. I found out a long time ago that the stronger my arm is, the longer I can perform nice blade actions. Also, the stronger my midsection is, the longer I can stay upright in my guard, instead of falling over.

Sure, you could just practice fencing specific movements to build that endurance, but weight training is far more efficient and healthy for an athlete than overdosing on fencing drills.

[ 08-30-2002, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: achilleus ]

**mfp** · 08-30-2002 01:16 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by veeco:

Based on numbers. I don't know all of them, but I can say with a high level of confidence that the majority of the top 32 male fencers in the world in epee and sabre currently have or have had some weight training program. I am not talking about a single particular team, but about the top 32 fencers in the world in those weapons. That's data that you cannot dismiss.
<hr /></blockquote>Well for your sake I hope the top 32 don't take to jumping off bridges

The popularity of a treatment or a training program does nothing to prove anything about its efficacy. If it's true all the top performers in an activity do X, I certainly wouldn't dismiss ... that they all do X. However I would dismiss any claims that this somehow proves X made them top performers or that X even helped their performance in any way. It proves no such thing. Looking at X might make a good starting point for further research, but until it's done nothing has been proven.

Certain types of weight training might (or might not) be useful in fencing. Or even if some types of weight training are useful, there still might be other types of training even more useful. There's really not much research on the issue. So from the perspective of the scientific method, your claim that you will have to lift weights to increase your performance appears unsupported, with no convincing research that it's effective, let alone that it's the only way to increase your fencing performance (after technical excellence has been achieved or not).

Any arguments that it's "common sense" are not persuasive. The history of both medicine and sports training are filled with examples of what was once considered to be "common sense" that are later found to have been misleading or flat out wrong.

As for your thought experiment:

if you take 2 persons who have studied the technical aspect of fencing for the same time with the same level of ability, the only thing that can differenciate them is their ability to execute those technical moves with more power or more strength

It would be interesting to do, but deciding in advance of doing it both that 1) power or more strength is necessarily useful or 2) that power and strength are the only things that could be possibly be developed that might differentiate them seems very wrong.

**Jason** · 08-30-2002 02:41 PM

Czajkowski did a series of experiments over the course of several years regarding general, semi-specific, and specific fitness and their results on competition.

The abstract on the internet in English only refers to one of them as an example.

Czajkowski's most recent work regarding these experiments was in 1991, in a book called "Podstawowe problemy badawcze w naukach kultury fizycznej."
(Sorry, it's in Polish.)

There is a chapter in his new book (in English) regarding it (it'll be out later this year), though it is not nearly as inclusive as the Polish material.

Basically, the results of all the experiments showed that the success (in competition) of adult fencers had nothing to do with general fitness, had a lot to do with specific fitness, and had a huge amount to do with psychomotor abilities.

Also, regarding endurance: endurance does not have one meaning.
A fencer's endurance is different from a weight-lifter's or from a long-distance runner's.
Endurance is defined by the activity.
A long-distance runner would get exhausted after a couple of minutes fencing.
So, neither long-distance running nor weight-lifting are going to do too much for fencing endurance.

[ 08-30-2002, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Jason ]

**JEC** · 08-30-2002 03:51 PM

In my opinion, the two articles quoted below are among the best scientific studies regarding fencing, and both are by the same authors. Unfortunately, they have a small number of subjects and other technical problems.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Williams LR. Walmsley A.
School of Physical Education, University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ.

"Response timing and muscular coordination in fencing: a comparison of elite and novice fencers." Journal of Science & Medicine in Sport. 3(4):460-75, 2000 Dec.
Abstract (Edited by JEC)
Reaction time (RT), movement time (MT), total response time (RMT) and accuracy of elite and novice fencers was studied under three levels of target choice (single-, two- and four-targets) with three variations of movement distance (short, medium and long lunge). In addition, electromyographic activity (EMG) of selected upper and lower limb muscles was used to compare the two groups. The elite subjects were faster for RT and RMT and displayed a higher level of accuracy. The hypothesis that increasing choice would cause increases in RT was not upheld. Except for some differentiation between the short and the two longer distances, the effects of movement distance were not marked. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of EMG revealed the high consistency of response patterns within subjects and highlighted the synergistic roles of selected muscles in distinguishing between elite and novice fencers. These findings confirm that differences in the technical skill of fencers can be distinguished in the laboratory through a combination of response timing measures in association with measures of muscle action. They also draw attention to practical implications for individual skill assessment and training. Analysis of pre-movement muscle activity provided moderate support for the hypothesis that it was part of a single control process and indicates that a dual process can involve both the maintenance of postural stability and the generation of movement.

"Response amendment in fencing: differences between elite and novice subjects." Perceptual & Motor Skills. 91(1):131-42, 2000 Aug.
Abstract (Edited by JEC)
Reaction time (RT), movement time (MT), total response time (RMT), and accuracy of 3 elite and 3 novice fencers were studied under a dual response paradigm requiring a full lunge. Electromyographic activity (EMG) from selected arm and leg muscles was used to compare response profiles of the two groups. Although the elite subjects had slower MTs, their faster RTs resulted in significantly shorter total response times. The EMG analysis showed that in comparison to the novice subjects, onset of muscle activity was significantly faster for the elite group in five of the six muscles studied. In addition, the elite subjects showed more coherent muscle synergies and more consistent patterns of muscle coordination. <hr /></blockquote>The essence of their findings is that elite fencers are quicker overall because of two reasons:
1) elite fencers "recognize" the target earlier,
2) the muscles are activated in a synergistic ensemble that leads to a "faster" and possibly stronger movement. In fact, there was no significant difference in the actual "movement time", suggesting that the gains in fencing are not due to composition or strength of muscle fibers, but to the cognitive process. Now, the utility of lifting weights is limited, as the utility of using asymmetric Adidas shoes. But at the very top of the elite level (not us, despite that I have a pair of asymmetric shoes), every little edge adds up. Having the opportunity of watching Div. 1 top 8 (USA) on several occasions, I am more struck with SPEED and precision than with power.

[ 08-30-2002, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: JEC ]

**veeco** · 08-30-2002 04:10 PM

OK, let's just back up for a minute...

How do you define "power"?

My definition would be:

"The speed at which force is attained in a moment"

So basically, I think that we would agree on this JEC...

Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

Thread: Technical Perfection

Thread Tools

Display

Similar Threads

Describe the perfect en garde

Technical Perfection - redux

Posting Permissions