Response timing in the lunge and target change in elite versus medium-level fencers

Abstract The aim of the present work is to examine the differences between two groups of fencers with different levels of competition, elite and medium level. The timing parameters of the response reaction have been compared together with the kinetic variables which determine the sequence of segmented participation used during the lunge with a change in target during movement. A total of 30 male sword fencers participated, 13 elite and 17 medium level. Two force platforms recorded the horizontal component of the force and the start of the movement. One system filmed the movement in 3D, recording the spatial positions of 11 markers, while another system projected a mobile target over a screen. For synchronisation, an electronic signal enabled all the systems to be started simultaneously. Among the timing parameters of the reaction response, the choice reaction time (CRT) to the target change during the lunge was measured. The results revealed differences between the groups regarding the flight time, horizontal velocity at the end of the acceleration phase, and the length of the lunge, these being higher for the elite group, as well as other variables related to the temporal sequence of movement. No significant differences have been found in the simple reaction time or in CRT. According to the literature, the CRT appears to improve with sports practice, although this factor did not differentiate the elite from medium-level fencers. The coordination of fencing movements, that is, the right technique, constitutes a factor that differentiates elite fencers from medium-level ones.

[1]  K. Kamibayashi Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis, 6th Edition , 2019, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

[2]  G Tenenbaum,et al.  Information-processing under incremental levels of physical loads: comparing racquet to combat sports. , 2006, The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness.

[3]  Sarah Astill,et al.  Motor Control, Learning and Development , 2008 .

[4]  Donatella Spinelli,et al.  Neural correlates of fast stimulus discrimination and response selection in top-level fencers , 2006, Neuroscience Letters.

[5]  Z. Borysiuk,et al.  Information Processes, Stimulation and Perceptual Training in Fencing , 2008 .

[6]  Wojciech J. Cynarski,et al.  Psychomotor aspects of talent identification: A new approach in the case of fencing , 2010 .

[7]  M. Goodale,et al.  Two visual systems re-viewed , 2008, Neuropsychologia.

[8]  G. Savelsbergh,et al.  Ventral and dorsal system contributions to visual anticipation in fast ball sports. , 2008 .

[9]  E Yiou,et al.  In fencing, does intensive practice equally improve the speed performance of the touche when it is performed alone and in combination with the lunge? , 2000, International journal of sports medicine.

[10]  B Doğan Multiple-choice reaction and visual perception in female and male elite athletes. , 2009, The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness.

[11]  A Walmsley,et al.  Response Amendment in Fencing: Differences between Elite and Novice Subjects , 2000, Perceptual and motor skills.

[12]  L R Williams,et al.  Response timing and muscular coordination in fencing: a comparison of elite and novice fencers. , 2000, Journal of science and medicine in sport.

[13]  M. Mon-Williams,et al.  Motor Control and Learning , 2006 .

[14]  Jesús Dapena,et al.  The effect of muscular pre-tensing on the sprint start. , 2006, Journal of applied biomechanics.

[15]  G. Schneider Two visual systems. , 1969, Science.