+Model

SCISPO-3084; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Science & Sports (2017) xxx, xxx—xxx

Disponible en ligne sur

ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Anthropometric parameters and leg power

performance in fencing. Age, sex and
discipline related differences
Caractéristiques anthropométriques et puissance en escrime :
relation avec l’âge, le sexe et l’arme

A. Ntai , F. Zahou , G. Paradisis , A. Smirniotou , C. Tsolakis ∗

Department of Track & Field, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Science, University of Athens,
Ethnikis Antistasis 41, Dafni 17237, Greece

Received 2 January 2016; accepted 4 June 2016

KEYWORDS Summary
Fencers; Objective. — The aim of this study was to compare anthropometric, body composition, and leg
Jumping power performance in male and female, elite, and national fencers of all age competitive
performance; groups and discipline practiced.
Anthropometry Subjects and methods. — A total of 125 fencers (mean ± SD; age 20.6 ± 6.7 years, height
173.2 ± 9.2 cm and body mass 64.7 ± 4.7 kg) participated in this study. Anthropometric measure-
ments were taken before participants performed squat, countermovement, drop, and standing
log jump.
Results. — Significant differences were identified between male and female for height
(177.6 ± 8.9 cm vs. 167.9 ± 6.2 cm, P < 0.001), body mass (70.4 ± 11.9 kg vs. 57.6 ± 7.0 kg,
P < 0.001), arm span (181.8 ± 9.7 cm vs. 168.8 ± 7.2 cm, P < 0.001), leg length (88.9 ± 6.4 cm
vs. 81.7 ± 4.3 cm, P < 0.001) and body mass index (22.2 ± 3.0 vs. 20.5 ± 2.1, P < 0.001) and
for long jump (202.2 ± 34.7 cm vs. 167.4 ± 23.5 cm, P < 0.05), squat jump (26.5 ± 7.13 cm
vs. 19.9 ± 4.00 cm, P < 0.05), counter movement jump (30.1 ± 7.4 cm vs. 21.7 ± 4.5 cm,
P < 0.05), drop jump (28.4 ± 9.5 cm vs. 22.3 ± 6.4 cm, P < 0.05) and reaction strength index
(0.90 ± 0.4 vs. 0.66 ± 0.3, P < 0.05), respectively. Significant differences in jumping per-
formance were observed between the 14—17 years old and the > 20 years old group for
long jump (179.2 ± 30.8 cm vs. 205.2 ± 33.9 cm, P < 0.05), squat jump (21.9 ± 5.3 cm vs.
26.2 ± 7.8 cm, P < 0.05), counter movement jump (25.1 ± 5.9 cm vs. 29.0 ± 8.6 cm, P < 0.05),

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tsolakis@phed.uoa.gr (C. Tsolakis).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2016.06.011
0765-1597/© 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Ntai A, et al. Anthropometric parameters and leg power performance in fencing. Age,
sex and discipline related differences. Sci sports (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2016.06.011
+Model
SCISPO-3084; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 A. Ntai et al.

