Performance analysis in saber

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SABER

ANDREA AQUILI,1,2 VIRGINIA TANCREDI,1 TAMARA TRIOSSI,1 DESIREE DE SANCTIS,1 ELVIRA PADUA,1

GIOVANNA D’ARCANGELO,1 AND GIOVANNI MELCHIORRI1,3

1School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Roma Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy; 2ItalianFencing Federation, Rome, Italy; and 3Don Gnocchi Foundation, Rome, Italy

ABSTRACT

Aquili, A, Tancredi, V, Triossi, T, De Sanctis, D, Padua, E,

D’Arcangelo, G, and Melchiorri, G. Performance analysis in

saber. J Strength Cond Res 27(3): 624–630, 2013—Fencing

is a sport practiced by both men and women, which uses 3

weapons: foil, epee, and saber. In general, there are few

scientific studies available in international literature; they are

limited to the performance analysis of fencing bouts, yet there

is nothing about saber. There are 2 kinds of competitions in the

World Cup for both men and women: the “FIE GP” and “A.”

The aim of this study was to carry out a saber performance

analysis to gain useful indicators for the definition of a perfor-

mance model. In addition, it is expected to verify if it could be

influenced by the type of competition and if there are differ-

ences between men and women. Sixty bouts: 33 FIE GP and

27 “A” competitions (35 men’s and 25 women’s saber bouts)

were analyzed. The results indicated that most actions are

offensive (55% for men and 49% for women); the central area

of the piste is mostly used (72% for men and 67% for women);

the effective fighting time is 13.6% for men and 17.1% for

women, and the ratio between the action and break times is

1:6.5 for men and 1:5.1 for women. A lunge is carried out every

23.9 seconds by men and every 20 seconds by women, and

a direction change is carried out every 65.3 seconds by men

and every 59.7 seconds by women. The data confirm the

differences between the saber and the other 2 weapons. There

is no significant difference between the data of the 2 different

kinds of competitions.

KEY WORDS fencing, match analysis, notational analysis

INTRODUCTION

Fencing is an open-skilled combat sport (23), whichincludes 3 different weapons: foil, epee, and saber.Nowadays, all the weapons are equally used bothby men and women, even if the competitions are

divided by sex.

Apart from some common features of the rules andregulations, the 3 weapons differ from a technical point ofview, such as the target that the blade must hit, therebycreating different styles and strategies for each weapon. Foiland epee swords are 110 cm long, whereas a saber sword is105 cm long; foil and epee swords weigh 550 g, whereasa saber sword weighs 770 g (17). As for the target, it differsfor each weapon, moreover the hitting technique and thestrength required to carry out the hit vary.

In epee, it is possible to hit the opponent’s entire body usingonly one end of the weapon and with a contact strength thatis more than 7.36 N. In saber, a valid target includes the head,trunk, and superior limbs; it is possible to hit with both thecutting edge and the back of the blade, and you only need totouch the opponent for the hit to be successful (17).

Only in foil fencing a white light indicates that an invalidtarget has been hit. In foil and saber, you must respect theconvention that any attack carried out properly, that is, theinitial offensive action, must be completely dodge or parry.In epee, however, this rule does not exist and if the 2 athletestouch each other at the same time, a point is assigned toboth (18).

The field of training and competition is a piste that is 14 mlong and 1.5 m wide. At the beginning of the match, the 2fencers stand in the middle of the piste 4 m apart.

The matches are distinguished by the weapon used, thegender, and age of the participants and if it is an individual orteam match.

Each individual match is held as an Italian turn round,which is composed of 6 of 7 participants with a 5 thrust bout,followed by a 15 thrust bout. In the 5 thrust bouts, themaximum duration is 3 minutes; in the 15 thrust bout, theduration is 9 minutes divided into 3-minute periods witha 1-minute rest between the 2 periods (18). When the matchends in a draw at the end of the regulation time, an additio-nal minute is given. If the score is still equal at the end ofthis minute, the athlete who won the priority draw at theend of the regulation time is declared the winner (18).

In team competitions, each team has 3 athletes plus1 reserve player. The typology is like the relay where eachathlete incurs 3 assaults in 5 thrusts, inheriting his team-mates’ score from the previous bouts: There are 9 matches inall that end at the 45th thrust (18). The maximum time foreach bout is 3 minutes (18). Foil and, especially, epee,

Address correspondence to Aquili Andrea, [email protected].

