Biomechanical insights into the determinants of speed in the fencing lunge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For fencing, speed of the lunge is considered critical to success. The aim of this study is to investigate determinants of lunge speed based on biomechanics. Ground reaction force (GRF) and three-dimensional kinematic data were collected from 7 elite fencers and 12 intermediate-level fencers performing maximum-effort lunges. The results showed that elite fencers acquired a higher horizontal peak velocity of the centre of gravity (HPV) and concomitantly a higher horizontal peak GRF exerted by rear leg (PGRF) than intermediate-level fencers (P < .01). Studying the affecting factors, elite fencers obtained higher joint peak power, joint peak moment, and range of motion of rear knee than intermediate-level fencers (P < .05) during the lunge, and these parameters were significantly correlated with both HPV and PGRF (P < .05). Both elite and intermediate-level fencers had joint flexion before the extension in forward knee; however, the latter showed greater flexion, higher peak angular velocity and less time for extension compared to the former (P ≤ .05). Our findings suggest that training aimed at enhancing strength and power of rear knee extensors is important for fencers to improve speed of the lunge. Also, increasing the extension of rear knee during the lunge, at the same time decreasing the flexion of the forward knee before extension are positive for lunge performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".