Original research papers. Kinematic Characterisation of the Lunge and the Fleche in Epee Fencing: Two Case Studies

Open access


Introduction. The aim of this study was to characterise the whole body dynamics and upper and lower joint kinematics during two common fencing steps: the lunge and the fleche. Material and methods. Two male competitive epee fencers were studied. Kinematics data were collected at 120 Hz (BTS Smart system) and ground reaction forces were measured at 120 Hz (Kistler platform). The resultant centre of gravity and end segment velocities were calculated. Temporal events were referenced to the horizontal ground reaction force. Time domain linear joint velocities were extracted. Results. At the whole-body level, the resultant centre of gravity velocity was higher during the fleche (2.64 and 2.89 m/s) than during the lunge (1.94 and 2.21 m/s). At the joint level, the wrist and elbow attained their peak velocities earlier than the proximal joint for both the lunge and the fleche for both athletes. Conclusions. The sequence of peak segmental velocities followed a distal to proximal sequence for both fencing steps.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Bunn J.W. (1972). Scientific principles of coaching. NY: Printice Hall. Inc. Inglewood Cliffs.

  • 2. Greenhalgh A. Bottoms L. Sinclair J. (2012). Influence of surface on impact shock experienced during a fencing lunge. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 29 463-467.

  • 3. Roi G.S. Bianchedi D. (2008). The science of fencing. Implications for performance and injury prevention. Sports Medicine 38 465-481. DOI: 10.2165/00007256-200838060-00003.

  • 4. Putman C.A.A. (1983). Interaction between segments during a kicking motion. In H. Matsui K. Kobayashi (eds.) Biomechanics VIII-B (pp. 688-694). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.

  • 5. Mulloy F. Mullineaux D.R. Irwin G. (2015). Use of the kinematic chain in the fencing attacking lunge. In F. Colloud M. Domalain T. Monnet (eds) 33rd International Conference on Biomechanics in Sports (pp. 1114-1117). Poitiers.

  • 6. Hochmuth G. (1984). Biomechanical principles. In Biomechanics of athletic movement (pp. 120-153). Berlin: Sportverlag.

  • 7. Adrian M. Klinger A. (1976). A biomechanical analysis of the fencing lunge. Medicine and Science in Sports 8 56.

  • 8. Klinger A.K. Adrian M.J. (1983). Foil target impact forces during the fencing lunge. In H. Matsui K. Kobayashi (eds.) International series on biomechanics (pp. 882-888). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.

  • 9. Bottoms L. Greenhalgh A. Sinclair J. (2013). Kinematic determinants of weapon velocity during the fencing lunge in experienced épée fencers. Acta of Bioengineering and Biomechechanics 4 109-113. DOI: 10.5277/abb130414.

  • 10. Cronin J.B. McNoir P.J. Marshall R.N. (2003). Lunge performance and its determinants. Journal of Sports Sciences 21 49-57. DOI: 10.1080./0264041031000070958.

  • 11. Gresham-Fiegel C. House P. Zupan M.F. (2013). Effect of non-leading foot placement on power and velocity in the fencing lunge. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 27 57-63. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31824e0e9d.

  • 12. Gutiérrez-Dávila M. Rojas F.J. Antonio R. Navarro E. (2013). Response timing in the lunge and target change in elite versus medium-level fencers. European Journal of Sports Sciences 13 (4) 364-371. DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2011.635704.

  • 13. Gutiérrez-Dávila M. Rojas F.J. Antonio R. Navarro E. (2013). Effect of uncertainty on the reaction response in fencing. Research Quarterly of Exercise and Sport 4 16-23. DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2013.762286.

  • 14. Gutiérrez-Dávila M. Gutiérrez-Cruz C. Giles F.J. Rojas F.J. (2014). Effect of uncertainty during the lunge in fencing. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 13 66-72.

  • 15. Gutiérrez-Dávila M. Rojas F.J. Antonio R. Navarro E. (2013). Effect of target change during the simple attack in fencing. Journal of Sports Sciences 31(10) 1100-1107. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2013.770908.

  • 16. Borysiuk Z. Piechota K. Minkiewicz T. (2013). Analysis of performance of the fencing lunge with regard to the difficulty level of a technical-tactical task. Journal of Combat Sports and Martial Arts 4 135-139. DOI: 10.5604/20815735.1090658.

  • 17. Williams L.R.T. Walmsley A. (2000). Response timing and muscular coordination in fencing: A comparison of elite and novice fencers. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 3 460-475. DOI: 10.1016/S1440-2440(00)80011-0.

  • 18. Morris N. Farnsworth M. Robertson D.G.E. (2011). Kinetic analyses of two fencing attacks - lunge and fleche. Portuguese Journal of Sport Sciences 11 344-346.

  • 19. Davis III R.B. Ounpuu S. Tyburski D. Gage J.R. (1991). A gait analysis data collection and reduction technique. Human Movement Science 10 575-587.

  • 20. Sinclair J. Bottoms L. (2013). Methods of determining hip joint centre: Their influence on the 3-D kinematics of the hip and knee during the fencing lunge. Human Movement 14 229-237. DOI: 10.2478/humo-2013-0028.

  • 21. Putman C.A.A. (1991). A segment interaction analysis of proximal-to-distal sequential segment motion patterns. Medicine and Science in Sports Exercises 23 130-141.

  • 22. Steward S.L. Kopetka B. (2005). The kinematic determinants of speed in the fencing lunge. Journal of Sports Sciences 23 105.

Journal information
Impact Factor

Index Copernicus: ICV 2018 = 100.00
Ministry of Science and Higher Education: 14 points

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 444 210 8
PDF Downloads 244 127 6