drop jump (19.01 ± 7.0 cm vs. 25.2 ± 6.7 cm, P < 0.05) and reaction strength index (0.69 ± 0.35
vs. 0.96 ± 0.32, P < 0.05) and between the 18—20 years old > and the 20 years old group
for long jump (174.0 ± 30.3 cm vs. 205.2 ± 33.9 cm, P < 0.05), squat jump (22.6 ± 6.1 cm vs.
26.2 ± 7.8 cm. P < 0.05), countermovement jump (24.9 ± 7.1 cm vs. 29.0 ± 8.6 cm, P < 0.05),
drop jump (20.9 ± 6.8 cm vs. 25.2 ± 6.7 cm, P < 0.05) and reaction strength index (0.71 ± 0.4
vs. 0.96 ± 0.32, P < 0.05), respectively. Elite fencers performed better in squat (27.3 ± 7.1 cm
vs. 22.9 ± 6.5 cm, P < 0.05), countermovement jump (30.5 ± 8.00 cm vs. 25.5 ± 7.2 cm, P < 0.05)
and long jump (203.8 ± 38.9 cm vs. 183.2 ± 33.6 cm, P < 0.05) than national level fencers. Sig-
nificant differences were observed for drop jump contact time between foil and epee groups
(0.32 ± 0.01 ms vs. 0.28 ± 0.01 ms, P < 0.05), respectively.
Conclusion. — The observed differences in anthropometric measurements and leg power per-
formance will facilitate the identification of the most suitable athletes and highlighted specific
power abilities that could support the technical drills in competitive fencing.
© 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Résumé
MOTS CLÉS Objectifs. — Cette étude avait comme objectif de comparer les différences au niveau des carac-
Escrimeurs ; téristiques anthropométriques, de la composition corporelle, et de la puissance entre des
Performance ; escrimeurs masculins et féminins de niveau élite et non élite, en relation avec l’âge et la
Anthropométrie nature des armes utilisées.
Méthodes. — Cent vingt-cinq escrimeurs (âge : 20,6 ± 6,7, taille : 173,2 ± 9,2 cm, poids de corps :
64,7 ± 4,7 kg) ont participé à cette étude. Les caractéristiques anthropométriques ont été éval-
uées avant que les athlètes effectuent le squat et les sauts verticaux avec contre-mouvement,
du bas et en longueur sans élan.
Résultats. — Les escrimeurs masculins et féminins différaient au niveau de la taille
(177,6 ± 8,9 cm vs 167,9 ± 6,2 cm, p < 0,001), du poids du corps (70,4 ± 11,9 kg vs 57,6 ± 7,0 kg,
p < 0,001), de la longueur des bras (181,8 ± 9,7 cm vs 168,8 ± 7,2 cm, p < 0,001), de la
longueur des jambes (88,9 ± 6,4 cm vs 81,7 ± 4,3 cm, p < 0,001), de l’indice de masse cor-
porelle (22,2 ± 3,0 vs 20,5 ± 2,1, p < 0,001), du saut en longueur sans élan (202,2 ± 34,7 cm
vs 167,4 ± 23,5 cm, p < 0,05), du squat (26,5 ± 7,13 cm vs 19,9 ± 4,00 cm, p < 0,05), du saut
vertical avec contre-mouvement (30,1 ± 7,4 cm vs 21,7 ± 4,5 cm, p < 0,05), du saut verti-
cal (28,4 ± 9,5 cm vs 22,3 ± 6,4 cm, p < 0,05), et de l’indice de force réactive (0,90 ± 0,4 vs
0,66 ± 0,3, p < 0,05). Les groupes d’âge de 14—17 et de plus de 20 ans différaient en ce qui
concerne la performance du saut en longueur sans élan (179,2 ± 30,8 cm vs 205,2 ± 33,9 cm,
p < 0,05), du squat (21,9 ± 5,3 cm vs 26,2 ± 7,8 cm, p < 0,05), du saut vertical avec contre-
mouvement (25,1 ± 5,9 cm vs 29,0 ± 8,6 cm, p < 0,05), du saut à bas (19,01 ± 7,0 cm vs
25,2 ± 6,7 cm, p < 0,05), et de l’indice de force réactive (0,69 ± 0,35 vs 0,96 ± 0,32, p < 0,05).
Les groupes des athlètes de 18—20 ans et de plus de 20 ans, différaient dans le saut en longueur
sans élan (174,0 ± 30,3 cm vs 205,2 ± 33,9 cm, p < 0,05), le squat (22,6 ± 6,1 cm vs 26,2 ± 7,8 cm,
p < 0,05), le saut vertical avec contre-mouvement (24,9 ± 7,1 cm vs 29,0 ± 8,6 cm, p < 0,05), le
saut à bas (20,9 ± 6,8 cm vs 25,2 ± 6,7 cm, p < 0,05) et l’indice de force réactive (0,71 ± 0,4 vs
0,96 ± 0,32, p < 0,05). Les escrimeurs élite avaient des valeurs de puissance supérieures à
celles de non élite pour le squat (27,3 ± 7,1 cm vs 22,9 ± 6,5 cm, p < 0,05), le saut vertical avec
contre-mouvement (30,5 ± 8,00 cm vs 25,5 ± 7,2 cm, p < 0,05), et le saut en longueur sans élan
(203,8 ± 38,9 cm vs 183,2 ± 33,6 cm, p < 0,05). Les escrimeurs du fleuret et de l’épée différaient
au temps de contact du saut à bas (0,32 ± 0,01 ms vs 0,28 ± 0,01 ms, p < 0,05).
Conclusions. — Les différences observées dans les caractéristiques anthropométriques et la puis-
sance, facilitent l’identification des athlètes les plus appropriés pour l’escrime et mettent en
évidence que le développement de la puissance des membres inférieures peut être retenu
comme objectif d’entraînement des qualités physiques chez les escrimeurs.
© 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.

1. Introduction or to distinguish performance parameters between athletes

from different sport, and disciplines within the same sport
Various anthropometric, body composition and and playing position [3].
strength/physical parameters variables are important Anthropometric characteristics related to optimal per-
prerequisites for success in sport. Therefore, researchers formance have been studied in different sports such as
have been investigating different sports to monitor and running [4], swimming [5], gymnastics [6], rowing [7],
evaluate training interventions [1], talent identification [2], triathlon [8], and wrestling [9]. Moreover, elite athletes