27(3)/624–630

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research� 2013 National Strength and Conditioning Association

624 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchthe TM

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.


because of their static and often reflective nature, often go onuntil the end of the available time and use up theextra minute; on the contrary, in saber, a more dynamicassault weapon, the match always ends by reaching the5th or the 15th thrust and not because of time limits. It isprecisely for this reason that in the 15 thrust knockout bouts,a minute break at the eighth thrust was introduced.

The saber is the weapon, more than any other, that hasremained a discipline only for men (1997/98), is the leastpracticed, and is the last to incorporate the use of electricalequipment; paradoxically, it is the first to have accepted theintroduction of wireless scoring system between the athleteand the scoring equipment and slow motion that has led toimportant technical and tactical adjustments to promote andteach saber. Unlike the other weapons, saber does not allowmovements that involve cross as a forward step, cross-step,or fleche (arrow) (18). There are frequent long chases acrossthe piste and sudden direction changes.

There are a few scientific studies on fencing in general(19), and in particular, there are none on saber.

It is a sport that results in significant asymmetries (20): in theupper limbs, using a weapon for long periods produces signifi-cant asymmetries both in the strength and in the cross-sectionarea of the forearm muscles (13). The lower limbs, responsiblefor walking on the piste and for the constant direction changesand speed, have different requirements for dynamic strength(14);moreover, the functional evaluationusingBosco’sprotocol(3) highlighted howhigh-level fencers do not always have goodflexible, explosive, and reactive power. In addition, sometimesthe percentage of fast fibers seems to bequite low.No significantcorrelations were identified between the morphologic charac-teristics (biographic information, anthropometric data, flexibil-ity testing, muscular strength, and endurance, power) of theathlete and his competitive value (22), for both the complexand changeable matrix of physical and mental factors that in-fluence this sport and for the difficulty in finding objective cri-terion to evaluate the actual level of an athlete. It could besupposed that reaching high performance levels andconditional abilities, both general and specific, is not importantas neurophysiologic factors such as perception, analysis andsynthesis of the situation, anticipation ability, and simple anddiscriminating reaction times (5). Furthermore, there seems tobe a strong correlation between the reaction times and the hitaccuracy because of muscular coordination (24), above all inrelation to the good synergistic muscle organization. In fact,a fencer’s physical needs are closely connected to perceptiveand psychologic factors and they are subjected to continuouschanges with respect to the opponents (19). It is extremelyimportant to make fast and precise movements and to be ableto surprise the opponent:Many studies on the lunge (4), a tech-nicalmovementperformedby the lower limbs to complete ahit,have been done. It has been pointed out that the determiningfactors for good lungeperformance are the attaineddistanceandspeed, even if the effects of training on a simple movement canbe only seen in a more complex and global movement (25).

The energy requirement analysis is limited to heart rate,oxygen uptake, and lactic consumption analysis (7–9,11,12). Afencing competition usually lasts a day, even if the effectivefight times vary between 17 and 48 minutes (16,20,21), anda single action can be extremely short, less than a second, orvery long, more than a minute. In every bout, there arepreparatory movements that are generally longer in durationand submaximal in intensity and they are followed by somevery intensive movements of shorter duration, often associatedwith the final lunge to touch the opponent (19). During a bout,the fencer covers a distance of 250–1,000 m (11). The aerobicmetabolism characterizes the submaximal intensity phases ofstudy and shift, whereas the anaerobic alactic metabolism istypical of the final phases of an action. Aerobic metabolism ischaracterized by accelerations and rhythmic changes, whereasanaerobic lactic metabolism functions in short duration andhigh-intensity actions with intermittency and incompleterecovery times (21). Surveys on adrenaline (epinephrine) levels(6) highlighted a similar value after a training bout and beforea competition bout. In fencing, physical demand is affected bydifferent factors, such as age, sex, training level, and the tech-nical and tactical models used in relation to the opponent (19).

Scientific works are available on physical symmetry: In theupper limbs, using a weapon for long periods producessignificant asymmetries (13) and the lower limbs have differ-ent requirements for dynamic strength (14); on muscularpower, high-level fencers do not always have good flexible,explosive, and reactive power and sometimes the percentageof fast fibers seems to be quite low (3); on neuromuscularfactors connected to technical movement, there seems to bea strong correlation between reaction times and hit accuracybecause of muscular coordination (24); on energy factors offencing in general, limited to heart rate, oxygen uptake, andlactic consumption analysis (7–9,11,12).

But it was not possible to find data on the performanceanalysis of the saber. In the available literature, there are a fewdescriptions of fencing actions and actual action times, espe-cially in men’s saber. During the 2009–10 season, there were2 kinds of competitions in the World Cup: “FIE GP” and “A.”

