Content uploaded by Giulio Sergio Roi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Giulio Sergio Roi on Aug 26, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
Sports Med 2008; 38 (6): 465-481
R
EVIEW
A
RTICLE
0112-1642/08/0006-0465/$48.00/0
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
The Science of Fencing
Implications for Performance and Injury Prevention
Giulio S. Roi and Diana Bianchedi
Education and Research Department Isokinetic, Bologna, Italy
Contents
Abstract ....................................................................................465
1. Characteristics of Fencing ................................................................466
2. Physical Demands of Fencing .............................................................467
3. Physiological Characteristics ..............................................................468
3.1 Anthropometrical Characteristics ......................................................468
3.2 Static Strength .......................................................................470
3.3 Dynamic Strength and Anaerobic Power...............................................470
3.4 Muscular Biopsies ....................................................................471
3.5 Aerobic Power ......................................................................471
4. Psychological Characteristics .............................................................472
5. Acquisition of Fencing Skills ................................................................473
5.1 Age ................................................................................473
5.2 Left-Handedness .....................................................................473
5.3 Technique ..........................................................................474
5.4 Perceptual and Psychomotor Characteristics ...........................................474
5.5 Tactics ..............................................................................475
6. Injuries ..................................................................................476
6.1 Epidemiology .......................................................................476
6.2 Specific Injury Sites ...................................................................476
6.3 Mechanisms of Injury .................................................................476
6.4 Severity of the Injuries ................................................................477
6.5 Fatal Injuries .........................................................................477
6.6 Prevention ..........................................................................477
7. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................478
In this review we analyse the data from the literature on fencing with the aim of
Abstract creating a psychobiological and multi-factorial model of fencing performance.
Fencing is an open-skilled combat sport that was admitted to the first modern
Olympic Games in Athens (1896). It is mainly practised indoors, with three
different weapons: the foil, the sabre and the ´
ep´
ee, each contested with different
rules. A fencing international tournament may last between 9 and 11 hours. Bouts
represent only 18% of total competition time, with an effective fight time of
between 17 and 48 minutes.
The physical demands of fencing competitions are high, involving the aerobic
and anaerobic alactic and lactic metabolisms, and are also affected by age, sex,
level of training and technical and tactical models utilized in relation to the
adversary.
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
466 Roi & Bianchedi
The anthropometrical characteristics of fencers show a typical asymmetry of
the limbs as a result of the practice of an asymmetrical sport activity. Fencing
produces typical functional asymmetries that emphasize the very high level of
specific function, strength and control required in this sport.
Moreover, the physical demands of fencing are closely linked to the perceptual
and psychological ones, and all are subjected to a continuous succession of
changes during the bouts based on the behaviour of the opponent. For this reason
it is difficult to identify a significant relationship between any one physiological
characteristic and performance, and performance is more likely to be influenced
by perceptual and neuro-physiological characteristics. Fencers need to anticipate
the opponent and to mask their true intentions with a game of feints and counter-
feints, which must be supported by an adequate psycho-physical condition to
prevent central and peripheral fatigue.
Fencing is not particularly dangerous; however, there is a fine line between a
fatal lesion and a simple wound from a broken blade. The suggestions for injury
prevention fall into three primary areas: (i) actions that can be taken by partici-
pants; (ii) improvements in equipment and facilities; and (iii) administration of
fencing competitions. As in every other sport, the prevention of accidents must be
accomplished at various levels and above all must involve the institutions that are
responsible for safety in sports.
Fencing is one of the oldest sports, having been Taken together, all these papers must be put into
a broad multi-dimensional perspective, so the main
practised in ancient Egypt from at least 1200 BC. It
objective of this review is to draw a psychobiologi-
has constantly evolved with the development of new cal and multi-factorial model of fencing perform-
techniques for fusing metals and with the influence ance.
of different cultures and their fighting traditions. In
Europe, the rise in wearing swords as part of civilian 1. Characteristics of Fencing
dress and the increase in duelling contributed to the
wide diffusion of fencing and led to an increasing Fencing is an open-skilled combat sport mainly
demand for training. practised indoors, in which two athletes fight indi-
rectly, through their weapons, and physical contact
Throughout history, fencing has been conceived is forbidden. Fencing is practised by men and
of and practised as an art form,[1,2] and has also been women, with three different weapons; the foil, the
presented as a science formally since 1604.[3] In sabre and the ´
ep´
ee, each contested with different
1896, fencing as a sporting activity was admitted to rules (table I). For protective purposes, fencers must
the first modern Olympic Games in Athens. wear specific fencing dress, mask, gloves and plas-
In this review, we analyse the data presented in trons, that may decrease their cardiopulmonary per-
the literature and attempt to highlight factors that formance and increase the loss of water.[4,5]
may influence performance and may predispose In fencing, the competition field is 14 m long and
fencers to injuries. We used information from arti- between 1.5 and 2 m wide. A referee presides over
cles published in peer-reviewed journals. These the bout with the aid of an electrical scoring appara-
sources of information were supplemented with oth- tus connected with the targets of the fencers. Ep´
ee
er descriptive data from national publications, tech- was electrified in 1936, foil in 1956, and sabre in
nical journals, university theses and congress ab- 1988, and these modernizations made some changes
stracts and also with personal unpublished data. to fencing techniques.
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
Science of Fencing 467
Table I. Characteristics of fencing weapons and targets
Foil Ep´
ee Sabre
Mass (g) <500 <770 <500
Total length (cm) 110 110 105
Blade length (cm) 90 90 88
Shape of the blade Quadrangular Triangular Triangular
Valid targets Trunk All the body Head, trunk, upper arms, glove
How to hit the target Tip Tip Blade (cutting) and tip
Force for detecting (N) >4.90 >7.36 Only contact
Priority Yes No Yes
Nowadays, competitions are organised into pre- in men’s ´
ep´
ee, 1 :3 in men’s foil and 2 :1 in
liminary pool bouts (of 5 touches), and in direct women’s ´
ep´
ee.[7,8]
elimination bouts (of 15 touches) with a maximum In every bout there are preparatory movements
time allowed. The first fencer to score either 5 or 15 that are generally of longer duration and of submax-
touches is declared the winner. In foil and sabre, the imal intensity, followed by some very intensive
game is played by a system of priority. When two movement of shorter duration, associated with the
touches are scored at the same time, regardless of final attempt to touch the opponent (figure 1).
who is touched first, only the fencer with the priority The heart rate (HR) during a fencing bout is
scores the touch. A touch which lands on an invalid clearly intensity dependent. It was first recorded
target stops the bout, but no point is scored. telemetrically by Rittel and Waterloh[9] in 1975.
They reported that males have a lower HR than
females. During the sabre competitions, the HR is
2. Physical Demands of Fencing higher and some ectopic beats may be recorded
during the most intense phases of the bout. During
A fencing international tournament may last be- training sessions of the Italian National Team before
tween 9 and 11 hours. Bouts represent only 18% of the 1982 World Championships, it was observed
total competition time,[6] with an effective fight time that HR is dependent on the intensity of the bout and
of between 17 and 48 minutes (table II).[7] During frequently the winner has the lowest HR.[10]
a bout, the fencer covers a total distance of
250–1000 m.[8] The duration of every action may be During a women’s ´
ep´
ee competition, HR ranged
very short and intensive (<1 second), or it may last from 167 to 191 beats/min, i.e. 70% of maximal HR,
>60 seconds (submaximal performance). On aver- for about 60% of the fight duration.[11] HRs were
age, an action lasts 5 seconds in foil and 15 seconds above the anaerobic threshold for 41 ± 34% of the
in ´
ep´
ee, with a ratio for action :interruption of 1 :1 fight time.[6] In competitive bouts, the estimated
Table II. Time-motion characteristics of an international competition involving 64 fencers competing in direct elimination bouts (range)
calculated for the winner (personal unpublished data, 1998, 2007)
Women’s ´
ep´
ee Men’s ´
ep´
ee Men’s foil
Number of bouts 6 6 6
Total competition time (h) 9–11 9–11 9–11
Resting time between bouts (min) 15–300 15–300 15–300
Total bout time (min) 47–81 48–98 77–122
Effective fight time (min) 28–48 22–39 17–34
Effective interruption time (min) 19–33 26–59 60–89
Interruptions (n) 126–150 96–180 246–318
Attacks (n) 66–138 96–180 138–210
Changes of direction (n) 210–582 102–294 120–180
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
468 Roi & Bianchedi
1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles), where the
physiological synchronization of circadian rhythms
would be a predictor of good performance.[19]
Taken together, all these data emphasize the vari-
ability of the physiological response during fencing.