Please cite this article in press as: Ntai A, et al. Anthropometric parameters and leg power performance in fencing. Age,
sex and discipline related differences. Sci sports (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2016.06.011
+Model
SCISPO-3084; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Leg power in fencing
from different team sports and/or in relation to differ-
ent playing positions (volley, basket ball, rugby, soccer, and
handball), were reported to have favorable body character-
istics [10—13]. Body dimensions such as height, arm span,
limp length, as well as body mass index (BMI) and body mass,
which are not affected by training seem to be essential fac-
tors for high-level performance [14,15]. On the other hand,
some studies showed no significant differences in:
• anthropometrics’ female water polo players [12], power
lifters [16] cricket players [2] and ice hockey players [17];
• body composition in male ultramarathon cycling [18]
between athlete’s levels.
Gender differences are attributed to the normal growth
process between males and females [19] while it is gen-
erally accepted that anthropometric, morphological and
functional performance increase with age categories [20].
However in open sports, athletes compete in a complex and
rapid changing environment and the activity patterns are
largely depending on a variety of others factors including
skill heterogeneity, motivation, motor coordination, deci-
sion make, tactics [21], and therefore the determination
of the ideal anthropometric and physiological demands
remains unclear.
The interaction of body size and strength is the most sig-
nificant predictor of functional performance in adolescents
[22]. Body mass and BMI are related to muscle size and power
and contribute to the within or between sport differences
in many sports that require the development of high forces
and power, in order to achieve explosive movements during
the execution of the specific kinetic patterns [23]. Vertical
jump performance is a critical factor related to the competi-
tion outcome in many sports and should be developed from a
younger age [24]. Although jumping performance contribute
to success in many individual and team sports [19] a number
of studies showed no significant differences in physiologi-
cal parameters between positions in volleyball [3] Gaelic
football players [25] and football players [26].
Fencing has been described as a high intensity intermit-
tent sport with specific technical skills, tactical decisions,
and physical performance. During competition, dynamic
accurate offensive or defensive movements performed
against the opponent depend on concentric explosive
strength and fast stretch-shortening cycles of the lower
limps [27]. Long-term fencing training can influence fencers’
lower limbs strength and power, therefore specifically for
this reason designed programs implemented from an early
stage of training simultaneously with the teaching of the
individual basic kinetic patterns [28].
Although success in sport competitions has been
associated with specific anthropometric characteristics,
anthropometric data for elite fencers are limited and mainly
reported for descriptive purposes [29]. It appears that only
one study up to now has examined the anthropometric pro-
file of elite fencers throughout age groups levels [30]. In
that study, significant differences were observed between
genders in all age groups > 14 years for most anthropomet-
ric variables, while there were no significant differences
between male and female fencers of 10—13 years of age.
Moreover, arm, leg length, and body composition param-
eters were not different between the four age groups in
Please cite this article in press as: Ntai A, et al. Anthropometric parameters and leg power performance in fencing. Age,
sex and discipline related differences. Sci sports (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2016.06.011
3
females. The non-significant differences between the two
older groups for both gender indicating a relative stability
of the anthropometric characteristics after puberty. Train-
ing adaptations as reflected in leg CSA were evident from
the early years and were increasing with age.
Recently, scientific evidence determined the physiologi-
cal [31] and neuromuscular differences [32] of elite fencers
in comparison to novice fencers associated with functional
fencing performance. However, no study has been found to
compare anthropometric or physiological factors from dif-
ferent fencing disciplines (foil, epee or sabre) although,
there are evident that fencers, empirically chooses their
specialization based on their club offer or coaches’ interest
[33].
The purpose of this study was to determine anthropomet-
ric and motor performance status of fencers based on age
group, gender, competition level and discipline. This is the
first study that examined to what extend elite and national
level fencers of different age groups, gender and discipline
may differ in their body size and physiological profile. It
was hypothesized that differences in anthropometric, body
composition and leg power would exist between:
• competitive age groups (14—17, 18—20, > 20 years of age);
• gender (male—female);
• competitive level (elite—national level);
• the discipline practiced (foil, epee, sabre) in a large group
of fencers.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
A total of 125 (69 males and 56 females) fencers were mea-
sured during an International Fencing camp held in Athens
in July 2014. All participants were members of the Greek,
Tunisian, Algerian, Russian, Turkish, English and Australian
National fencing teams, having considerable experience of
international competitions. One of them was Olympic final-
ist, 5 were World Champions in junior category, 16 having
European and international experience while the remaining
103 had adequate experience in National level competitions.
The participants were also divided in:
• three age groups according to the International Fenc-
ing Federation competitive rules (14—17, 18—20, and > 20
years old);
• three discipline groups (epee, foil, sabre) according to
their competitive preference and specificity.
The physical characteristics of the participants are shown
in Tables 1 and 2. The participants were training 5—6 times
a week for approximately 15—18 hours and participated in
total to 3—5 training camps and 16—20 competitions per
year. This study conducted during the last two weeks of a
transitional training period, in which fencers engaged with
specific conditioning aimed to improve aerobic fitness, mus-
cle strength and power and contained alternatively, circuit
training, sprint, jumping plyometric drills, and recreational
team games (volleyball, football, basketball). Moreover,
typical moderate to high intensity fencing training was
+Model
SCISPO-3084; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 A. Ntai et al.

Table 1 Anthropometric characteristics between the different age groups.

14—17 years old 18—20 years old > 20 years old

n = 46 n = 32 n = 47

Height (cm) 170.5 ± 1.3 173.2 ± 1.3 176 ± 1.3a

Weight (kg) 60 ± 1.6 64.5 ± 2.0 69.4 ± 1.6a
Arm span (cm) 173.5 ± 1.6 175.2 ± 1.9 179.0 ± 1.5a
Leg length (cm) 85.5 ± 1.0 84.8 ± 1.2 86.5 ± 1.0
Body mass index 20.5 ± 0.4 21.5 ± 0.5 22.3 ± 0.4a
a 14—17 years old group vs. > 20 years old group (P < 0.05).

Table 2 Anthropometric characteristics between the different disciplines.

Foil Epee Sabre

n = 33 n = 52 n = 40

Height (cm) 171.35 ± 9.80 173.50 ± 9.10 174.40 ± 8.90

Weight (kg) 63.00 ± 13.40 65.00 ± 13.40 64.84 ± 10.00
Arm span (cm) 176.4 ± 10.80 175.90 ± 10.70 175.70 ± 11.00
Leg length (cm) 82.14 ± 16.00 90.90 ± 22.60 84.50 ± 14.90
Body mass index 21.35 ± 2.40 21.60 ± 2.90 21.30 ± 2.70

devoted to specific leg exercises and specific technical and
tactical fencing patterns. Prior to data collection, informed
consent was obtained from each participant, after a thor-
ough description of the risks being involved. The study was
approved by the local Institutional Review Board and all pro-
cedures were in accordance with the Helsinki declaration of
1975, as revised in 1996.
2.2. Procedures
All measurements and tests were taken place in the fenc-
ing hall of the Athens Olympic Complex at the same time
of the day (16:00—20:00 pm). In the 24-hour period before
performing the measurements and the tests, the fencers
did not engage in any strenuous activity. Each fencer was
instructed and verbally encouraged during each test to per-
form maximally at each trial. All measurements were made
twice on the dominant side. In elite fencers leg domi-
nance was defined with regard to the armed hand [34]. The
fencers were familiar with the jumping tests, since they
often performed these exercises as a part of their weekly
training as well as for monitoring their relative training
adaptations. Each subject underwent all the tests during
1 session.
2.4. Jumping performance
To evaluate overall jumping performance we selected squat
jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), drop jump (DJ)
and standing long jump (SLJ) as dependent variables,
whereas gender, age competitive categories, competition
levels and discipline as independent variables [3].
Subjects were tested on their standing reach height with
their arms down at the side before they performed a SJ,
a CMJ, and a DJ from 40 cm. Vertical jumping performance
was determined using a Chronojump device as described by
Bosco et al. [35]. Reactive strength index (RSI), derived from
the height achieved during the DJ divided by the ground
contact time (cm/s) [36]. For the standing long jump sub-
jects were taken position behind the take-off line, with feet
together opened slightly apart, and jumped forward as far as
possible. The distance is measured from the take-off line to
the heel closest to the take-off line at landing. All tests were
performed twice and the best result was recorded for further
statistical processing. A 30 s rest between trials was used,
while the rest between two consecutive tests was approxi-
mately 3 min. The test-retest reliability for the SJ, CMJ, DJ
and long jump test was estimated to be 0.91, 0.97, 0.89,
and 0.92, respectively (P < 0.001).
2.5. Statistical analysis

