1 / 7

The Physiology of Fencing

The Physiology of Fencing. Phoebe Camilletti ESS 110.

redford
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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Physiology of Fencing Phoebe Camilletti ESS 110

  2. “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).

  3. Fitness Demands My Musings ASEP Findings • Indeed, fencing is a sport that is 80% anaerobic. • Softball and baseball are too (Reilly, 1990).

  4. 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

  5. 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

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

  7. 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.

More Related