In fencing, the physical demand is affected by dif-
ferent factors, of which age, sex, level of training
and the technical and tactical models utilized in
relation to the adversary are of particular impor-
tance. Generally, when the technico-tactical abilities
ab
Fig. 1. The on-guarde starting position (a) and the attack (lunge; b)
in fencin
g
.of the fencer are better than those of the adversary,
the metabolic involvement is high, but always sub-
oxygen uptake averaged 39.6 mL/kg/min and 53.9 maximal.[10,13,20] With an increase of the technico-
mL/kg/min for Spanish female and male fencers, tactical involvement of both fencers, the metabolic
respectively.[6] and muscular involvement increase at the same
During a regional men’s foil competition, blood time, and the involvement of the lactic metabolism
lactate concentrations ([La]) assessed 5 minutes becomes more and more important.
after the end of the bout were between 1.4 and 3.9
mmol/L (2.5 ± 1.1 mmol/L) during the preliminary 3. Physiological Characteristics
pool bouts of the tournament, while during the direct
elimination bouts and in the finals [La] was always 3.1 Anthropometrical Characteristics
higher than 4 mmol/L, and the highest value was
found in the winner (15.3 mmol/L) at the end of the The anthropometrical characteristics of some
competition.[12] On the contrary, during training, the groups of fencers reported in literature are summa-
contribution of the lactic metabolism is almost al- rized in table III. Based on the calculation of body
ways lower than the anaerobic threshold.[13] The mass index (BMI), most of the fencers are classified
higher lactate values in competitions, compared as being of normal weight, but they show a different
with training, might also be caused by an additional percentage of body fat, as a result of different train-
adrenaline (epinephrine) stimulation of the anaerob- ing and/or testing protocols. A relative high level of
ic muscular glycolysis.[13] body fat as well as lower values of lean body mass in
During competitions, the muscular involvement female fencers may have a negative effect on per-
may be considered relevant, as pointed out by Li et formance compared with males, and may also re-
al.,[11] showing a significant increase (p < 0.05) in flect their training status.[21]
plasma creatine kinase activity in women’s ´
ep´
ee Fencers show a greater cross-sectional area
fencers the day after a competition at national level. (CSA) of the dominant forearm, arm,[21,27]
The daily energy intake of ten men’s ´
ep´
ee fencers at thigh[24,27-29] and calf,[24] which are independent of
international level (3868 ± 954 kcal) was signifi- technical level and years of training. Tsolakis et
cantly higher than that of 11 men’s foil (3176 ± 467 al.,[21] reported a low, but significant, common vari-
kcal) and 11 men’s sabre (3127 ± 640 kcal) fencers ance (R2 = 0.09–0.12) between arm asymmetries
of a similar level.[14] and years of training providing some support for a
possible influence of training on the magnitude of
There are other studies on fencing that demon-
asymmetry, but the lack of a control group makes a
strate: an increase in bone mineral density,[15] defi-
complete interpretation of this trend difficult.[21]
ciencies of water soluble B1, B2 and B3 vitamins
because of perspiration in training and competi- CT scanning showed the medial extensor mus-
tions,[16-18] and internally desynchronized circadian cles in both legs of a group of fencers had a larger
rhythms (in some French sabre fencers during the CSA than the same muscles of a control group of
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
Science of Fencing 469
Table III. Anthropometrical characteristics of fencers (mean ± SD)a
Study Age (y) Mass (kg) Height (cm) BMI (kg/m2) Fat (%) n Weapon
Tsolakis et al.[21] 11.7 ± 1.1 44.4 ± 11.3 155 ± 11 18.4 ± 3.7 25.1 ± 1.1 16 W
Tsolakis et al.[21] 11.7 ± 1.2 46.5 ± 12.1 152 ± 11 19.3 ± 3.1 22.7 ± 1.2 22 M
Tsolakis et al.[21] 15.3 ± 1.1 64.4 ± 9.1 176 ± 7 20.9 ± 2.3 18.0 ± 0.1 31 M
Tsolakis et al.[21] 15.5 ± 1.1 57.7 ± 8.5 166 ± 7 21.1 ± 2.8 26.7 ± 0.7 27 W
Rivera et al.[22] 17.4 ± 2.3 58.1 ± 4.4 160 ± 4 22.7 22.1 ± 4.7 11 W
Tsolakis et al.[21] 18.7 ± 0.9 60.0 ± 9.9 167 ± 9 21.4 ± 3.3 27.3 ± 1.7 10 W
Tsolakis et al.[21] 19.0 ± 0.8 73.7 ± 9.1 182 ± 6 22.2 ± 1.9 14.3 ± 1.4 8 M
Rivera et al.[22] 19.4 ± 4.4 69.5 ± 15.1 174 ± 5 23.0 14.1 ± 4.8 8 M
Caldarone et al.[14] 19.7 ± 1.6 71.8 ± 6.4 179 ± 6 22.4 ± 1.1 9.6 ± 1.2 10 ME
Caldarone et al.[14] 20.0 ± 2.8 76.0 ± 10.8 179 ± 7 23.6 ± 2.2 12.1 ± 3.2 11 MF
Vander et al.[23] 20.4 ± 2.0 68.0 ± 8.1 175 ± 2 22.2 ± 0.8 12.2 ± 5.1 7
Roi and Mognoni[24] 21.5 ± 3.4 71.7 ± 6.0 178 ± 4 22.6 ± 1.6 10.1 ± 2.3 33 ME
Harmenberg et al.[25] 21–30 77.0 ± 4.2 184 ± 5 22.7 ± 1.0 10 ME
Caldarone et al.[14] 22.1 ± 4.7 73.1 ± 8.1 177 ± 4 23.2 ± 1.9 12.6 ± 2.9 11 MS
Hoch et al.[13] 23.4 ± 3.5 81.9 ± 9.9 184 ± 8 24.2 ± 2.2 10
Tsolakis et al.[21] 23.4 ± 4.1 58.8 ± 8.8 166 ± 6 19.9 ± 3.3 22.1 ± 1.1 15 W
Tsolakis et al.[21] 24.4 ± 4.2 74.2 ± 6.2 180 ± 7 22.9 ± 1.3 15.3 ± 0.7 23 M
Koutedakis et al.[26] 25.6 ± 3.7 73.4 ± 3.5 181 ± 4 22.4 ± 0.9 15.3 ± 3.9 7 ME
a Note that all these data are presented mainly for descriptive reasons in the related papers.
BMI = body mass index; M = men; ME = men’s ´
ep´
ee; MF = men’s foil; MS = men’s sabre; W = women.
students and of body builders.[28] This finding re- Arm asymmetries were evident from an early age
flects the bouncing movements performed in the on- (10–13 years), while leg asymmetries were first
guard position, where the knee joint is flexed by observed in the 14- to 17-year-old group.[21]
20–30°, a technique which is popular in modern The somatotype assessed according to the Heath-
fencing.[28] Carter method[31] in the fencers participating in the
The differences of fat-free CSA of the dominant 2004 Greek championships, was characterized as a
and non-dominant forearm are always significant central type for men (n = 84, mean endomorphy 3.1,
(table IV) and female fencers show significantly mesomorphy 2.6, ectomorphy 3.2) and as endo-
smaller CSA than males.[30] ectomorph for women (n = 68, mean endomorphy
Similar asymmetries may be found for the arm 3.8, mesomorphy 1.8, ectomorphy 3.3).[21] Male
(men’s foil –9%; women’s foil –8%; men’s ´
ep´
ee fencers showed a significant decrease in endomor-
–8%; women’s ´
ep´
ee –10%), the thigh (men’s foil phy between 10 and 13 years and in subsequent age
–11%; women’s foil –13%; men’s ´
ep´
ee –9%; groups, accompanied by relative stability of meso-
women’s ´
ep´
ee –8%) and the calf (men’s ´
ep´
ee morphy and ectomorphy across all age groups. For
+2%).[30] female fencers, the somatotype components were
Table IV. Fat-free cross-sectional area of dominant and non-dominant forearm of fencers
Dominant (cm2) [mean ± SD] Non-dominant (cm2) [mean ± SD] Difference (%)
Men’s foil 53.9 ± 4.8 47.6 ± 4.3 –12*
Women’s foil 37.7 ± 3.6 33.6 ± 4.0 –11*
Men’s ´
ep´
ee 58.3 ± 3.9 51.8 ± 3.5 –12*
Women’s ´
ep´
ee 36.6 ± 2.0 32.2 ± 2.5 –10*
* p < 0.05.