The differences between the 2 types of competition are asfollows:� In FIE GP bouts, the final score for the world ranking isdouble than “A” bouts.

� In FIE GP bouts, the use of slow motion has been intro-duced to help the referee judge and it can also berequested by the 2 fencers, up to a maximum of 2 times,if the judge has not changed. In “A” bouts of the 2009–10season, this innovation was not present.

� In FIE GP competition, each country can bring a maxi-mum of 8 participants, whereas in “A” competition, thereis a maximum of 12 participants.In the present study, 7 FIE GP and 4 “A” competitions

were observed. Given the differences in regulation betweenthe 2 kinds of saber competitions (FIE GP and “A”), anddifferences in technique between the 3 weapons, a study of

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchthe TM

| www.nsca.com

VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2013 | 625



performance analysis during official events may provide usefulinformation to describe the characteristic commitment ofthe saber.

The primary aim of this study was to determine, throughperformance analysis, some indicators that could be useful indefining a performance model for the saber and to verify if itcould be influenced by the different kinds of competitionsand if there are differences between men and women.

The examination of saber performance can be useful tocoaches to define a correct training model and to help sportsresearchers choose more specific tests for this kind of sport.

METHODS

Experimental Approach to the Problem

A descriptive observational study was used to describeperformance in men’s and women’s saber fencers. A nota-tional analysis was carried out using survey grids to recordsome technical and tactical aspects useful in the descriptionof the performance model.

To reduce operator error, every bout was watched 3 timesand analyzed by more than 1 technician. Two competentobservers (National Saber Coach) watched each bout.

To avoid disagreement among the observers, a 95% limitof agreement (1) for each variable was used. No differencewas reported for the intraoperator congruence and randomanalysis, which was not associated with the operator, and noobservation errors were deemed satisfactory.

Subjects

Thirty-two men’s saber fencers and 25 women’s saber fencerstook part in this study. To make the match analysis morereliable, official bouts during international competitions(World Cup Circuit 2009–10) were analyzed. The bouts werechosen randomly for each round of the competition (30seconds, sixteenths, eighths, quarters, semifinals, and final).Some athletes were studied more than once during the samecompetition but with different opponents (35 men’s saberbouts and 25 women’s saber bouts were recorded and32 men’s saber fencers and 25 women’s saber fencers werestudied). The study was conducted according to the Decla-ration of Helsinki, and the protocol was fully approved bythe University of Rome “Tor Vergata’s” Ethics Committee foruse of human subjects before the assessments began. Writteninformed consent was obtained from all the players beforethe study began. All the players were fully informed aboutthe procedures used in this research and were told that theycould withdraw from the study at any time without a penalty.

Fifty percent of the men were in the first 16 positions of theinternational ranking (2009–10 season), 78% were in the first50 positions (age 26.8 6 4.6 years; weight 78.6 6 7.6 kg;height 184.6 6 6.3 cm), 50% of the women were in the first16 positions of the international ranking (season 2009–2010season), and 83% were in the first 50 positions (age 24.26 3.7years; weight 61.9 6 7.2 kg; height 171.2 6 4.7 cm).

All the subjects were studied at the same time of the year(May 2010 during the World Cup competitions). Twenty-onepercent of the men and the 28% of the women were left-handed fencers.

Procedures

Thirty-five men’s saber bouts and 25 women’s saber boutswere analyzed, and all the bouts were part of the World Cupcompetition in the 2009–10 season.

Both fencers were always observed. Twenty FIE GP and15 “A” bouts were analyzed for men, whereas 13 FIE GPand 12 “A” bouts were analyzed for women.

Two high-speed digital cameras (Casio, Tokyo, Japan),Dartfish 5.5 Pro software (Dartfish, Fribourg, Switzerland)were used to perform the relevant video analysis.

The type and quantity of actions carried out during thebouts were recorded as follows: offensive, defensive, andcounterriposte actions were identified and the number ofthese actions carried out in the 4 central meters of the pistewas analyzed. Simultaneous actions were also mentioned:These are all the actions in which the 2 fencers execute thesame attack, usually in the center of the piste. In this case, thehits exchanged are annulled for both fencers.

Offensive actions aim to hit the opponent: They include allthe offensive actions and the remises (18). The remise is a sim-ple and immediate offensive action that follows the initialattack, without withdrawing the arm, after the opponenthas parried or retreated when the latter has either stoppedcontact with the blade without riposting or made a ripostethat is delayed, indirect, or compound (18). Defensive actionsare made by the fencer who incurs the attack and tries to stopit by carrying out a parry with his weapon or removing thetarget (18). Counterriposte actions are made during the oppo-nent’s offensive action, not with a parry but with an actionthat does not allow the opponent to hit or causes him to hitlate: among the most common actions identified were thestop hit and the stop hit made within a period of fencing time(18). We also considered all the actions in which the bout washalted by the president of the jury before the end of the actionbecause of a fault or an error by the electronic equipment.

