Document Type : Research Paper


1 M.Sc. of Sports Biomechanics, Islamic Azad University Central Tehran Branch

2 Professor of Sports Biomechanics, Kharazmi University


The purpose of this study was to compare selected kinematic variables between Iranian and Spanish elite fencers. 12 Iranian national and 13 Spanish national fencers were participated in this study. Vicon motion analysis system used to measure kinematic variables (with sampling frequency of 500Hz) and two force plates used to measure timing and COM parameters (with sampling frequency of 1000Hz). Timing, linear and angular variables are used for statistical analysis. The results shown Iranian fencers in comparison to Spanish fencers has a significantly lower value in acceleration phase time, displacement of COM in acceleration phase, linear velocity of COM in acceleration phase, lunge length, and all of angular variables except of elbow angle in the peak weapon velocity moment (P<0.01). However, in variables such as flight phase time, time to peak arm extension, and maximum of weapon velocity, Iranian fencers significantly have a greater value in comparison to Spanish fencers.


  1. Baker WJ. Sports in the western world. (­2nd Revised edition); Published by University of Illinois Press 1982.
  2. Tsolakis C, Kostaki‌ E, Vagenas G. Anthropometric, flexibility, strength-power, and sport-specific correlates in elite fencing. Percept & Mot Skills. 2010; 110(3 Pt 2): 1015-‌28.
  3. Bottoms L, Greenhalgh A, ‌Sinclair J. Kinematic determinants of weapon velocity during the fencing lunge in experienced epee fencers. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2013; 15(4): 109-13.
  4. Putnam C A, Dunn E G. Performance variations in rapid swinging motions: Effects on segment interaction and resultant joint moments. In Biomechanics XB. (edited by B.Jonsson) 1987; pp 661-‌5.Champaign, IL; Human Kinetics.
  5. Gresham-Fiegel CN, House PD, Zupan MF. The effect of non-leading foot placement on power in the fencing lunge. J Strength Cond Res. 2013; 27(1):57-63.
  6. Gutiérrez-Dávila M, Rojas F J, Antonio R,‌ Navarro E. Effect of uncertainty on the reaction response in fencing. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2013; 84(1): 16-23.
  7. Williams L R T,‌ Walmsley A. Response timing and muscular coordination in fencing: A comparison of elite and novice fencers. J of Sci and Medi in Sport. 2000; ‌3(4): 460-‌75.
  8. Gutierrez-Davila M, Rojas F‌ J, ‌Antonio R, ‌Navarro E. Response timing in the lunge and target change in elite versus medium-level fencers. Eur J of Sport Sci. 2013; 13(4): 364-‌71.
  9. Knoll Z,‌ Kiss R M. Gait pattern of professional fencers. Facta universitatis-series. Phy Edu and Sport. 2003; 1(10): 33-41.
  10. Frere J, Göpfert B, Nüesch C, Huber C, Fischer M, Wirz D‌, et al. Kinematical and EMG-classifications of a fencing attack. In J of Sports Medi. 2011; 32(01): 28-34.
  11. Gholipour M, Tabrizi A,‌ Farahmand F. Kinematics analysis of lunge fencing using stereophotogrametry. World J of Sport Scie. 2008; 1(1): 32-37. (In Persian).
  12. Gholipour M, Farahmamdi F, Tabrizi A. Investigated the kinematic motion of the attack in fencing using Stereo photogrammetry. Harakat. 2008; 22(36): 73‌-‌86. (In Persian).
  13. Dapena J, Gutiérrez-Dávila M, ‌Campos J. The effect of muscular pre‐tensing on the sprint start: 745: 3: 30 PM–3: 45 PM. Medi & Scie in Sports & Exercise. 2006; 38(5): 40.