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
470 Roi & Bianchedi
not different between 10 year-olds and those over 20 where the muscular activity of both limbs has been
years.[21] shown to be similar.[28]
Taken together, the anthropometrical characteris- The handgrip strength asymmetries are the result
tics of fencers show a typical asymmetry of the of asymmetric sport training at sub-maximal intensi-
limbs as a result of the practise of an asymmetrical ties. Despite this, the force/CSA ratio (namely
sporting activity, but they do not seem to reveal an stress) of fencers assessed by handgrip does not
a priori predisposal to success. Although some mor- show any significant difference between the two
phological factors may play a role in fencing suc- limbs and between fencers and controls, suggesting
cess, their influence is small when physiological and that stress is independent of years of training and it
tactical factors are accounted for.[32] is a physiological characteristic of human skeletal
muscle (table V).[27]
The fairly new field of kinanthropometry ex-
plores the relationships between sports performance 3.3 Dynamic Strength and Anaerobic Power
and the length ratio of the second digit (2D, index
finger) to the fourth digit (4D, ring finger).[33] The Isokinetic assessment of maximal peak torque
2D :4D ratio is considered a promising biomarker (MPT) of the knee showed a significant difference
for the magnitude of prenatal androgen exposure, between the forward and the backward leg. Both
with effects on the structure and function of the body knee extensors and flexors MPT of the forward limb
and the morphology and the neural organization of were significantly higher at 60° and 180° per
the brain.[34] For male fencers, the directional asym- second,[24,28,36] while at lower (30° per second) or
metry in digit ratios (i.e. right minus left 2D :4D), higher (300° per second) angular speeds the differ-
was found to be inversely related to national rank- ences were not always significant. These findings
ings, and this effect was independent of training are contradicted by Koutedakis et al.,[26] who report-
intensity and fencing experience.[35]
ed a lack of statistical differences of MPT between
limbs, and stated that their results may be explained
3.2 Static Strength by differences in performance levels of their British
sword fencers, and also with differences in test
Several authors[8,27,28] reported significantly
protocols.
stronger isometric handgrip strength in the weapon
hand of about 10%, but endurance strength did not Functional differences were emphasized consid-
differ significantly.[28] On the contrary, the maximal ering that the forward knee extensor muscles pro-
isometric finger strength was not significantly dif- duce an eccentric action in every lunge for deceler-
ferent between the two hands.[28] Also, the maximal ating the body, while the muscles of the rear limb
isometric strength of the knee extensors at fixed have a more powerful concentric action.[24] A signif-
angles of 30°, 60° and 90° did not show any signif- icant difference was also reported between the elec-
icant difference between limbs. This is probably tromyographic (EMG) activity of the forward quad-
dependent on the on-guard position of the fencers, riceps that was more static, while the EMG activity
Table V. Force and anatomical cross-sectional area (CSA) of the forearm in fencers of different technical levels and in control subjects[27]
Subjects (n) Dominant Non-dominant Difference (%)
CSA (cm2) Fencers (58) 51.7 ± 8.2 45.8 ± 7.8*** –11
Controls (17) 47.3 ± 2.7* 45.3 ± 3.5** –4
Force (N) Fencers (58) 502 ± 126 449 ± 115*** –11
Controls (17) 469 ± 45* 444 ± 54*** –5
Stress (N/cm2) Fencers (58) 9.6 ± 1.6 9.8 ± 1.7 +2
Controls (17) 9.9 ± 0.7 9.8 ± 1.0 –1
* Significant difference between fencers and controls (p < 0.001); *** significant difference between non-dominant and dominant limb (p <
0.001; ** p < 0.005).
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
Science of Fencing 471
of the backward quadriceps was faster.[37] Peak tor- CSA and jumping performances were absent over a
training period of 120 days.[29]
ques of both knee extensors and flexors were signifi-
cantly lower during the in-season than the off-sea- The symmetric tests are not sufficiently specific
son assessments,[26] probably as a consequence of for an asymmetric sport. Indeed, the segmentary
different training programmes during the season. strength assessment carried out with the isokinetic
dynamometer, and with EMG measurements, evi-
The long-term effect of a combined physical denced functional asymmetries that are in relation to
conditioning and fencing training programme was typical anthropometrical asymmetries. On the other
studied in nine members of the Greek Olympic team hand, the data collected in the field through asym-
over a period of three mesocycles (120 days).[29] The metric tests specific for fencing indicate that the
performances in the squatting and countermovement velocity of a technical gesture (forward cross, step,
jumps increased non-significantly at the end of the lunge) is a crucial characteristic of high-level fenc-
first mesocycle (pre-competitive training phase), ers[25,39] that tends to constantly increase throughout
while the contact time in the drop jump significantly a training cycle over a number of years.[40]
decreased by about 30% (p < 0.05), without signif-
icant changes in the jump height. The exercise- 3.4 Muscular Biopsies
related gains were maintained after 20 days of re-
duced volume that followed the pre-competitive Muscular biopsy specimens were taken from the
training phase, and in the third mesocycle (mainten- quadriceps of both legs of four ´
ep´
ee fencers. The
ance period). The authors concluded that the appli- percentage of type I fibres was 56 ± 12 in forward
cation of a training period repeated twice (lasting 40 and 48 ± 12 in the backward legs with differences
days each) of different strength training methods between +31% and –13% in the percentage of type I
combined with a typical fencing training pro- fibres between limbs.[28]
gramme, followed by 40 days of maintenance period
3.5 Aerobic Power
was useful for influencing the neuromuscular per-
formance of elite fencers.[29] A moderate aerobic power is necessary to sup-
In a group of eight prepubescent males with a port the sub-maximal changes of direction of the
fencing training background of 1 year, a successive fencer to achieve the control of the game and to
fencing training programme of one more year was refuel the anaerobic mechanisms during the repeat-
inadequate to alter the normal growth process, as- ed interruptions occurring through the fencing
sessed by variations in serum testosterone, sex hor- bouts.
mone binding globulin, growth hormone and lep- The data of maximum oxygen uptake of fencers
tin.[38] As a consequence, the changes in arm CSA, (˙
VO2max) [table VI] show greater values than those
handgrip strength and vertical jump performance reported for sedentary subjects, but are always
were not significantly different from those of an meaningfully lower than those of subjects practising
age-matched control group.[38] endurance activities. Only Nystr¨
om et al.[28] reported
very high values of ˙
VO2max compared with the other
Maximal anaerobic alactic power (W) was stud-
data in the literature, but such differences can be due
ied by jumping on a force platform. In a sample of
to various methods of training and do not seem to be
11 top level ´
ep´
ee fencers, W was 56.0 ± 6.6 W/kg,
strongly related to the level of performance.