Both in “A” and in FIE GP competitions, the number oflunges, the direction changes, the effective bout times andbreaks, and the times of single actions with breaks wereanalyzed, so that the ratio between action and pause couldbe calculated.

The lunge is an explosive movement of the lower limbsusually used in the final phase of an action; the directionchanges are the changes in walking direction during an action.

The bout time refers to the time between the referee’s firstcall: “on guard” to the last call: “Halt,” which gives the 15ththrust to 1 of the 2 fencers. The action time refers to the timefrom the referee’s on guard call, which is the beginning of theaction, to the following “Halt” call, which represents the end,even if the fencers are not given the thrust (which is whathappens in the simultaneous action). The break times include

Performance Analysis: Saber




the times between one action and another and when 1 of the2 fencers reaches the eighth thrust. All the studied variableswere analyzed in relation to the kind of competition.

Statistical Analyses

All the data were gathered and organized in a database(Microsoft Excel 2010) and then processed by SPSS version15.0 for Windows statistical software (Chicago, IL, USA,1999).

For each variable, the probabilistic distributions wereevaluated with the aim of testing the adaptability to theGaussian curve by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test andexamining the histogram of the frequencies.

Therefore, the continuous variables with a Gaussian trendwere described as the median 6 SD, whereas the categoricalvariables, or with order scale and/or with a trend other thanthe Gaussian trend, have been described as median (mini-mum; maximum). Consequently, the comparison tests ofthe variables were performed with one-way analysis of vari-ance, whereas the categorical variables tests were carried outwith the nonparametrical Mann-Whitney Test. For all thecomparisons, we chose p # 0.05 as the significant level ofprobability in the statistics.

RESULTS

Thirty-five men’s saber bouts were analyzed as follows: therewere 20 FIE GP and 15 “A” competitions (8 of them were inthe 30 seconds, 6 in the sixteenths, 5 in the eighths, 2 in thefourths, 8 in the semifinals, and 6 in the finals); we alsoanalyzed 25 women’s saber bouts, 13 of which were FIEGP and 12 were “A” competitions (5 of them were in the30 seconds, 5 in the sixteenths, 3 in the eighths, 4 in thefourths, 4 in the semifinals, and 4 in the finals).

In the men’s analysis, none of the reported differencesbetween the 2 kinds of competitions are significant, whereasin the women’s analysis, the difference in the total number ofactions is significant and is greater in the “A” competitions.

Comparison Between the 2 Genders

The number of offensive actions is higher (men’s: 55%, wom-en’s: 49%) than defensive (men’s: 26%, women’s: 31%), coun-

terriposte (men’s: 12%, women’s: 14%), and simultaneousactions (men’s: 7%, women’s: 4%); besides, it is important toemphasize the high number of actions performed in the 4central meters of the piste (men’s: 72%, women’s: 67%).

Table 1 shows how, in men’s and women’s saber bouts, thenumber of lunges is high, whereas the number of changes ofdirection is average; in particular, if we make a correlationbetween these data and that relative to bout length times(Table 2), it can be noted that a change of direction is carriedout every 9 effective seconds in a men’s saber bout, and every10 effective seconds in a women’s saber bout, a lunge iscarried out every 3 seconds both in men’s and women’s bouts;whereas, if we consider the total time, a change of direction iscarried out every 65.3 seconds in a men’s saber bout and every59.7 seconds in a women’s saber bout, a lunge is carried outevery 23.9 seconds in a men’s saber bout and every 20 secondsin a women’s saber bout.

Table 2 describes time spent in some typical saber actionsin men and women.

It can be noted that the effective fighting time for men is13.6% and for women is 17.1% and that the ratio between theaction and break time is 1:6.5 (men) and 1:5.1 (women): thisanalysis can provide information on the kind of metaboliccommitment to that fencers are subject to. The actions are atmaximum intensity, and the breaks are characterized by lowintensity (walking back to the starting position).

In the comparison between men and women, the differ-ences relative to the number of offensive actions, the numberof the actions performed in the 4 central meters of the piste,the total break time, the total bout time, the total number ofactions, and the ratio between action and break resulted tobe significant.

Therefore, women have less recovery time between thehigh-intensity actions and the difference is to be consideredin the training plan.

