The physiology of fencing l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 7

The Physiology of Fencing PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 125 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

The Physiology of Fencing. Phoebe Camilletti ESS 110.

Download Presentation

The Physiology of Fencing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


The physiology of fencing l.jpg

The Physiology of Fencing

Phoebe Camilletti

ESS 110


Slide2 l.jpg

“A touch of imagination and instead of working on the strip of the Salle, masked and padded, the sword tip blunted, you are standing, naked to the waist in some glade, facing an opponent with a deadly weapon in hand. Only one of you will leave the scene. Even to think of this in a friendly pick-up bout is to make your work ten times more cautious, your determination to touch and not be touched a hundred-fold more intense, a thousand times more enjoyable. I never fence without conditioning myself to believe that if I am careless, my punishment will be a slit forearm, or a blade through my lungs” (Gallico, 2005).


Fitness demands l.jpg

Fitness Demands

My Musings

ASEP Findings

  • Indeed, fencing is a sport that is 80% anaerobic.

  • Softball and baseball are too (Reilly, 1990).


Areas of discrepancy l.jpg

Areas of Discrepancy

  • AEROBIC PROMINENCE

    -“The maximal oxygen uptake as a measure of cardiorespiratoryfitness measurements: 51 ml.kg-1.min-1 in college champions to 67 ml.kg-1.min-1 in world class fencers.” (Harmenberg, J.)

    -differences between weapons/styles

  • SPEED

    -differences between weapons/styles

    -no studies have really concluded that there is a “correlation between speed or accuracy of fencing motion and success” (Harmenberg, J.).

    -psychological factors


Areas of discrepancy5 l.jpg

Areas of Discrepancy

  • STRENGTH

    -needed for explosive lunge; quick retreat; deep en garde—vary between weapons/styles

    -“Fencers show a greater cross-sectional area (CS A) of the dominant forearm, arm, thigh, and calf, which are independent of technical level and years of training.” (Roi, 2008).

    -overuse injuries; primary and secondary prevention


Conclusion l.jpg

Conclusion

The ASEP findings are more accurate, but they cannot fully account for the subjectivity that evaluating the range of fencing styles involves.


References l.jpg

References

  • Aldo, Nadi. (1943). Nadi on Fencing. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

  • Harmenberg, J. & Ceci, R. “Fencing: Biomedical and Psychological Factors.” Department of Virology, Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control.

    <http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/drafts/Fencing.doc.>.

  • Martens, R. (2004). Successful Coaching. Hong Kong: Human Kinetics.

  • Reilly, T. (1990). The Physiology of Sports. Taylor & Francis.

  • Roi G.S. & Bianchedi D. (2008). “The Science of Fencing: Implications for Performance and Injury Prevention.” Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.). 38 (6), 465-81.


  • Login