with insignificant differences between control sub-
jects and different levels of fencers.[24] A 20-second Indeed, there are no studies yet conceived for
Wingate-type test performed by British ´
ep´
ee fencers assessing the relationship between ˙
VO2max and
of international level showed a peak power of 809 ±level of fencing performance, and the conclusions of
38 W, which was not significantly higher during the the published studies are contrasting: in one of our
in-season compared with the off-season.[36] Even the papers we have not found meaningful differences of
correlations between dominant/non-dominant leg ˙
VO2max between the four categories of Italian ´
ep´
ee
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
472 Roi & Bianchedi
Table VI. Maximal oxygen uptake of fencers
Study ˙
VO2max n Country Gender and weapon
(mL/kg/min) [mean ± SD]
Nystr¨
om et al.[28] 67.3 ± 3.7 6 Sweden Men’s ´
ep´
ee
Astrand and Rodhal[41] 61.0 NS Sweden NS
Daya et al.[5] 59.3 ± 2.0 9 Ireland NS
Lavoie et al.[8] 59.0 ± 5.0 5 Canada Men’s ´
ep´
ee international level
Iglesias and Reig[6] 58.4 ± 5.3 NS Spain NS
Rivera et al.[22] 58.2 ± 6.3 8 Puerto Rico Men, weapon NS
Koutedakis et al.[26] 58.0 ± 2.6 7 UK Men’s ´
ep´
ee international level
Iglesias and Reig[6] 56.5 28 Spain Men, weapon NS
Stewart et al.[32] 55.5 14 USA Male college, weapon NS
Lavoie et al.[8] 54.0 ± 5.0 11 Canada Men’s ´
ep´
ee provincial level
Vander et al.[23] 50.2 ± 5.3 7 USA Men’s ´
ep´
ee NCAA
Roi and Mognoni[24] 48.8 ± 4.0 10 Italy Men’s ´
ep´
ee
Di Prampero et al.[42] 47.3 ± 2.5 11 Different NS
Macarez[43] 46.3 ± 0.9 3 France Young women, weapon NS
Rivera et al.[22] 45.7 ± 6.2 11 Puerto Rico Women, weapon NS
Macarez[43] 40.1 ± 2.3 7 France Young men, weapon NS
Vander et al.[23] 34.2 ± 2.6 7 USA Men’s ´
ep´
ee NCAAa
a Upper limbs assessment.
NCAA = National Collegiate Athletic Association; NS = not stated; ˙
VO2max = maximum oxygen uptake/consumption.
fencers,[24] while Stewart et al.[32] found a significant 4. Psychological Characteristics
correlation of fencing scores to ˙
VO2max and Lavoie The personality traits of 30 national-level
et al.[8] found significant differences between fenc- women’s foil fencers were investigated by Williams
ers of international and provincial levels. et al.[46] These fencers were ambitious, had a desire
The absence of the important role of ˙
VO2max in to succeed, scored highly on abstract thinking, were
fencing performance would be confirmed by the imaginative and creative. They were fast learners,
absence of a resting bradycardia that is a typical independent, had a below-average desire to affiliate,
adaptation to chronic endurance exercise. were loners, not followers, were aggressive, had a
In 25 Iranian junior fencers (18.2 ± 1.4 years) the low desire to lead or dominate, but were dominant in
inter-ventricular septum was thicker than in controls personality. The fencers showed average scores on
(9.55 vs 7.55 mm; p < 0.05), but there were no stability and anxiety, were reserved rather than out-
differences in left ventricular end diastolic and end going, and had a low desire to need or be needed.
systolic diameter.[44] In contrast, elite modern The main difference between high- and low-level
pentathletes demonstrated significantly increased competitors was in the area of dominance.
left ventricular wall thickness (p < 0.05) with an The influence of the emotional strain was evalu-
insignificant increase in left ventricular internal di- ated by Hoch et al.,[13] who considered the ratio
ameter compared with controls.[45] Besides the com- between noradrenaline (norepinephrine) and adren-
pletely different aerobic adaptations, these athletes aline as indicative of the proportion of physical to
experience a reduced endurance component in com- psychical strain. In the course of the training fights
parison to triathletes, combined with a high isomet- the physical effort was dominant, whereas an addi-
ric component associated with fencing during the tional strain exists during national championships,
basic on-guard position, but this endurance compo- where victory or defeat is essential and where adren-
nent is always lower in individuals who practise aline increased by 525%. Higher cortisol and renin
fencing only. levels were explained by the strong central stimula-
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
Science of Fencing 473
tion and the direct peripheral effect of adrenaline, of the winners was lower in 2006 than in 1982.
respectively. The correlations between systolic Further studies are necessary for a better under-
blood pressure and catecholamines attained statisti- standing of the relationship between age and fencing
cal significance only during competition. success.
5. Acquisition of Fencing Skills 5.2 Left-Handedness
Left-handers are a minority of the population and
5.1 Age they are accustomed to right-handed opponents, so
they have a strategic advantage over right-handers.
In a study of 58 Italian fencers of international
As a consequence, left-handers appear to have ad-
level, the mean age of taking up the sport was 8.4 ±vantages in certain sports, including fencing, and so
0.9 years (personal unpublished data). Caldarone
these sports display a disproportionate number of
and Berlutti[47] observed that the neuro-motor learn-
left-handers relative to their incidence in the general
ing capacities are maximal between 6 and 12 years:
population, especially for elite performance.[35] For
at this age a good technical execution of the gesture
instance, among the 32 finalists of the World Cham-
can be rapidly acquired and the coordinative capaci-
pionships, 13 (41%) were left-handers in 1981[49]
ties and the tactico-strategic competence finds a
and 14 (44%) in 1982,[50] and among the 24 medal-
fertile training ground in young people of prepubert-
lists of the 2006 World Championships, 12 were
al age. The young beginners enter their first compe-
left-handers (50%), but there was only one left-
titions when they are around 10 years old, then may
hander (17%) among the six winners.
extend their participation until reaching the Master
categories (>60 years). Left-handed fencers are known to be highly
skilled, but is this due to some disorientation of
The mean age of the fencers of the Italian Nation-
right-handed people facing a left-handed opponent,
al Team participating in the Olympic Games in
or are there some differences in competence? To
Sydney (2000) was 29.1 ± 4.6 years. Colombo and
answer this question, Bisiacchi et al.[51] constructed
De Ambroggi[48] found that the 415 participants of
an attentional task for 24 skilled fencers, and found
the 1982 World Championships had a mean age of
that an advantage for the left hand in the left-handed
24.9 ± 4.7 years (table VII) with no significant age
fencers was found only for the unattended situation.
differences between fencers practising different
This advantage was related to some anatomical evi-
weapons. A similar trend was observed for the 2006
dence of right-hemispheric control of attention.
World Championships, except for women’s sabre,
where the fencers were significantly younger (p < Therefore, left-handedness involves a neuro-
0.001) because women’s sabre is a fairly new disci- functional advantage, but it does not seem to be a
pline, introduced only in 1989. Also, the mean age determining factor for actual top level performance
Table VII. Mean ± SD ages (years) of the participants in the World Championships (WC) of 1982 (Rome, 415 participants, without women’s
´
ep´
ee and sabre)[48] and 2006 (Turin, 716 participants)
WC Rome 1982 WC Turin 2006
All the participants 24.9 ± 4.7 25.6 ± 5.1*
Men’s foil (8 finalists) 25.3 ± 4.1 24.1 ± 2.7
Women’s foil (8 finalists) 25.5 ± 3.5 27.5 ± 5.3
Men’s ´
ep´
ee (8 finalists) 28.5 ± 3.0 27.7 ± 6.8
Women’s ´
ep´
ee (8 finalists) 26.8 ± 5.8
Men’s sabre (8 finalists) 28.1 ± 5.4 27.5 ± 3.4
Women’s sabre (8 finalists) 20.7 ± 3.1*
Winners 30.7 ± 2.1 27.0 ± 6.9
* p < 0.001
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
474 Roi & Bianchedi
in fencing. In fact, although left-handed fencers An experiment with several different handle an-
have some strategic advantage at a low level, at a gles was conducted to analyse the effect on perform-
high level, left-handed fencers appeared not to have ance.[55] The optimal handle angle of the fencing foil
strategic advantages.[38] Thus, left-handed fencers to provide the best overall performance and avoid
may be advantaged within lower ranking levels wrist injury was found to be between 18 and 21°. A
where technique, considered as velocity of execu- kinematics and dynamic simulation programme was
tion, is more important than tactical aspects. constructed to analyse actual movements and to
simulate the effect of variation in fencing style.[56]
Generally, the phenomenon of asymmetry and Five right-handed male fencers of different levels of
laterality in fencing needs future multidimensional skill were examined. The results of the study show-
experimental procedures, as the dominancy in fenc- ed that the potential energy was monotonic for the
ing research determined only from the armed hand more skilled fencers, while a maximum was present
and not from other specific neurophysiological tests in the less skilled, suggesting a link between coordi-
may produce contradictive results. nation and technique. Furthermore, the skilled ath-
