Biomechanics of fencing sport: A scoping review

PLoS One. 2017 Feb 10;12(2):e0171578. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171578. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of our scoping review was to identify and summarize current evidence on the biomechanics of fencing to inform athlete development and injury prevention.

Design: Scoping review.

Method: Peer-reviewed research was identified from electronic databases using a structured keyword search. Details regarding experimental design, study group characteristics and measured outcomes were extracted from retrieved studies, summarized and information regrouped under themes for analysis. The methodological quality of the evidence was evaluated.

Results: Thirty-seven peer-reviewed studies were retrieved, the majority being observational studies conducted with experienced and elite athletes. The methodological quality of the evidence was "fair" due to the limited scope of research. Male fencers were the prevalent group studied, with the lunge and use of a foil weapon being the principal movement evaluated. Motion capture and pedabarography were the most frequently used data collection techniques.

Conclusions: Elite fencers exhibited sequential coordination of upper and lower limb movements with coherent patterns of muscle activation, compared to novice fencers. These elite features of neuromuscular coordination resulted in higher magnitudes of forward linear velocity of the body center of mass and weapon. Training should focus on explosive power. Sex- and equipment-specific effects could not be evaluated based on available research.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis

MeSH terms

  • Athletes
  • Athletic Injuries / prevention & control
  • Biomechanical Phenomena
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Movement*
  • Observational Studies as Topic
  • Sports / physiology*

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the Innovation and Technology Commission of Hong Kong; Grant number: ITP/018/5TP; Funding recipient: MZ; URLs: http://www.itc.gov.hk/en/welcome.htm. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.