2.3. Anthropometry
All subjects were measured for their height, body mass, arm
span and sitting height. Leg length was estimated as height
minus sitting height. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated
from body mass and height (kg/m2 ). All measurements were
taken twice from the dominant side of each subject. Sub-
jects’ height and body mass were measured to the nearest
0.1 cm and 0.1 kg, respectively.
All data were analyzed using SPSS (version 19). Data
are presented as means and standard deviation. The
Kolmogorov—Smirnov test of normality was adopted
to assess data distribution. A multivariety analysis
of variance (MANOVA) was used to evaluate differ-
ences in gender (male—female), age competitive cate-
gories (14—17, 18—20, > 20 years old), competition levels
(international—national) and discipline (epee—foil—sabre)
for all anthropometric and body composition parameters

Please cite this article in press as: Ntai A, et al. Anthropometric parameters and leg power performance in fencing. Age,
sex and discipline related differences. Sci sports (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2016.06.011
+Model
SCISPO-3084; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Leg power in fencing 5

(height, body mass, arm span, leg length, BMI) or jump-

Table 3 Gender differences in leg power.
ing performance (SJ, CMJ, DJ, SLJ). Significant main effects
were followed by Bonferroni adjusted post-hoc tests to Male Female
examine the differences within groups. Effect sizes for main n = 69 n = 56
effects and interaction were estimated by calculating par-
tial eta squared (␩2 ) values. According to Richardson [37], LJ (cm) 202.2 ± 34.7 167.4 ± 23.5a
␩2 is classified as small (0.01 to 0.059), moderate (0.06 SJ (cm) 26.5 ± 7.13 19.9 ± 4.00
to 0.137) and large (≥ 0.138). Test—retest reliability for SJP (Watt) 777.1 ± 187.7 574.4 ± 144.7a
all the dependent variables measured in this investigation CMJ (cm) 30.1 ± 7.4 21.7 ± 4.5a
was determined in separate experiments by calculating the CMJP (Watt) 828.3 ± 190.9 582.6 ± 92.6a
intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) using a 2-way mixed DCT (ms) 0.29 ± 0.08 0.30 ± 0.08 NS
model. For each analysis statistical significance was set at DHT (cm) 24.4 ± 7.9 18.6 ± 4.73a
the ␣ = 0.05 probability level. DP (Watt) 28.4 ± 9.5 22.3 ± 6.4a
RSI 0.90 ± 0.4 0.66 ± 0.3a
LJ: long jump; SJ: squat jump; SJP: squat jump power; CMJ:
counter movement jump; CMJP: counter movement jump
3. Results power; DCT: drop jump contact time; DHT: drop jump height;
DP: drop jump power; RSI: reaction strength index; NS:
non-significant.
3.1. Anthropometric measurements a Males vs. females (P < 0.05).

The MANOVA revealed a significant multivariate effect for

gender (Wilks  = 0.527, F = 15.008, P < 0.001, n2 = 0.473).
Significant between subjects effects for gender were also
observed (F = 10.122—69.470, P < 0.001, n2 = 0.076—0.300).
Post-hoc comparisons showed significant differences for
height (177.6 ± 8.9 cm vs. 167.9 ± 6.2 cm, P < 0.001), body
mass (70.4 ± 11.9 kg vs. 57.6 ± 7.0 kg, P < 0.001) arm span
(181.8 ± 9.7 cm vs. 168.8 ± 7.2 cm, P < 0.001), leg length
(88.9 ± 6.4 cm vs. 81.7 ± 4.3 cm, P < 0.001) and body mass
index (22.2 ± 3.0 vs. 20.5 ± 2.1, P < 0.001).
Moreover, MANOVA revealed significant multivariate
effect for age competitive groups (Wilks  = 0.390, F = 9.953,
P < 0.001, n2 = 0.375). Significant between subjects effects
for age competitive groups were observed for height, body
mass, arm span, and body mass index (F = 3.203—14.355,
P < 0.05—0.001, n2 = 0.05—0.190). Age competitive group dif-
ferences and their significance are presented in Table 1.
Significant multivariate effect for disciplines were also
revealed (Wilks  = 0.763, F = 2.394, P < 0.005, n2 = 0.126).
However, no significant between subjects’ effects for group
disciplines were observed (Table 2).
3.2. Jumping performance
The MANOVA revealed a significant multivariate effect for
gender (Wilks  = 0.555, F = 7.691, P < 0.001, n2 = 0.445).
Significant between subjects effects for gender were also
observed (F = 13.936—78.414, P < 0.001, n2 = 0.116—0.384).
Gender differences in leg power and their significances are
presented in Table 3.
Moreover, MANOVA revealed significant multivariate
effect for age competitive groups (Wilks  = 0.607, F = 2.654,
P < 0.001, n2 = 0.217). Significant between subjects effects
for age competitive groups were observed for long jump,
squat jump, squat jump power, counter movement jump,
counter movement jump power, drop jump contact time,
drop jump flight time, drop jump height, drop jump
power and reaction strength index (F = 4.241—12.003,
P < 0.05—0.001, n2 = 0.064—0.161). Age competitive group
differences in leg power and their significances are pre-
sented in Table 4.