letes required less power to hit the target and were
5.3 Technique faster when hitting the target.
Finally, from analysing speed peaks, trunk and
In fencing, the relationships between the per- front leg angles, it was found that skilled sabre
formance or the skill and the physical and physio- fencers are capable of performing in a reproducible
logical characteristics are difficult to assess. Not- manner a complex movement which belongs to their
withstanding this, the analysis of different fencing specific repertory.[57]
styles can discriminate between advanced and nov-
ice fencers. For instance, skilled fencers initiate a 5.4 Perceptual and
lunge by an extension of the arm rather than with a Psychomotor Characteristics
movement of the foot and they hit the target before
the lead foot strikes the floor.[52] Different styles Fencing coaches frequently affirm that the most
result in different technical solutions, that involve important characteristic of fencers is perhaps the
different velocity, acceleration, forces, powers and quickness of their movements in response to the
internal and external work, therefore different ener- opponent’s actions. Before the start of his or her
gy expenditure. These technical aspects were stud- action, a fencer must analyse and select the visual
ied by biomechanical analysis. information provided by the opponent. After record-
ing the eye movements, and considering the number
One of the first studies in this field[53] demonstra- of fixations for every site and their mean duration,
ted that fencers were able to reach the target fastest Bard et al.[58] demonstrated that: (i) fencing masters
from a deep on-guard starting position. The lunge and experts have shorter fixation times than begin-
speed was inversely related to the vertical impulse ners; (ii) all subjects have shorter fixation times
originated by the rear leg and directly proportional during the assaults than during the practice with
to the horizontal impulse, indicating that drive of the masters; (iii) for all the fencers, the hand guard is the
rear leg is a major factor in developing speed and most informative element; and (iv) most ocular
power in the lunge, contributing to success in fenc- movements take place between neighbouring ele-
ing attacks (lunge and fl`
eche).[52] Cronin et al.[54]
ments.
showed that time to peak force was the best single
predictor of lunge performance, and concluded that Once the fencer has clarified from where the
one strength measure cannot accurately explain information must be taken, it is important to react
functional performance because other factors, such readily, and for this, good coordination is required to
as body mass, flexibility and leg length, have di- achieve both speed and accuracy. The reaction times
verse effects on the adopted statistical models. of fencers in performances requiring simple and
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
Science of Fencing 475
complex responses were the subject of several stud- factor in determining a successful performance is
ies.[59-61] These studies pointed out that with the the reaction time in response to a specific stimulus.
increase in the difficulty in recognizing a stimulus Harmenberg et al.[25] proposed a test designed to
and choosing the best response, both the nervous mimic real competitive fencing where the fencer
and the motor reaction times increase. Pierson,[59] as was moving backwards keeping the natural fencing
early as 1956, assumed that reaction time rather than distance and the forward motion was initiated by the
movement time would be a discriminating factor for extension of the forward arm of the master. In this
fencers. Furthermore, fencers were faster than non- test, where the stimulus was constant and pre-deter-
fencers in movements of the upper limbs[59] and mined, world-class fencers (including a Swedish
fencers who had greatest success during the compet- Olympic medallist) could be differentiated from be-
itive season showed the greatest power during visual ginners and there was correlation between reaction
rather than auditory conditions.[52] However, it is time (but not the movement time) and success with-
fairly difficult to find meaningful differences be- in the group of top fencers.
tween fencers of various ranking levels when the In fencing, the distance between opponents is
tests that are utilized are not specific or start from a very close and the crucial problem to solve for
stationary position. hitting a score is to surprise the opponent with an
More recently, Williams and Walmsley[62] intro- unexpected movement. So in all the combat sports,
duced recordings of EMG activity during measure- athletes are trained for deception (feints) and also
ment of response times. They affirm that with this for preventing deception (tactics).[66] This intriguing
method it is possible to study the differences in aspect is the topic of most discussions between
technical skills of fencers. They suggest that differ- fencers and trainers, but is very rarely studied from a
ent movement contexts can lead to different levels scientific point of view. In a time-motion analysis of
of coordination between the system controlling pos- 42 women’s sword fencers involved in 21 fights
ture and that controlling movement. In fact, elite during competitions,[7] a significantly higher num-
fencers showed more coherent muscle synergies and ber of changes of direction (forward-backward and
more consistent pattern of muscle coordination than vice versa) was found in each match between fenc-
novice subjects.[63] ers of high technical ability than in matches between
Do and You[64] examined whether the maximal those with low technical level (133 ± 62 vs 85 ± 25,
speed of the foil is affected by anticipatory postural p < 0.025). This finding was claimed to be indicative
adjustments (APAs) preceding a voluntary lunge. of the different tactical levels of the two groups.
They found that the maximal foil velocity decreases Di Russo et al.[67] recorded the event-related po-
with the temporal progression of the APAs and tentials in simple and discriminative reaction tasks
reaches its minimal value when initiated at the time to visual stimuli of 12 fencers with at least 4 years of
of voluntary lunge execution. The centrally pro- international championships experience. They
grammed APAs elicited in the stepping forward found that the ability of the fencers to cope with the
movement induce a refractory period that affects opponent’s feint is due to switching quickly from an
performance of the pointing task. The negative ef- intended action to a new, more appropriate action.
fect on performance of the refractory period may be This is likely due to a faster stimulus discrimination
inhibited with the intensive practice of fencing.[65] facilitated by higher attention and a stronger inhibi-
tion activity in the prefrontal cortex.
5.5 Tactics The above cited studies on technical and tactical
Although movement speed is important, a key skill of fencers indicate that there is an evident
factor is the ability of the fencer to recognize the increased interest in the complex interactions be-
best time for starting an attack in response to the tween stimuli and responses involving multiple
opponent’s actions.[64] In other words, an important perceptual and motor processing stages, and also
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
476 Roi & Bianchedi
cognitive aspects (for instance, timing, sense of dis- during 1 year of fencing training and competitions at
tance, balance and mental readiness against sur- a large university for 18 males (27.8 per 100 partici-
prise). Further studies are needed to better under- pants) and 6 females (50.0 per 100 participants) that
stand fencing from this neuro-psycho-physiological is 0.10 and 0.18 injuries per 100 person-hours of
point of view. exposure, respectively.
6. Injuries 6.2 Specific Injury Sites
The reports of fencing injuries are very scarce in In four studies, the lower extremity was the most
the literature and epidemiological large-scale and frequent location for fencing injuries (table VIII),
prospective studies are lacking. As a consequence, it followed by the upper extremity. Ligament sprains
is difficult to draw a reliable panorama of fencing and muscle strains are the predominant injuries.[73]
injures and their prevention based on objective data. Tendon ruptures were also reported: tibialis anterior
The most comprehensive review was published by in a veteran fencer,[74] and the Achilles tendon of
Zemper and Harmer in 1996.[68] one of the authors of the present paper (DB, during
the Olympic Games in Atlanta, 1996). The frequen-
6.1 Epidemiology cy of these injuries is unknown, but they need surgi-
cal treatment and may keep the fencer out of training
The definition of injury is one of the most debat- and competitions for many months.
