Technical perfection - revisited

[nahouw]

Somehow, the original thread showed up when I selected most recent threads. After I read it, I thought it was an interesting thread, so I thought to start a new thread to revisit it.

Czajkowski's research had said that older fencers didn't need as much physical ability as younger fencers, since they relied on their technical superiority. That it is the younger fencers that need to rely on superior physical ability, by lacking actual technique.

One thing that wasn't mentioned in the original thread about technical perfection, to support his thesis, was the best example after Czajkowski wrote his paper -- Golubitski -- he finished 6th in the Olympics, and by published reports by Sergei, he only took a couple of lessons each week with his father throughout that time -- with no other training. He is the supreme example for technical perfection; the fact that he didn't do any physical preparation and came in 6th in the Olympics proves Czajkowski's thesis correct.

Another thing that was mentioned in the original thread by Mo, was about the tennis players Agassi and Sampras. She mentioned that they didn't have the physical abilities of the younger players on the circuit.

But, Agassi is well known around the tennis circuit as to being in superior physical shape (hell, his strategy is to grind them down!! almost nobody can keep up with him!!), and that most player's physical conditioning routines do not even come close to Agassi's routine. As to Pete, he was always well known as to NOT even HAVE a physical conditioning routine throughout most of his career; HOWEVER, at later stages in his career, he eventually did follow Agassi's route to adding a physical conditioning regimen, after his back problems. Obviously, both players are techniquely superior to the rest, and like Czajkowski suggests, age and experience brings more to the game than physical ability.

I fence, and I also play tennis. Another thing that Mo mentioned in the original thread, was that tennis wasn't as physically demanding as tennis. Let me tell you, tennis IS more physically demanding. A tennis match will set you back about 3 hours of continuous motion; during a fencing competition, you will be in 5 X 3 minutes during pools, assuming tableau from 64, 6 X 9 minutes, assuming you win it and assuming you go the max in every bout, for a total of approximately 1 hour.

However, I do agree that fencing is strenuous, I must say. I once had to compete in a qualifier event for all three weapons, and then went to play tennis in the evening, and I had to retire from the match after the second set due to an aggravated achilles problem.