Table 4 Leg power differences between the different age groups.

14—17 years old 18—20 years old > 20 years old

n = 46 n = 32 n = 47

LJ (cm) 179.2 ± 30.8 174.0 ± 30.3b 205.2 ± 33.9a

SJ (cm) 21.9 ± 5.3 22.6 ± 6.1b 26.2 ± 7.8a
SJP (Watt) 605.9 ± 143.6 689.4 ± 211.3 768 ± 205.6a
CMJ (cm) 25.1 ± 5.9 24.9 ± 7.1b 29.0 ± 8.6a
CMJP (Watt) 648.1 ± 159.3 699.4 ± 180.8b 806 ± 215a
DCT (ms) 0.29 ± 0.06 0.32 ± 0.09b 0.27 ± 0.06 NS
DHT (cm) 19.01 ± 7.0 20.9 ± 6.8b 25.2 ± 6.7a
DP (Watt) 22.9 ± 8.5 23.9 ± 9.3b 29.7 ± 7.6a
RSI 0.69 ± 0.35 0.71 ± 0.4b 0.96 ± 0.32a
LJ: long jump; SJ: squat jump; SJP: squat jump power; CMJ: counter movement jump; CMJP: counter movement jump power; DCT:
drop jump contact time; DHT: drop jump height; DP: drop jump power; RSI: reaction strength index; NS: non-significant.
a 14—17 years old group vs. > 20 years old group (P < 0.05).
b 18—20 years old group vs. > 20 years old group (P < 0.05).

Please cite this article in press as: Ntai A, et al. Anthropometric parameters and leg power performance in fencing. Age,
sex and discipline related differences. Sci sports (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2016.06.011
+Model
SCISPO-3084; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 A. Ntai et al.

attempted to determine anthropometric characteristics in

Table 5 Competition level differences in leg power.
order to monitor athlete’s growth and maturation process
Elite fencers National level fencers to identify performance capacities, to evaluating the effects
n = 22 n = 103 of training, to create talent selection and development pro-
grams, or to distinguish athletes of different competition
LJ (cm) 203.8 ± 38.9 183.2 ± 33.6a levels [2]. In this aspect, anthropometric profile of players
SJ (cm) 27.3 ± 7.1 22.9 ± 6.5a seem to be different in many individual or team sports disci-
SJP (Watt) 781.6 ± 225.1 668.1 ± 186.00a plines such as swimming, running, rowing, cycling, football,
CMJ (cm) 30.5 ± 8.00 25.5 ± 7.2a water polo, and soccer respectively [1].
CMJP (Watt) 824.1 ± 235.3 698.4 ± 182.2a Height, body mass, % body fat, limb length, and seg-
DCT (ms) 0.27 ± 0.06 0.30 ± 0.08 NS ment circumferences have been used as simple descriptors
DHT (cm) 23.4 ± 7.6 21.5 ± 7.2 NS in many fencing studies [29]. However, data examining the
DP (Watt) 28.2 ± 8.4 25.2 ± 8.9 NS anthropometric characteristics of fencers are limited to only
RSI 0.90 ± 0.34 0.77 ± 0.4 NS one study [30]. In that study, anthropometric characteris-
LJ: long jump; SJ: squat jump; SJP: squat jump power; CMJ: tics of 152 fencers of both genders were identified in order
counter movement jump; CMJP: counter movement jump to establish the anthropometric profile in 4-age competi-
power; DCT: drop jump contact time; DHT: drop jump height; tive categories group. Ten to 13 years fencers differed from
DP: drop jump power; RSI: reaction strength index; NS: all other age groups for both genders in most anthropo-
non-significant. metric measurements. Moreover, there were no significant
a Elite level vs. national level fencers (P < 0.05).
differences between the two older age groups (18—20 years
old, > 20 years old) for all anthropometric variables in both
males and females, indicating that growth and development
Although there were not any significant multivari-
in these age groups has ended after the 17 years of age. Sig-
ate effect for competition level (Wilks  = 0.8903,
nificant differences were also observed between genders in
F = 1.179, P = 0.306, n2 = 0.126) significant between sub-
all age groups > 14 years old for most anthropometric varia-
jects effects were observed (F = 6.239—7.926, P < 0.01,
bles.
n2 = 0.048—0.059). Competition level differences in leg
Similar results were found in the present study confirming
power and their significances are presented in Table 5.
the expected anthropometric between gender differences,
MANOVA reveal also significant multivariate effect
as well as the anthropometric annual increases between
between group disciplines (Wilks  = 0.677, F = 2.048,
the age competitive groups. It is well known that physical
P < 0.005, n2 = 0.177). Significant between subjects effects
size of elite athletes increased remarkably longitudinally
for group disciplines were observed for drop jump contact
over time, reflecting a non linear improvement in speed,
time (F = 3.910, P < 0.05, n2 = 0.059). Post-hoc differences
strength, local muscular endurance and muscular power
were observed between foil and epee groups (0.32 ± 0.01 ms
as well as a different sensitive trainability windows that
vs. 0.28 ± 0.01 ms, P < 0.05), respectively.
related and following the onset of puberty, creating thus a
long-term development model [39]. However, the compa-
4. Discussion rable results of the two cross-sectional fencing studies
reveal that the selection procedures in Greece identified
This is the first study to describe the anthropometric, similar body types for fencing over the last decade [30].
body composition and leg power characteristics of elite Since anthropometric trends and maturation process seem
and national fencers across different age groups of both to be identically similar, other factors such as muscle power
gender, and discipline. It was expected that different and technique training must be under evaluation in order
anthropological and leg power characteristics would exist to improve fencing performance especially in younger age
between age groups, gender, elite and national fencers, and group of fencers [29].
discipline respectively. In the present study, significant dif- Moreover, international fencers of the present study were
ferences were observed between male and female fencers in significantly taller and heavier than the national fencers,
anthropometry and in leg jumping performance. Moreover, confirming others results in different sports in young [10]
significant differences in jumping performance were also or adults subjects [1]. These results are in contrast with
observed between the older and the younger group. Elite previous of Tsolakis and Vagenas [31] who found that anthro-
fencers performed better in all leg power tests than national pometrics were not different between elite and novice
level fencers, while differences were observed between dis- fencers, although in all measurements a non-significant
ciplines only for drop jump contact time. superiority was reported in favor of elite fencers. Even
More specifically, males were taller and have higher though Tsolakis et al. [30] found that fencing performance
body mass with longer segment lengths compare to female was not predicted by none of the non-trainable parameters
fencers. As it was expected, significant differences were such as height, arm span and leg length respectively, the
observed in anthropometrical and body composition charac- finding of the present study suggest that size and body mass
teristics between 14—17 years old and > 20 years old fencers are important factors associated to success in fencing and
confirming that anthropometric characteristics increase this would be a permanent demand throughout the early
across age categories [20]. years of training.
Anthropometric characteristics and body structure has Interestingly, no study to date has described the
been generally found to significantly contributed to ath- anthropometric differences between fencers from different
letes’ motor performance [38]. Several studies have disciplines. Physical characteristics in sports such as stature