ed arguments in epidemiology. In fencing studies,
an ‘injury’ was considered as a request for medical
6.3 Mechanisms of Injury
attention related to injury, and the exposure was
calculated from the number of fights during compe-
titions. The injuries caused by the opponent’s weapon
(wounds and bruises) are reported to be 48% of
The injury rate during 47 regional competitions,
those in regional competitions,[69] 55% in the youth
involving 1365 fencers, was 3.7 per 100 male par-
categories[78] and 66% during Junior International
ticipants and 5.6 per 100 female participants, mean-
Championships.[70,71] Anecdotal reports of wounds
ing an athlete exposure of 3.7 per 1000 and 5.5 per
due to broken weapons are recorded for sabre, which
1000, respectively.[69] Slightly higher injury rates
is the weapon with the thinner blade, affecting the
were found for national and international competi-
dominant hand and the carotid area of the neck.[70]
tions (11.7 per 100 male participants; 7.8 per 100
female participants; 7.7 per 1000 and 5.1 per 1000 Contusions accounted for at least one-quarter of
athlete exposure, respectively) involving 1030 fenc- all recorded injuries, but non-contact injuries, such
ers.[68] During a Junior International Championship as ligament sprains and muscle strains are the pre-
involving 205 athletes, an injury rate of 21.5 per 100 dominant types of injury.[68] Heat illness and heat
participants, or 51.8 per 1000 exposures, was ob- exhaustion caused by the protective gear, especially
served.[70,71] Lanese et al.[72] reported the injury rate in hot environments, are also reported.[69,76]
Table VIII. Location and frequency of fencing injuries
Participants Injuries Head Spine/trunk Upper Lower Other
(n) (n) extremity extremity
Roi and Fasc`
i[69] 1365 58 10.3 3.4 55.2 27.6 3.4
Muller-Strum and Biener[75] 105 148 2.0 23.0 20.0 55.0 0.0
Moyer and Konin[76] NS 322 5.9 9.0 32.9 40.7 1.6
Carter et al.[77] 1603 842 0.6 13.8 30.4 54.6 0.6
Zemper and Harmer[68] 1031 107 2.8 9.3 41.1 46.7 0.0
NS = not stated.
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
Science of Fencing 477
From the 1992 United States Fencing Associa- is needed to determine if modifying one or more of
tion survey,[77] the factors contributing to fencing these factors would decrease the risk of fatal injury.
injuries were divided into four categories: (i) per-
sonal (48%; mainly inadequate warm-up; poor tech- 6.6 Prevention
nique, fatigue); (ii) equipment and facilities (28%; Fencing is characterized by a real risk of numer-
mainly fencing strip, shoes); (iii) behaviour of ous minor injuries that may be preventable. After the
others (13%; mainly dangerous tactics by oppo- fatal injury occurred to the famous Soviet foilist
nent); (iv) no identifiable contributing factors Vladimir Smirnov during the 1982 World Champi-
(11%). onship in Rome, where the opponent’s broken blade
pierced the mask, the safety standard for blades,
6.4 Severity of the Injuries
masks and clothing were improved, and nowadays
Most of the injuries can be managed with RICE they must be certified by the Federation Internatio-
(rest, ice, compression, elevation), and rarely are nale Escrime (FIE). The protective clothing is made
fencers unable to complete the competition (about of tough cotton or nylon, with Kevlar fibres. For
5% withdraw from the tournaments).[68,69] The time national and international competitions, dress and
loss rate from injury was calculated to be 0.33 per plastrons must resist a force of 800 N and mask bib
100 participants and 0.27 per 1000 athlete expo- to 1600 N. Blades must be made with Maraging
sure.[68] steel. Fencers’ equipment is controlled and must be
The most dangerous injuries are those caused by approved by the equipment control before the start
the sharp end of a broken weapon. These injuries are of every competition. Because penetration by a bro-
defined as rare,[70] although the rate we calculated ken blade is the most likely cause of serious fencing
was 0.6 per 100 male participants (0.2 per 1000 injury, it is mandatory for every fencer to reduce the
exposures) and may account for at least 10% of the risk of blade breakage by checking their weapons
injuries.[68] In most cases these injuries do not pre- regularly in the course of training and competitions
clude the participation to the competition. Unfortu- and to discard soft and severely bent blades.
nately there are no data on the severity of injuries It is necessary to remember that penetrating inju-
during practice and training. ries into the orbital region may also be caused by
unbroken blades, when the fencers practice without
6.5 Fatal Injuries the protective mask. Calvo-Rubal et al.[79] published
a very unusual report of this kind of injury that
Penetrating injuries are rarely fatal. From 1930 to
occurred to a fencing instructor. The tip of the foil
1980 only three deaths occurred, but there were four
penetrated into the skull without eye lesions, but
deaths from 1980 to 1994.[68] From 1994 to 2006
with delayed development of an intracranial
there were another four deaths (two during training
haematoma requiring surgical evacuation, after
and two during competitions), suggesting a probable
which the fencer had a full functional recovery
increase of the risk of fatal injury (Harmer, 2006
within 2 months.
unpublished data) that needs further investigation.
Most of the fatal injuries have occurred in highly Considering all the abovementioned observa-
skilled competitors during elite competition. Blade tions, the suggestions for injury prevention in fenc-
breakage and force of penetration may contribute ing fall into three primary areas (table IX):[68] (i) ac-
either singly or in combination with other factors, tions that can be taken by participants; (ii) improve-
such as a right-handed fencer opposing a left-handed ments in equipment and facilities; and
fencer, the use of orthopaedic grips, and the propen- (iii) administration of fencing competitions. More
sity to make counterattacks. Each of these character- detailed suggestions for injury prevention in fencing
istics was present in a majority of the fatalities, are available from the website www.britishfenc-
although in different combinations. Further research ing.com.[80] In this document, prevention is accom-
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
478 Roi & Bianchedi
educational measures. These interventions need to
be closely integrated with the planning of the sports
activity itself, going from injury prevention to safety
promotion.[84]
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
The scientific literature on fencing is not partic-
ularly abundant, but is sufficient to contribute to our
understanding of the many aspects of this ancient
sport.
Fencing is an asymmetric combat sport that pro-
duces typical anthropometrical and functional asym-
metries that emphasize the very high level of specif-
ic function, strength and control required.
The physical demands of fencing are closely
linked to the perceptual and psychological ones, and
Table IX. The three primary areas for injury prevention in fencing
Participants
Warming up
Stretching
Physical conditioning[81,82]
Technique
Mental training
Equipment and facilities
Cushioning of the surfaces
Anti-slipping and cleaned surfaces
Height and width of strips
Strips firmly anchored
Avoid any potential hazard including officials
Fencing shoes
Quality of the blades
Clothing
Administration of competitions
Minimum standard for fencing strips
Rules against dangerous, overly aggressive and inappropriate
conduct or tactics
Prevent HIV and hepatitis B virus infections
Medical coverage
all are subjected to a continuous succession of
changes during the fights based on the behaviour of
plished mainly against traumatic injuries caused by
the opponent. For this reason, it is difficult to identi-
the opponent’s weapon and it is underlined that for
fy a significant relationship between a single physio-
effective prevention of these kind of injuries, fenc-
logical characteristic and performance. On the other
ers should apply the guidelines, children must be
hand, performance is more likely to be linked with
protected by adult fencers, coaches or officials,
perceptual and neuro-physiological characteristics.
coaches have the responsibility for safety during
In fact, the particular stimulus-response situation in
training and referees are the guardians of safety in
fencing is enriched by the need to anticipate the
competitions.
opponent and to mask the true intention with a thin
It is interesting to note that nearly half of the game of feints and counter-feints that must be sup-
factors contributing to the fencing injuries were ported by an adequate psycho-physical condition to
personal (intrinsic) factors under direct control of prevent central and peripheral fatigue.
the fencer, therefore implying that these injuries are Therefore, the study of the tactical aspects of
preventable.[68] These factors are: inadequate warm- fencing has become more and more vital, and the
up, poor fencing technique, dangerous tactics, lack multi-dimensional model of performance must in-
of adequate general conditioning, fatigue, overtrain- clude the opponent, who is a rather dominant ‘signal
ing and repetitive movements leading to overuse provider’, and must be considered in a dynamic
injuries. way. Further studies are necessary for a better un-
Especially because fencing is an asymmetrical derstanding of this fundamental aspect of all the
sport, overuse injuries are more common in the open skilled sports, but this will necessarily involve
shoulder, the back and the pelvic girdle, so it is many investigators with various competences, as
necessary that primary and secondary prevention be performance in fencing is evidently a multivariate
integrated into the daily training schedule of fenc- psychobiological phenomenon. Moreover, it is im-
ers.[83] portant to find the indicators of tactical abilities,
As a consequence, successful prevention must which must be easily measurable so that information
involve several steps and several people who carry can be supplied for training and performance im-
out specific interventions in terms of structural and provements.