The noted differences among the various specialties areemphasized in the variety found in the secondary variable"ratio action/break"; however, a statistical analysis was notpossible because the data regarding the foil and the epeewere taken from other authors (16,20,21).

TABLE 1. Average values of different kinds of actions in a bout, number of direction changes, and number of lunges formen’s (Msa) and women’s saber (Wsa).*†

Offensiveactions

Defensiveactions

Counterriposteactions

Simultaneousactions

Total numberof actions

Actions in4 m

Changes ofdirection

No. oflunges

Msa 15.5 6 3.1 7.2 6 2.4 3.3 6 2.1 2 (0;9) 28.1 6 3.4 20.4 6 4.1 7.9 6 3.8 21.6 6 3.7Wsa 12.3 6 2.3z 7,6 6 2.5 3.6 6 2.1 1 (0;6) 24.9 6 3.4z 16.8 6 4.3z 7.0 6 4.3 21.0 6 4.5

*Number of men’s bouts: 35; number of women’s bouts: 25.†Msa = men’s saber; Wsa = women’s saber.zStatistical significance for p , 0.05.


| www.nsca.com




Comparison Among Different Kinds of Competitions

For each bout, the following data were measured: the numberof offensive actions (men’s: 16 6 3.4 in FIE GP competitionsand 14.7 6 2.6 in “A” competitions; women’s: 11.7 6 2.0 inFIE GP competitions and 13.2 6 2.5 in “A” competitions),defensive actions (men’s: 6.7 6 2.6 in FIE GP competitionsand 7.8 6 2.1 in “A” competitions; women’s: 7.0 6 1.9 in FIEGP competitions and 8.56 3.1 in “A” competitions), counter-riposte actions (men’s: 3.1 6 1.6 in FIE GP competitions and3.6 6 2.6 in “A” competitions; women’s: 3.6 6 1.9 in FIE GPcompetitions and 3.7 6 2.6 in “A” competitions), simulta-neous actions (men’s: 1 [0;9] in FIE GP competitions and 2[0;5] in “A” competitions; women’s: 1 [0;3] in FIE GP com-petitions and 1 [0;6] in “A” competitions), and the number ofthese performed in the 4 central meters of the piste (men’s:19.8 6 4.7 in FIE GP competitions and 21.1 6 3 in “A”competitions; women’s: 15.2 6 4.2 in FIE GP competitions

and 19.2 6 3.5 in “A” competitions).In addition, we calculated the number of direction changes

(men’s: 8.16 4.3 in FIE GP competitions and 7.76 3.1 in “A”

competitions; women’s: 6.8 6 5.2 in FIE GP competitions

and 7.3 6 3.0 in “A” competitions) and the number of lunges

(men’s: 21.7 6 4.0 in FIE GP competitions and 21.5 6 3.4 in

“A” competitions; women’s: 19.5 6 4.4 in FIE GP compet-

itions and 23.3 6 3.6 in “A” competitions); finally, we mea-sured the total time of a bout (men’s: 534.1 6 71.8 seconds inFIE GP competitions and 492.3 6 90.2 seconds in “A” com-petitions; women’s: 388.6 6 99.7 seconds in FIE GP compet-itions and 462.06 88.9 seconds in “A” competitions), the totalbreak time (men’s: 461.5 6 61.6 seconds in FIE GP compet-itions and 424.1 6 82.9 seconds in “A” competitions; wom-en’s: 316.2 6 91.0 seconds in FIE GP competitions and391.56 85.3 seconds in “A” competitions), the effective actiontime (men’s: 72.5 6 17.7 seconds in FIE GP competitions and68.2 6 16.8 seconds in “A” competitions; women’s: 72.3 627.5 seconds in FIE GP competitions and 70.56 10.8 secondsin “A” competitions), and the time of length of a single action(men’s: 2.6 6 0.6 seconds in FIE GP competitions and 2.4 60.6 seconds in “A” competitions; women’s: 3.1 6 1.1 secondsin FIE GP competitions and 2.6 6 0.4 seconds in “A” com-petitions), and we calculated the ratio between the action timeand the break time (men’s: 1:6.6 in FIE GP competitions and1:6.4 in “A” competitions; women’s: 1:4.8 in FIE GP compet-itions and 1:5.6 in “A” competitions).