Please cite this article in press as: Ntai A, et al. Anthropometric parameters and leg power performance in fencing. Age,
sex and discipline related differences. Sci sports (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2016.06.011
+Model
SCISPO-3084; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Leg power in fencing
and body mass can differentiate among position demands
and can provide assist to coaches in order to identify ath-
letes for a specific discipline [7,12]. However, the findings
of the present study reported that fencers from an anthro-
pometric point of view were similar regardless of event
specialization. This likely reflects a high consistency in body
anthropometry between fencing disciplines. Since anthro-
pometrics and physical measures are not always consistent
parameters more studies needed in order identify other
determinant of excellence beyond the physique of athletes.
Explosive power has been extensively studied as a succes-
sive factor in many athletic activities and long and vertical
jumps are commonly used to access lower body explosive
power in young as well as in adults population [40]. Power
measures of jumping performance vary among sports and
distinguish elite from novice athletes although other factors
such age, gender, growth and development rates of the par-
ticipants, level of competition, and discipline in a certain
level influence power performance [9,39].
Leg power in fencing has been extensively studied
recently. It has been reported that leg power is affected
by isometric contractions or long period of stretching pro-
tocols [41,42], is not affected by dynamic or plyometric
protocols [41,42], and can differentiate elite from non-
elite fencers [31]. Fast stretch-shortening cycles of the leg
muscles have been associated to the functional fencing per-
formance and are important in maximizing leg functional
power characteristics in elite fencers [27]. Vertical jump-
ing performance changed significantly over time, however
no differences reported between peripubertal academies
fencers and a control group consisted of untrained pupils
of the same age [30].
In the present study as expected, significant between
gender differences existed in leg power performance char-
acteristics, as well as between the older (> 20 years old)
and the younger groups (14—17, 18—20 years old) respec-
tively, reflecting a progressive improvement with increasing
age. Gender differences have been earlier reported and
attributed to the physiological changes associated to puber-
tal events that induce hypertrophy and differentiation of
muscle fibers and in consequence strength and power in boys
compared to girls [24,39]. The interaction of the gender dif-
ferences and the developmental data profile concerning leg
power could be useful information for coaches and scientists
to design appropriate training programs for this age groups
of fencers, since lunges, bounces and changes of direction
are various explosive actions that closely influence fencing
performance outcome and should be developed from a young
age [29,33].
Significant differences were observed in power perfor-
mance tests between athletes of different levels [9]. As
expected elite fencers of the present study were stronger
and produced more leg power than national level fencers.
Similar results were also observed recently [31]. In that
study authors examined differences in selected strength
and functional fencing characteristics comparing elite ath-
letes having participated in the Olympic Games and/or
World championships and sub-elite national level partici-
pants. Compared to sub-elite, elite fencers had a higher
squat, countermovement jump and reaction strength index,
as well as better performance in lunge time and in a specific
shuttle step test, suggesting that advanced neuromuscular
Please cite this article in press as: Ntai A, et al. Anthropometric parameters and leg power performance in fencing. Age,
sex and discipline related differences. Sci sports (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2016.06.011
7
abilities will facilitate the different technical drills and tac-
tical strategies adaptations in the competitive routine of
elite fencers [29].
Given the major role of leg power in fencing and the
unpredictable activity patterns of the different events tak-
ing also into consideration the large number of technical
skills and tactical behavior of the players, it is difficult to
determine the physiological demands and physical perfor-
mance prerequisites in fencing. A large number of studies
reported significant between positions differences in many
team sports or weight categories within an individual sport
[13,38]. On the other hand, other studies found no positional
differences in CMJ and DJ of football players and throwing
velocity in water polo players respectively [12,25]. Up to our
knowledge, there is a lack of information in power perfor-
mance of technical sports with different competitive rules
(e.g. free style and Greco-Roman wrestling, martial arts of
the same weight category, fencing etc). In the present study,
leg power performance was quite similar between the three
different fencing events. However, the drop jump contact
time of epee players was the only parameter that showed
significantly different values in comparison to foil fencers,
revealing special physical performance abilities required for
successful participation in this event. This event is charac-
terized by longer work time and more changes of direction
in comparison to foil, while during the competition fencers
repeat submaximal bounces instead of fencing steps that are
