Kinematic Analysis Of Upper Extremity Of Elite Male And Female Fencers During Fencing Lunge

Riyahi, Fatima; Sadeghi, Heydar; Shirzad, Elham

doi:10.61186/jsmt.22.27.1

Volume 22, Issue 27 (8-2024) RSMT 2024, 22(27): 1-14 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.61186/jsmt.22.27.1

‎ 20.1001.1.22520708.1398.0.0.2.7

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Riyahi F, Sadeghi H, Shirzad E. Kinematic Analysis Of Upper Extremity Of Elite Male And Female Fencers During Fencing Lunge. RSMT 2024; 22 (27) :1-14
URL: http://jsmt.khu.ac.ir/article-1-88-en.html

Kinematic Analysis Of Upper Extremity Of Elite Male And Female Fencers During Fencing Lunge

Fatima Riyahi

, Heydar Sadeghi

, Elham Shirzad

Full Professor, Department of Sports Biomechanics and Injuries, Faculty of Physical Education & Sport Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract: (7116 Views)

The fencing lunge is one of the most common and fundamental attacking moves in fencing. The aim of this study was to provide kinematical compare of upper extremity among elite female and male senior fencers when performing a lunge. Four female and four male members of Iran National Team were selected as research sample. The participants were filmed when performing a complete lunge with a camera of 300 Hz sampling rate to evaluate kinematical parameters. The student's-t test revealed that elite male fencers had significantly shorter reaction and movement time comparing with elite female fencers. No major differences in other kinematic parameters indicate that elite male and female fencers performed lunge in similar way. The final conclusion of this study is that the existing differences in time of lunge technique may suggest the need for alternative training strategies to prepare fencing athletes.The examination of the kinematic analysis of the upper body in male and female elite fencers demonstrated that the dissimilarity in the execution speed of the lunge technique between the two genders cannot be accounted for by kinematic changes in joint movements. The differences highlighted in this study can serve as a basis for formulating distinct training and coaching strategies, with the aim of better preparing athletes for decision making and quick movements.

Keywords: Reaction Time, Movement Time, Angular Velocity, Fencing Lunge

Full-Text [PDF 1961 kb] (570 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research |
Received: 2023/04/5 | Accepted: 2023/11/11 | Published: 2024/08/31

References

1. Legnani G, Zappa BF, Roi GS, Galli M, editors. Dynamic simulation of fencing hits. Proceedings of the VIIth International Symposium on Computer Simulation in Biomechanics; 1999: University of Calgary.

2. Stewart S, Kopetka B. The kinematic determinants of speed in the fencing lunge. J Sports Sci. 2005;23(2):105.

3. Gutierrez-Davila M, Rojas FJ, Antonio R, Navarro E. Response timing in the lunge and target change in elite versus medium-level fencers. Eur J Sport Sci. 2013;13(4):364-71. Https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2011.635704 [DOI:10.1080/17461391.2011.635704]

4. Bottoms L, Greenhalgh A, Sinclair J. Kinematic determinants of weapon velocity during the fencing lunge in experienced épée fencers. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2013;15(4):109-13.

5. Sinclair J, Bottoms L. Gender differences in the kinetics and lower extremity kinematics of the fencing lunge. International J Performance Analysis in Sport. 2013;13(2):440-51. [DOI:10.1080/24748668.2013.11868660]

6. Paul, W M, Beasley, Bottoms L, G U. Epee Fencing: A step by step guide to achieving Olympic gold with no guarantee you will get any where near it. Wellard Publishing. United Kingdom .2011

7. Klauck J, Hassan SE, editors. Lower and upper extremity coordination parameters during the fencing lunge. ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive; 1998.