In a men’s FIE GP bout, 60% of the actions were offensive,25% defensive, 12% counterriposte, and 4% simultaneous. Inan "A" bout, 52% of the actions were offensive, 28% defensive,13% counterriposte, and 7% simultaneous. On the contrary, in

TABLE 2. Analysis of the length (seconds) of a men and women’s saber bout (35 for men and 25 for women).*†

Effectivetime (s)

Breaktime (s)

Totaltime (s)

Length of anaction (s)

Length ofa break (s)

Ratio of actionto break

Msa 70.7 6 17.2 445.5 6 72.8 516.2 6 81.6 2.5 6 0.6 16.5 6 2.7 1:6.5Wsa 71.6 6 21.8 346.3 6 93.7z 417.9 6 99.5z 2.9 6 0.9 14.5 6 3.2 1:5.1z

*Effective time: sum of the duration of each single action. Break time: sum of all pauses of the bout. Total time: effective time plusbreak time. Length of an action: average duration of every single action. Length of a break: average duration of every single break.

†Msa = men’s saber; Wsa = women’s saber.zStatistical significance for p , 0.05.

TABLE 3. Comparison between the data about the action times and break times (seconds) in men’s saber bouts (our data)and men’s foil and epee (data gathered by others (15)); comparison between women’s saber data (ours) and women’sepee data (15).*

CategoriesEffectivetime (s)

Breaktime (s)

Totaltime (s)

Length of anaction (s)

Length of abreak (s)

Ratio of actionto break

Men’s foil 253 6 82 745 6 145 997 6 227 5.2 6 3.5 15.6 6 12.8 1:3Men’s epee 302 6 86 425 6 162 728 6 247 12.7 6 7.6 18.2 6 12.3 1:1.4Men’s saber 70.7 6 17.2 445.5 6 72.8 516.2 6 81.6 2.5 6 0.6 16.5 6 2.7 1:6.5Women’s epee 366 6 109 263 6 71 623 6 151 16.5 6 4.2 7.9 6 2.7 2.1:1Women’s saber 71.6 6 21.8 346.3 6 93.7 417.9 6 99.5 2.9 6 0.9 14.5 6 3.2 1:5.1

*Saber data: 35 bouts for men and 25 bouts for women.





a woman’s FIE GP bout, 50% of the actions were offensive,30% defensive, 16% counterriposte, and 4% simultaneous; inan “A” bout, 50% of the actions were offensive, 32% defensive,14% counterriposte, and 4% simultaneous.

It is possible to note that the actual fighting time for menis 14% of the total time of the match, both in the FIE GP andin “A” competitions; for women, it is 19% in the FIE GPmatches and 15% in “A” competitions.

DISCUSSION

In this study, a performance analysis of the saber (notationalanalysis) was carried out. Male and female athletes werestudied during 2 types of competitions (“A” and FIE GP).

There were no differences between FIE GP and “A” com-petitions in the men’s analysis. However, in the women’s anal-ysis, with regard to the total number of actions, the differencebetween the 2 kinds of bouts resulted to be significant andgreater in “A” competitions. The doubled score and the pres-ence of slow motion in FIE GP competition did not modifythe technical (number of offensive, defensive, counterriposte,and actions performed in 4 central meters of the piste), neuro-muscular (number of lunges and change of direction), and met-abolic (total time spent in activity during a bout, action–breakratio) indicators that were analyzed. Therefore, the perfor-mance model analyzed in the 2 different kinds of competitionsseems to be overlapping in both men’s and women’s fencing.

The comparison between men’s and women’s saber boutshighlights some significant differences that could beexplained by a different technical-tactical approach: It seemsthat women need more time to finish an action, and there-fore, they have less abilities overall to perform first intentionoffensive actions. This could be because of the fact thatwomen’s saber was only introduced in 1998 and thus hasa lower level of technical development.

The data, in general, seem to show that saber is a moredynamic discipline than the other weapons that have longerbout times. The average length of an individual action (Table 2),the percentage of offensive actions, and actions performed inthe 4 central meters of the piste—position taken at thebeginning of each bout and after each assignment of thrust—indicate a faster and instinctive trend of this specialty’sactions (Table 1) compared with foil and epee (15).

In saber, most actions are offensive. Although foil and theepee are weapons with which you can only hit with the point,the saber is a weapon used for thrusting and cutting with boththe cutting edge and the back of the blade: this means that forfoil and the epee, there is only one hitting direction, whereasfor saber, the hitting direction may be leading, cutting, andback cutting (15). It is clear, therefore, that with saber, it iseasier to plan an offensive rather than defensive action (15).