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
Science of Fencing 479
12. Cerizza C, Roi GS. Aspetti fisiologici dell’attivit`
a sportiva di
Fencing as a sport is not particularly dangerous; base, le caratteristiche fondamentali del giovane schermidore.
however, there is a fine line between a fatal lesion In: Lodetti G, Ravasini C, editors. Sport & educazione gi-
ovanile. Milan: Ghedini Editore, 1994: 89-96
and a simple wound from a broken blade. Regarding 13. Hoch F, Werle E, Weicker H. Sympathoadrenergic regulation in
the epidemiology, it is necessary to find agreement elite fencers in training and competition. Int J Sports Med
on the definition of injury, considering not only the 1988; 9: 141-5
14. Caldarone G, Pelliccia A, Gambuli N, et al. Valori antro-
type, but also the consequences in terms of duration pometrici, abitudini alimentari e parametri ematochimico in un
of absence from training and competitions. More- gruppo di schermidori di elevato livello agonistico. In: Studi e
over, more prospective studies are necessary for ricerche di medicina dello sport applicata alla scherma. Pisa:
Giardini Editore, 1983: 51-63
broadening the proposed multi-dimensional model 15. Falsenberg D, Gowin W. Bone densitometry: application in
of fencing, with a more precise computation of sports-medicine. Eur J Radiol 1998; 28: 150-4
training time leading to precise information on the 16. Van Dam B, Waterloh E. Die wirkung eines multi-vitami-
elektrolyt-pr¨
aparats auf einige biocheische variablen sowie auf
incidence of injuries, pathologies and re-injuries. As leistungsbeeinflussende faktoren im fechten. Leistungssport
in every other sport, the prevention of accidents in 1979; 9: 110-5
fencing must be accomplished at various levels and 17. Van Dam B, Haralambie G. Die ¨
anderungen einiger biochemis-
cher parameter durch sportartspezifische belastungen im fecht-
above all must involve the institutions that are re- sport. Leistungssport 1977; 7: 285-92
sponsible for safety in sports. 18. Van Dam B. Vitamins and sport. Br J Sports Med 1978; 12: 74-7
19. Reinberg A, Proux S, Bartal JP, et al. Circadian rhythms in
competitive saber fencers: internal desynchronization and per-
Acknowledgements formance. Chronobiol Int 1985; 2: 195-201
20. Roi GS, Toran G, Fiore A, et al. Zur entwicklung eines leistung-
No sources of funding were used to assist in the prepara- smodells im spitzensport am beispiel fechten. Leistungssport
tion of this review. The authors have no conflicts of interest 2002; 4: 57-62
that are directly relevant to the content of this review. 21. Tsolakis CH, Bogdanis GC, Vagenas G. Anthropometric profile
and limb asymmetries in young male and female fencers. J
Hum Mov Stud 2006; 50: 201-16
22. Rivera MA, Rivera-Brown AM, Frontera WR. Health related
References physical fitness characteristics of elite Puerto Rican athletes. J
1. Porzio L, Mele G. Arte gladiatoria dimicandi. 15th century Strength Cond Res 1998; 12: 199-203
swordsmanship of master Filippo Vadi. Highland Village, 23. Vander L, Barry F, Wrisley D, et al. Physiological profile of
(TX): Chivalry Bookshelf, 2002 national-class national collegiate athletic association fencers.
2. Labat. L’art en fait d’armes. Toulouse, 1696 JAMA 1984; 252: 500-3
3. Agrippa C. Trattato di scienza d’arme. Et un dialogo in detta
materia. Venice, 1604 24. Roi GS, Mognoni P. Lo spadista modello. SdS 1987; 9: 51-7
4. Waterloh E, Hollman W, Rittel HL, et al. Die bedeutung der 25. Harmenberg J, Ceci R, Barvestad P, et al. Comparison of
schutzkleidung bei spitzenfechtern f¨
ur temperaturregulation different tests of fencing performance. Int J Sports Med 1991;
und kardiopulmonale leistungsf¨
ahigkeit. Mediziner Welt 12: 573-6
1968; 40: 2174-85 26. Koutedakis Y, Ridgeon A, Sharp NCC, et al. Seasonal variation
5. Daya A, Donne B, O’Brien M. Newly designed fencing face of selected performance parameters in ´
ep´
ee fencers. Br J
mask: effects on cardiorespiratory costs and sub-maximal per- Sports Med 1993; 27: 171-4
formance. Br J Sports Med 2006; 40: 6 27. Margonato V, Roi GS, Cerizza C, et al. Maximal isometric force
6. Iglesias Y, Reig X. Valoraci ´
o funcional espec´
ifica en l’esgrima and muscle cross-sectional area of the forearm in fencers. J
[dissertation]. Barcelona: University of Barcelona, 1998 Sports Sci 1994; 12: 567-72
7. Roi GS, Pittaluga I. Time-motion analysis in women’s sword 28. Nystr ¨
om J, Lindvall O, Ceci R, et al. Physiological and morpho-
fencing. Proceedings of the Fourth IOC Congress on Sport logical characteristics of world class fencers. Int J Sports Med
Sciences; 1997 Oct 22-25; Monaco: 66 1990; 11: 136-9
8. Lavoie JM, Leger L, Pitre R, et al. Comp`
etitions d’escrime: 29. Tsolakis CH, Katsikas CH. Long term effects of a combined
ep´
ee. Analyse des dur´
ees et distances de d´
eplacement. Med du physical conditioning and fencing training program on neuro-
Sport 1985; 59: 279-83 muscular performance in elite fencers. Int J Fitness 2006; 2 (1):
9. Rittel HF, Waterloh E. Telemetrische Untersuchungen beim 35-42
Fechttraining. Leistungssport 1975; 5: S116-21 30. Roi GS. Caratteristiche fisiologiche dello schermidore. In: Roi
10. Sardella F. Risultanze delle ricerche effettuate su schermidori GS, Toran G, Maserati A, et al., editors. Considerazioni per
impegnati in esercitazioni di gara nel corso degli allenamenti formulare un modello di prestazione della scherma moderna.
