Exploring the physical attributes of elite épée fencing: a Delphi study of world-class coaches.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 SPORT SCIENCES
Jon A Cree, Hannah J Newman, Luke A Norris, Luke W Oates, Anthony N Turner
{"title":"Exploring the physical attributes of elite épée fencing: a Delphi study of world-class coaches.","authors":"Jon A Cree, Hannah J Newman, Luke A Norris, Luke W Oates, Anthony N Turner","doi":"10.23736/S0022-4707.25.17379-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to identify and rank the physical attributes deemed most important for elite performance in épée fencing, from the perspective of world-class coaches. While extensive biomechanical and physiological research exists in fencing, limited attention has been paid to the experiential insights of elite coaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A modified Delphi method was employed to gather expert consensus from 26 international épée coaches with Olympic-level experience. In Round 1, open-ended responses were thematically analyzed to identify key physical attributes, which were consolidated into nine overarching themes. In Round 2, coaches ranked these attributes in order of importance. Stability of rankings was assessed using Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine distinct physical attributes were identified in Round 1 and grouped into nine themes. In Round 2, agility (mean rank = 2.9) and reaction time (3.3) emerged as consensus-high priorities, while strength (7.6) and power were consensus-low. Power (5.7) and flexibility showed polarized distributions, reflecting entrenched differences in coaching philosophies. Agreement among coaches was acceptable but limited (W = 0.26), indicating stable but divergent viewpoints rather than instability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Elite coaches prioritized agility, reactivity, and speed in épée fencing, aligning with performance demands observed in biomechanical studies. However, the undervaluation of foundational qualities such as strength and aerobic fitness highlights a partial disconnect with sport science evidence. These findings underscore the need for enhanced coach education, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a more balanced emphasis on physical preparation that supports both performance and injury prevention. The study also demonstrates the value of Delphi methodology in capturing diverse expert perspectives even when full consensus is not achieved.</p>","PeriodicalId":17013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness","volume":"66 3","pages":"362-370"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.25.17379-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to identify and rank the physical attributes deemed most important for elite performance in épée fencing, from the perspective of world-class coaches. While extensive biomechanical and physiological research exists in fencing, limited attention has been paid to the experiential insights of elite coaches.

Methods: A modified Delphi method was employed to gather expert consensus from 26 international épée coaches with Olympic-level experience. In Round 1, open-ended responses were thematically analyzed to identify key physical attributes, which were consolidated into nine overarching themes. In Round 2, coaches ranked these attributes in order of importance. Stability of rankings was assessed using Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W).

Results: Twenty-nine distinct physical attributes were identified in Round 1 and grouped into nine themes. In Round 2, agility (mean rank = 2.9) and reaction time (3.3) emerged as consensus-high priorities, while strength (7.6) and power were consensus-low. Power (5.7) and flexibility showed polarized distributions, reflecting entrenched differences in coaching philosophies. Agreement among coaches was acceptable but limited (W = 0.26), indicating stable but divergent viewpoints rather than instability.

Conclusions: Elite coaches prioritized agility, reactivity, and speed in épée fencing, aligning with performance demands observed in biomechanical studies. However, the undervaluation of foundational qualities such as strength and aerobic fitness highlights a partial disconnect with sport science evidence. These findings underscore the need for enhanced coach education, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a more balanced emphasis on physical preparation that supports both performance and injury prevention. The study also demonstrates the value of Delphi methodology in capturing diverse expert perspectives even when full consensus is not achieved.

探索精英击剑运动员的身体素质:对世界级教练的德尔菲研究。
背景:本研究旨在从世界一流教练的角度,识别和排名被认为是影响优秀运动员成绩的最重要的身体素质。虽然对击剑的生物力学和生理学研究广泛,但对优秀教练的经验见解关注有限。方法:采用改进的德尔菲法,对26名具有奥运会水平经验的国际运动员进行专家意见调查。在第一轮中,开放式的回答被按主题分析,以确定关键的物理属性,这些属性被合并为九个总体主题。在第二轮中,教练将这些属性按重要性排序。使用肯德尔一致性系数(W)评估排名的稳定性。结果:在第一轮中确定了29个不同的物理属性,并分为9个主题。在第二轮中,敏捷性(平均排名2.9)和反应时间(3.3)被普遍认为优先级高,而力量(7.6)和权力则被普遍认为优先级低。力量(5.7)和灵活性呈现两极分化的分布,反映了教练理念根深蒂固的差异。教练员之间的一致性是可以接受的,但有限(W = 0.26),表明观点是稳定的,但存在分歧,而不是不稳定。结论:精英教练在击剑训练中优先考虑敏捷性、反应性和速度,这与生物力学研究中观察到的性能要求一致。然而,对力量和有氧健身等基本素质的低估凸显了与运动科学证据的部分脱节。这些发现强调了加强教练教育、跨学科合作以及更加平衡地强调身体准备以支持表现和伤害预防的必要性。该研究还证明了德尔菲方法的价值,在捕捉不同的专家观点,即使没有完全达成共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.90%
发文量
393
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness publishes scientific papers relating to the area of the applied physiology, preventive medicine, sports medicine and traumatology, sports psychology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, case reports, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书