The direction changes, and the lunges, are of significantimportance in the saber performance analysis of highneuromuscular impact (3). The number of direction changesis not particularly high; the analysis performed on the otherweapons shows higher values (21) and even higher in bouts in

which 2 high-level fencers fight rather than bouts in whichfencers with less technical skills fight (20). In saber, however,a direction change is carried out every 65.3 seconds for menand 59.7 for women. In the comparison with data from otherspecialties (Table 3), it is notable that in foil and epee, thelength of the action is characterized by many directionchanges, for the most part of long periods of study, whereasin saber, the action ends quickly: This shows that the directionchange is a defensive measure, that is aborting an opponent’sattack, rather than to search for the ideal fit as in foil and epee.

In fencing, the distance between the 2 fencers is veryimportant to obtain a successful hit and to avoid being hit;however, in foil and epee, it is repeatedly sought throughback and forth movements without necessarily completingthe action, which does not occur in saber, because most ofthe thrusts are carried out by first intention.

A male fencer carries out 21.6 6 3.7 lunges in a bout, andin particular, he carries out a lunge every 23.9 seconds,whereas a female fencer carries out 21 6 4.5 lunges in a boutand a lunge every 20 seconds: It confirms the importancethat a lunge has in the training program both from the per-formance and the preventive point of view. The lunge, infact, is the movement of forward propulsion of the body atfull strength, with which a thrust is carried out; moreover, itis very important to include exercises in training programsthat will help prevent accidents because of the extreme stressplaced upon the knee and, above all, ankle joints.

The data analysis collected on the action times, break times,and related reports can be useful to determine the metaboliccharacteristics of saber. The data indicate that the averagelength of an action is 2.5 seconds for men and 2.9 seconds forwomen and, in some cases, less than a second; in addition, theeffective fighting time is 13% of the total time for men and17.1% for women. These data suggest that, in saber, the primarymetabolic commitment is anaerobic alactic and the length ofbreaks during the bout is 16.5 seconds for men and 14.5 forwomen, which may confirm the intervention of the anaerobiclactate metabolism caused by short duration and high-intensityactions with intermittency and incomplete recovery times (10).

The comparison between the data found for the saberwith that already present in the literature for other weapons(Table 3) confirms the technical differences among the differ-ent weapons and the need for diversified and specific trainingfor the saber fencer. In fact, whereas the epee and the foil areweapons that can only hit with the point, the saber is a weaponthat you can also hit with both the cutting edge and the backof the blade; in addition, in foil, you can only hit the trunk andthe bottom part of the mask, and in saber, the target is fromthe waist up, whereas in epee, you can hit the entire body. Anonvalid target is only signaled in foil with a white light,whereas it is not signaled with the other 2 weapons.

The foil and saber are subject to the convention thatattackers have the right to hit, whereas if the defenders wantthe right to hit, they have to run for a parry; this rule is notvalid for the epee.


| www.nsca.com




Training methods are usually aimed at improving musclepower and strength for all specialties (2), the relationshipbetween the length of an action, and that of a break (Table 3)highlights the need to diversify the type and administration ofthe method according to the weapon practiced. It may be ofgreater significance to focus on the rhythm changes rather thanon the acceleration and deceleration periods during both theoffensive and defensive phases. Moreover, it appears to requirethe use of training related to muscle power in the lunge.

Saber is a skill that is faster and more instinctive than epeeand foil: The duration of the action is shorter, more offen-sive actions are performed, and high numbers of actions areperformed in the 4 central meters of the piste that requireimportant acceleration and deceleration actions.

Our work adds data that can be useful to understand thedifferences between the various fencing weapons and to thendefine the bout demands and training modality more clearly.

In the future, more detailed studies on acceleration anddeceleration abilities would be useful to improve perfor-mance and for injury prevention. In both men and women,the differences of the rules do not seem to affect the athletes’performance, so it is not necessary to diversify training inpreparation for the 2 types of competitions.

The end user before scheduling a saber training shouldconsider that there are differences in the behavior in a matchbetween man and woman and that the different type ofregulation does not affect the characteristic of the matchand, above all, that there is a difference in the performancedemands among saber and other weapons.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

� Performance analysis data can help the coach identifymetabolic indicators useful in training planning.

� In relation to training planning, more attention should bepaid to rate changes and then to the acceleration anddeceleration phases in both the offensive and defensiveperiods. More training must be planned in the central areaof the piste: a kind of intermittent training using shortdistances with an action to recovery ratio of 1: 6.5(men) and 1:5.1 (women), which should be preferred overphysical saber training.

� Our data confirm the need for diversified and specifictraining for men and women saber fencers.

REFERENCES

1. Bland, Altman, Statistical methods for assessing agreement betweentwo methods of clinical measurement, Lancet i, 307–310, 1986.