common in foil [29]. Another possible reason is that epee
fencers of the present study were taller and heavier and
have greater but non-significant scores in almost all power
performance tests than foilists.
5. Conclusions
In summary, this is the first study that evaluated body size,
body composition parameters and leg power performance
ability of male and female fencers, with particular emphasis
on competitive age groups, competition level, and disci-
pline. We observed significant between gender differences
in all the anthropometric and body composition charac-
teristics and confirmed that anthropometric characteristics
increased across age categories. Elite fencers demonstrated
specific characteristics compared to national fencers, while
fencers from different disciplines were quite similar in body
size. Vertical and horizontal jumping performance differ-
ences between gender, age groups, competition level and
partly between disciplines of the present study, revealing
specific abilities required to characterize the functional pro-
file requirements for fencing success.
The results of the present cross-sectional study showed
that anthropometric and leg power measures could play a
role in talent identification programmes for fencing as well
as for the monitoring of training. More specific, talent iden-
tification programmes could focus on selecting tall explosive
individuals without excessive body mass, with long limbs
and strength-power abilities that could support the tech-
nical drills and tactical decisions of the fencers. However,
longitudinal research is needed to better understand the
influence of growth and maturation into these parameters
and to inform sport specialists to design positions based
on the findings described in this study. This will facilitate
+Model
SCISPO-3084; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 A. Ntai et al.
the identification of the most suitable athletes for optimal
fencing performance.
Disclosure of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by grants from the IOC Olympic
Solidarity. The authors thank Hellenic Olympic Committee
and the Hellenic Fencing Federation for their support of the
project. Moreover, authors thank all study participants and
their respective clubs for their valuable effort and engage-
ment. The authors would like to thank Mrs. Olyvia Donti
Assistant Professor at the Sport Science Department, Uni-
versity of Athens for the French editing of this manuscript.
References
[1] Zampagni ML, Casino D, Benelli P, Visani A, Marcacci M, De Vito
G. Anthropometric and strength variables to predict freestyle
performance times in elite master swimmers. J Strength Cond
Res 2008;22(4):1298—307.
[2] Peyer KL, Pivarnik JM, Eisenmann JC, Vorkapich M. Physiolog-
ical characteristics of National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) division I ice hockey players and their relation to game
performance. J Strength Cond Res 2011;25(5):1183—92.
[3] Sattler T, Sekulic D, Hadzic V, Uljevic O, Dervisevic E. Verti-
cal jumping tests in volleyball: reliability, validity, and playing
position specifics. J Strength Cond Res 2012;26(6):1532—8.
[4] Dellagrana RA, Guglielmo LGA, Santos BV, Hernandez SG,
Da Silva SG, Campos W. Physiological, anthropometric,
strength, and muscle power characteristics correlates with
running performance in young runners. J Strength Cond Res
2015;29(6):1584—91.
[5] Geladas ND, Nassis GP, Pavlicevic S. Somatic and physical traits
affecting sprint swimming performance in young swimmers. Int
J Sports Med 2005;26:139—44.
[6] Claessens AL, Lefevre J, Beunen G, Malina RM. The contri-
bution of anthropometric characteristics to performance
scores in elite female gymnasts. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
1999;39:355—60.
[7] Mikulic P, Ruzic L. Predicting the 1000 m rowing ergometer
performance in 12—13-year-old rowers: the basis for selection
process? J Sci Med Sport 2008;11:218—26.
[8] Brunkhorst L, Kielstein H. Comparison of anthropometric char-
acteristics between professional triathletes and cyclists. Biol
Sport 2013;30:269—73.
[9] Garcıa Pallares J, Lopez-Gullon JM, Torres-Bonete MD,
Izquierdo M. Physical fitness factors to predict female Olympic
wrestling performance and sex differences. J Strength Cond
Res 2012;26(3):794—803.
[10] Gravina L, Gil SM, Ruiz F, Zubero J, Gil J, Irazusta J. Anthro-
pometric and physiological differences between first team and
reserve soccer players aged 10—14 years at the beginning and
end of the season. J Strength Cond Res 2008;22(4):1308—14.
[11] Delahunt E, Byrne RB, Doolin RK, Mc Inerney RG, Ruddock CTJ,
Green BS. Anthropometric profile and body composition of Irish
adolescent rugby union players aged 16-18. J Strength Cond Res
2013;27(12):3252—8.
[12] Martınez JG, Vila MH, Ferragut C, Noguera MM, Abraldes
JA, Rodrıguez N, et al. Position specific anthropometry and
Please cite this article in press as: Ntai A, et al. Anthropometric parameters and leg power performance in fencing. Age,
sex and discipline related differences. Sci sports (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2016.06.011
throwing velocity of elite female water polo players. J Strength
Cond Res 2015;29(2):472—7.
[13] Kruger K, Pilat C, Ueckert K, Frech T, Mooren FC. Phys-
ical performance profile of handball players is related to
playing position and playing class. J Strength Cond Res
2014;28(1):117—25.
[14] Potteiger JA, Smith DL, Maier ML, Foster TS. Relationship
between body composition, leg strength, anaerobic power, and