premondiali 1982. Scherma 1983; XXV Suppl. 6: 2-5 Naples: Associazione Italiana Maestri di Scherma, 1999:
11. Li JX, So RCH, Yuan YWI, et al. Muscle strain and cardio- 17-20
vascular stress in fencing competition. Proceedings of the 5th
IOC World Congress on Sport Sciences; 1999 Oct 31-Nov 5; 31. Carter JEL, Heath BH. Somatotyping: development and appli-
Sydney: 222 cations. Cambridge: University Press, 1990
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
480 Roi & Bianchedi
32. Stewart K, Peredo AR, Williams C. Physiological and morpho- 51. Bisiacchi PS, Azemar G, Ripoll H, et al. Left-handedness in
logical factors associated with successful fencing perform- fencers: an attentional advantage. Precept Mot Skills 1985; 61:
ance. J Hum Ergol 1977; 6: 53-60 507-13
52. Klinger A, Adrian M. Foil target impact forces during the
33. Manning JT, Bundred PE, Taylor R. The ratio of 2nd to 4th digit fencing lunge. Biomechanics. VIII-B, International Series of
length: a prenatal correlate of ability in sport. In: Relly T, Biomechanics, Vol. 4b. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics,
Marfell-Jones M, editors. Kinanthropometry VIII: Proceed- 1983
ings of the 8th International Conference of the International
Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK). 53. Adrian M, Klinger A. A biomechanical analysis of the fencing
London: Routlege, 2003: 165-74 lunge. Med Sci Sports 1976; 8: 56
54. Cronin J, McNair PJ, Marshall RN. Lunge performance and his
34. Manning JT, Scutt D, Wilson J, et al. The ratio of 2nd to 4th determinants. J Sport Sci 2003; 21: 49-57
digit length: a predictor of sperm numbers and concentrations
of testosterone, luteinizing hormone and oestrogen. Hum 55. Lin FT. Optimal handle angle of the fencing foil for improved
Reprod 1998; 13: 3000-4 performance. Percept Mot Skills 2004; 98: 920-6
35. Voracek M, Reimer B, Ertl C, et al. Digit ratio (2D:4D), lateral 56. Legnani G, Zappa B, Roi GS, et al. Dynamic simulation of
preferences, and performance in fencing. Percept Motor Skills fencing hits. ISB Symposium on Computer Simulation in
2006; 103: 427-46 Biomechanics; 1999 Aug 6-7; Calgary (AB): 156-60
57. Natta F, Nouillot P. Searching for characteristic variables of first
36. Sapega A, Minkoff J, Valsamis M, et al. Musculoskeletal per- step in ‘target’ sabre fencer. XXIV Congr`
es de la Soci´
et´
e de
formance testing and profiling of elite competitive fencers. Biom´
ecanique; 2004 Sep 8-10; Creteil: 70
Clin Sports Med 1984; 3: 231-44
58. Bard C, Guezennec I, Papin J. Escrime: analise de l’exploration
37. Gioux M, Arne P, Dogui M, et al. Biomechanical and electro- visuelle. Med Sport 1981; 55: 246-53
myographycal characteristics of the human quadriceps in rela-
tion with sport performance. Proceedings of the World Con- 59. Pierson ER. Comparison of fencers and non-fencers by psycho-
gress of Sports Medicine. Vienna: Urban and Schwarzenberg, motor, space perception and anthropometric measures. Res Q
1984: 699-705 1956; 27: 90-6
60. Singer RN. Speed and accuracy of movement as related to
38. Tsolakis CK, Bogdanis GC, Vagenas GK, et al. Influence of fencing success. Res Q 1968; 39: 1080-3
twelve-month conditioning program on physical growth, se-
rum hormones, and neuromuscular performance of per- 61. Sanderson FH. The effect of directional uncertainty on reaction
ipubertal male fencers. J Strength Cond Res 2006; 20: 908-14 time and movement time in a fencing task. J Sport Sci 1983; 1:
105-10
39. Bressan A, Ranzani P. La valutazione funzionale degli arti 62. Williams LR, Walmsley A. Response timing and muscular
inferiori nella scherma. SdS 1998; 41/42: 104-19 coordination in fencing: a comparison of elite and novice
40. Bressan A. Fiorettisti a confronto. SdS 1990; 19: 10-21 fencers. J Sci Med Sport 2000; 3: 460-75
41. Astrand PO, Rodhal K. Textbook of work physiology. New 63. Williams LR, Walmsley A. Response amendment in fencing:
York: McGraw Hill, 1997 differences between elite and novice subjects. Percept Mot
42. Di Prampero PE, Pi ˜
nera-Limas F, Sassi G. Maximal muscular Skills 2000; 91: 131-42
power aerobic and anaerobic, in 116 athletes performing at the 64. Do MC, You E. Do centrally programmed anticipatory postural
XIXth Olympic Games in Mexico. Ergonomics 1970; 13: adjustments in fast stepping affect performance of an asso-
665-74 ciated ‘touche’ movement? Exp Brain Res 1999; 129: 462-6
43. Macarez JA. Effets de l’entrainment et d’un exercise bref et 65. You E, Do MC. In fencing, does intensive practice equally
sousmaximal sur differentes variables physiologiques chez de improve the speed performance of touch´
e when it is performed
jeunes escrimeurs. Med du Sport 1978; 52: 13-9 alone and in combination with the lunge? Int J Sports Med
44. Naghavi H. Echocardiographic aspects of young elite fencers 2000; 21: 122-6
[abstract]. Br J Sports Med 2002; 36: 6 66. Toran G. Introduzione alla tattica schermistica. Rome: Societ`
a
45. Whyte G, Sharma S, George K, et al. Alterations in cardiac Stampa Sportiva, 1996
morphology and function in elite multi-disciplinary athletes. 67. Di Russo F, Taddei F, Aprile T, et al. Neural correlates of fast
Int J Sports Med 1999; 20: 222-6 stimulus discrimination and response selection in top-level
46. Williams JM, Hoepner BJ, Moody DL, et al. Personality traits of fencers. Neurosci Lett 2006; 408: 113-8
champion level female fencers. Res Q 1970; 41: 446-53 68. Zemper ED, Harmer PH. Fencing. In: Caine D, Caine C, Linder
K, editors. Epidemiology of sports injuries. Champaign (IL):
47. Caldarone G, Berlutti G. Aspetti medici della scherma. In: Studi
Human Kinetics, 1996: 186-95
e ricerche di medicina dello sport applicata alla scherma. Pisa:
Giardini Editore, 1983: 15-28 69. Roi GS, Fasc`
i A. Requests for medical assistance during fencing
matches. Ital J Sports Traumatol 1988; 1: 55-62
48. Colombo A, De Ambroggi A. Studio sull’et`
a dei partecipanti
alle prove individuali dei Campionati del Mondo di scherma. 70. Naghavi H. A study of traumatic events in junior fencing
Roma: Federazione Italiana Scherma, 1982 competitions [abstract]. Br J Sports Med 2002; 36: 6
71. Naghavi H. Study of traumatic injuries in women fencing com-
49. Azemar G, Ripoll H, Simonet P, et al. L’evaluation de la petitions [abstract]. Br J Sports Med 2002; 36: 6
lateralit´
e en escrime: son interet et ses modealites pratiques. In:
VII Congr`
es Medical de la Federation Internationale 72. Lanese RR, Strauss RH, Leizman DJ, et al. Injury and disability
d’Escrime. Pisa: Giardini Editore, 1986: 93-116 in matched men’s and women’s intercollegiate sports. Am J
Publ Health 1990; 80: 1459-62
50. Rossi B, Salmaso D. La preference manuelle dans l’escrime. In:
L’escrime `
a travers les ages de la vie. VIII Congr`
es Medical de 73. Zemper E. Epidemiology of athletic injuries. In: McKeag D,
la F´
ed´
eration Internationale d’Escrime; 1987 Jul 15; Lausanne: Hough D, Zemper E, editors. Primary care sports medicine.
77-111 Dubuque (IA): Brown & Banchmark, 1993: 63-73
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
This material is
the copyright of the
original publisher.
Unauthorised copying
and distribution
is prohibited.
Science of Fencing 481
74. Kelm J, Anagnostakos K, Deubel G, et al. The rupture of the 81. White M. Off-season strength training for competitive fencer.
tibialis tendon in a world class veteran fencer. Sportsverletz Strength Condit J 1995; 17 (6): 62-4
Sportschaden 2004; 18: 148-52 82. Rippetoe M. Strength and conditioning for fencing. Strength
75. Muller-Strum AE, Biener K. Fechtsportunfalle Epidemiologie Condit J 2000; 22 (2): 42-7
und prevention. Deut Zeit Sportmed 1991; 42: 48-52 83. Kucera K, Henn S. Pravention und physiotherapie von
76. Moyer J, Konin J. An overview of fencing injuries [abstract]. verletzungen und uberlastungsschaden im fechten. Sport Or-
Am Fencing 1992; 42: 25 thop Sport Traumatol 2003; 19: 273-80
77. Carter C, Hell J, Zemper E. What hurts and why: data from the
1992 USFA fencing injury survey. Am Fencing 1993; 43: 16-7 84. Timpka T, Ekstrand J, Svanstrom L. From sports injury preven-
78. Roi GS, Fasc`
i A. Indagine sugli eventi traumatici nelle gare tion to safety promotion in sports. Sports Med 2006; 36:
giovanili di scherma. Med Sport 1986; 39: 45-8 733-45
79. Calvo-Rubal A, Mart´
inez F, Tarigo A. Cranial wounds of the
skull by fencing foil [in Spanish]. Neurocirugia 2006; 17:
550-4 Correspondence: Dr Giulio S. Roi, Education and Research
80. Guidelines for safety in fencing for fencers, coaches, referees, Department Isokinetic, Via di Casteldebole 8/4, 40132
clubs, and competitions organisers [online]. Available from Bologna, Italy.
URL: http//www.britishfencing.com/British_Fencin-
g.asp?.PageID = 100 [Accessed 2007 May 8] E-mail: gs.roi@isokinetic.com
© 2008 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2008; 38 (6)