8. Roi GS, Bianchedi D. The science of fencing: implications for performance and injury prevention. Sports Med. 2008;38(6):465-81. Https://doi.org/ 10.2165/00007256-200838060-00003 [DOI:10.2165/00007256-200838060-00003]

9. Gresham-Fiegel CN, House PD, Zupan MF. The effect of nonleading foot placement on power and velocity in the fencing lunge. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(1):57-63. Https://doi.org/ 10.1519/jsc.0b013e31824e0e9d [DOI:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31824e0e9d]

10. Zappa BF, Legnani G, Roi G, Galli M, editors. Kinematic analysis of three fencing hits. proceedings of XVIIth Congress of the Int Society of Biomechanics; 1999

11. Williams LR, Walmsley A. Response amendment in fencing: differences between elite and novice subjects. Percept Mot Skills. 2000;91(1):131-42. Https://doi.org/ 10.2466/pms.2000.91.1.131 [DOI:10.2466/pms.2000.91.1.131]

12. Tsolakis C, Vagenas G. Anthropometric, Physiological and Performance Characteristics of Elite and Sub-elite Fencers. J Hum Kinetics. 2010;23:89-95. Https://doi.org/10.2478/v10078-010-0011-8 [DOI:10.2478/v10078-010-0011-8]

13. Poulis I, Chatzis S, Christopoulou K, Tsolakis C. Isokinetic strength during knee flexion and extension in elite fencers. Percept Mot Skills. 2009;108(3):949-61. Https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.108.3.949-961 [DOI:10.2466/pms.108.3.949-961]

14. Mero A, Komi PV. Reaction time and electromyographic activity during a sprint start. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1990;61(1-2):73-80. Https://doi.org/ 10.1007/bf00236697 [DOI:10.1007/BF00236697]

15. Tonnessen E, Haugen T, Shalfawi SA. Reaction time aspects of elite sprinters in athletic world championships. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(4):885-92. Https://doi.org/ 10.1519/jsc.0b013e31826520c3 [DOI:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31826520c3]

16. Adam JJ, Paas FG, Buekers MJ, Wuyts IJ, Spijkers WA, Wallmeyer P. Gender differences in choice reaction time: evidence for differential strategies. Ergonomics. 1999;42(2):327-35. Https://doi.org/10.1080/001401399185685 [DOI:10.1080/001401399185685]

17. Collet C. Strategic aspects of reaction time in world-class sprinters. Percept Mot Skills. 1999;88(1):65-75. Https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1999.88.1.65 [DOI:10.2466/pms.1999.88.1.65]

18. Colakoglu H, Akgun N, Yalaz G, Ertat A. The effects of speed training in acoustic and optic reaction times. Turkish J Sports Med. 1987;22:37-46.

19. Van Den Tillaar R, Cabri JM. Gender differences in the kinematics and ball velocity of overarm throwing in elite team handball players. J Sports Sci. 2012;30(8):807-13. Https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.671529 [DOI:10.1080/02640414.2012.671529]

20. Frere J, Gopfert B, Nuesch C, Huber C, Fischer M, Wirz D, et al. Kinematical and EMG-classifications of a fencing attack. Int J Sports Med. 2011;32(1):28-34. Https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1267199 [DOI:10.1055/s-0030-1267199]

21. Alexander MJ, editor Comparison of biomechanical aspects of performance in elite male and female track athletes. ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive; 1997.

22. Harmenberg J, Ceci R, Barvestad P, Hjerpe K, Nystrom J. Comparison of different tests of fencing performance. Int J Sports Med. 1991;12(6):573-6. Https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1024736 [DOI:10.1055/s-2007-1024736]

23. Spierer DK, Petersen RA, Duffy K, Corcoran BM, Rawls-Martin T. Gender influence on response time to sensory stimuli. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(4):957-63. Https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181c7c536 [DOI:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c7c536]

24. Lahtela K, Niemi P, Kuusela V. Adult visual choice-reaction time, age, sex and preparedness. A test of Welford's problem in a large population sample. Scand J Psychol. 1985;26(4):357-62. Https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1985.tb01175.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9450.1985.tb01175.x]

25. Technical Rules: International Fencing Federation; And Regulations ISF Gymnasiade Normandy. 2006.