on-ice skating performance in division I men’s hockey athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 2010;24(7):1755—62.
[15] Bayios IA, Bergeles NK, Apostolidis NG, Noutsos KS, Koskolou
MD. Anthropometric, body composition and somatotype differ-
ences of Greek elite female basketball, volleyball and handball
players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2006;46:271—80.
[16] Keogh JWL, Hume PA, Pearson SN, Mellow P. Anthropometric
dimensions of male powerlifters of varying body mass. J Sport
Sci 2007;25(12):1365—76.
[17] Agre JC, Casal DC, Leon AS, McNallay C, Baxter TL, Serfass
RC. Professional ice hockey players: physiologic, anthropomet-
ric, and musculoskeletal characteristics. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
1998;69:188—92.
[18] Knechtle B, Wirth A, Knechtle P, Rosemann T. Training vol-
ume and personal best time in marathon, not anthropometric
parameters, are associated with performance in male 100-km
ultrarunners. J Strength Cond Res 2010;24(3):604—9.
[19] Meylan CMP, Cronin JB, Oliver JL, Rumpf MC. Sex related dif-
ferences in explosive actions during late childhood. J Strength
Cond Res 2014;28(8):2097—104.
[20] Till K, Jones B, Emmonds S, Tester E, Fahey J, Cooke C. Sea-
sonal changes in anthropometric and physical characteristics
within English academy rugby league players. J Strength Cond
Res 2014;28(9):2689—96.
[21] Pion JA, Fransen J, Deprez DN, Segers VI, Vaeyens R, Philip-
paerts RM, et al. Stature and jumping height are required
in female volleyball, but motor coordination is a key fac-
tor for future elite success. J Strength Cond Res 2015;29(6):
1480—5.
[22] Jaric S. Role of body size in the relation between muscle
strength and movement performance. Exerc Sport Sci Rev
2003;31:8—12.
[23] Malina RM, Eisenmann JC, Cumming SP, Ribeiro B, Aroso J.
Maturity-associated variation in the growth and functional
capacities of youth football (soccer) players 13—15 years. Eur
J Appl Physiol 2004;91:555—62.
[24] Temfemo A, Hugues J, Chardon K, Mandengue S-H, Ahmaidi
S. Relationship between vertical jumping performance and
anthropometric characteristics during growth in boys and girls.
Eur J Pediatr 2009;168(4):457—64.
[25] Cullen BD, Cregg CJ, Kelly DT, Hughes SM, Daly PG, Moyna
NM. Fitness profiling of elite level adolescent Gaelic football
players. J Strength Cond Res 2013;27(8):2096—103.
[26] Rienzi E, Drust B, Reilly T, Carter JE, Martin A. Investigation
of anthropometric and work-rate profiles of elite South Amer-
ican international soccer players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
2000;40:162—9.
[27] Tsolakis C, Kostaki E, Vagenas G. Anthropometric, flexibility,
strength-power, and sport-specific correlates in elite fencing.
Percept Mot Skills 2010;110:1015—28.
[28] Tsolakis C, Bogdanis G, Vagenas G, Dessypris A. Influence of a
12-month conditioning program on physical growth, serum hor-
mones and neuromuscular performance of peripubertal male
fencers. J Strength Cond Res 2006;20(4):908—14.
[29] Roi GS, Bianchetti D. The science of fencing: implica-
tions for performance and injury prevention. Sports Med
2008;38(6):465—81.
[30] Tsolakis C, Bogdanis G, Vagenas G. Anthropometric profile and
limb asymmetries in young male and female fencers. J Hum
Mov Stud 2006;50:201—16.
+Model
SCISPO-3084; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Leg power in fencing
[31] Tsolakis C, Vagenas G. Anthropometric, physiological and per-
formance characteristics of elite and sub-elite fencers. J Hum
Kinet 2010;23:89—95.
[32] Gulheim GC, Giroux C, Couturier A, Chollet D, Rabita G.
Mechanical and muscular coordination patterns during a high-
level fencing assault. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2014;46(2):341—50.
[33] Turner A, James N, Dimitriou L, Greenhalgh A, Moody J, Fulcher
D, et al. Determinants of Olympic fencing performance and
implications for strength and conditioning training. J Strength
Cond Res 2014;28(10):3001—11.
[34] Poulis I, Chatzis S, Christopoulou K, Tsolakis C. Isokinetic
strength during knee flexion and extension in elite fencers.
Percept Mot Skills 2009;108:949—61.
[35] Bosco C, Luhtanen P, Komi PV. A simple method for mea-
surement of mechanical power in jumping. Eur J Appl Physiol
1983;50:273—82.
[36] Young W, McLean B, Ardagna J. Relationship between strength
qualities and sprinting performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
1995;53:13—9.
Please cite this article in press as: Ntai A, et al. Anthropometric parameters and leg power performance in fencing. Age,
sex and discipline related differences. Sci sports (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2016.06.011
9
[37] Richardson JTE. Eta squared and partial eta squared as mea-
sures of effect sizes in educational research. Educ Res Rev
2011;6:135—47.
[38] Gualdi-Russo E, Zaccagni L. Somatotype, role and perfor-
mance in elite volleyball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
2001;41:256—62.
[39] Malina R, Bouchard C, Bar-Or O. Growth, maturation, and phys-
ical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2004.
[40] Markovic G, Jaric S. Is vertical jump height a body
size-independent measure of muscle power? J Sports Sci
2007;25(12):1355—63.
[41] Tsolakis C, Bogdanis GC, Nikolaou A, Zacharogiannis E.
Influence of type of muscle contraction and gender on postac-
tivation potentiation of upper and lower limb explosive
performance in elite fencers. J Sports Sci Med 2011;10:577—83.
[42] Tsolakis C, Douvis A, Tsigganos G, Zacharogiannis E, Smirniotou
A. Acute effects of stretching on flexibility, power and sport-
specific performance in fencers. J Hum Kinet 2010;26:105—14.