2. Bressan, A. Theory and Methodology of Training. Pisa, Italy: GiardiniEditori e Stampatori in Pisa, 1994.

3. Bressan, A and Ranzani, P. Functional assessment of lower limbs infencing. Vol 41/42. Rome: SdS-CONI, 1998. pp. 104–119.

4. Gholipour, M, Tabrizi, A, and Farahmand, F. Kinematics analysisof lunge fencing using stereophotogrametry. World J Sport Sci 1:32–37, 2008.

5. Harmenberg, J, Ceci, R, Barvestaa, P, Hjerpe, K, and Nystrom, J.Comparison of different tests of fencing performance. Int J SportsMed 12: 573–576, 1991.

6. Hoch, F, Werle, E, and Weicker, H. Sympathoadrenergic regulationin elite fencers in training and competition. Int J Sports Med 9: 141–145, 1988.

7. Iglesias, X. Functional Testing in Fencing [doctoral dissertation].Institut Nacional d’Educacio Fisica de Catalunya, Barcelona:Universitat de Barcelona, 1997.

8. Iglesias, X and Rodriguez, FA. Physiological demands and energycost of fencing during competitions of national and internationallevel. In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Congress of the European Collegeof Sport Science. P. Parisi, F. Pigozzi, & G. Prinzi, eds. Roma, Italy:ECSS, 1999. pp. 428.

9. Iglesias, X and Rodriguez, FA. Telemetric measurements versusheart-rate-bouted oxygen consumption during simulatedcompetitive fencing assaults. In: Proceedings of the 4th AnnualCongress of the European College of Sport Science. P. Parisi, F. Pigozzi, &G. Prinzi, eds. Roma, Italy: ECSS, 1999. pp. 429.

10. Janssen, P. Lactate Threshold Training. Champaign, IL: Human KineticsPublishers, 2001.

11. Lavoie, JM, Leger, L, Pitre, R, and Marini, JF. Fencing competitions:Sword time analysis and moving distances. Med du Sport 59: 279–283, 1985.

12. Li, JX, So, RC, Yuam, YW, and Chan, KM. Muscle strain andcardiovascular stress in fencing competition. In: Proceedings ofthe 5th IOC World Congress on Sport Sciences. Sidney, Australia:National Sport Information Centre, Australian Sports Commission,1999. pp. 222.

13. Margonato, V, Roi, GS, Cerizza, C, and Galsabino, GL. Maximalisometric force and muscle cross-sectional area of the forearm infencers. J Sports Sci 12: 567–572, 1994.

14. Nystrom, J, Lindwall, O, Ceci, R, Harmenberg, J, Svedenhag, J, andEkblom, B. Physiological and morphological characteristics ofworld class fencers. Int J Sports Med 11: 136–139, 1990.

15. Pignotti, U and Pessina, G. Sabre . Rome: Central School of Sport.C.O.N.I., Italian Fencing Federation, 1970.

16. Pittaluga, I and Roi, GS. Analisi cinematica della prestazione. In:Proceedings of the Congress “Il modello di prestazione della schermamoderna”. Padova, Italy: AIMS, 1999.

17. Rules for Competitions of the FIE. Rules of the material. Losanne,Switzerland: FIE, 2010.

18. Rules for Competitions of the FIE. Technical regulation. Losanne,Switzerland: FIE, 2010.

19. Roi, GS and Bianchedi, D. The science of fencing: Implications forperformance and injury prevention. Sports Med 38: 465–481, 2008.

20. Roi, GS and Pittaluga, I. Time-motion analysis in women’s swordfencing. In: Proceedings of the Fourth IOC Congress on Sport Sciences.Monaco: 1997. pp. 66.

21. Roi, GS, Toran, G, Fiore, A, Bressan, A, Gatti, G, IPittaluga, I,Maserati, A, Rampinini, E, and Lariviere, G. Performance model inmodern fencing, in Scuola dello Sport. 20: 12–19, 2001.

22. Sapega, A, Minkoff, J, Valsamis, M, and Nicholas, J. Musculoskeletalperformance testing and profiling of elite competitive fencers. ClinSports Med 3: 231–244, 1984.

23. Schmidt, RA and Wrisberg, CA. Motor learning and performance. ed.Rome, Italy: Societa Stampa Sportiva, 2000.

24. Williams, LR and Walmsley, A. Response timing and muscularcoordination in fencing: A comparison of elite and novice fencers.J Sci Med Sport 3: 460–475, 2000.

25. You, E and Do, MC. In fencing, does intensive practice equallyimprove the speed performance of touche when it is performed aloneand in combination with the lunge? Int J Sports Med 21: 122–126, 2000.





Performance analysis in saber

Documents

Transcript of Performance analysis in saber