How does dynamic stretching affect the agility of high school fencers?

Best viewed when clicking on the "Click To View" Button

Background

In high school sports, athletes require a diverse range of skills to excel and compete safely. To achieve

success, they must develop abilities in areas such as muscular endurance, flexibility, coordination, and

speed. Among these, agility stands out as a critical skill. Agility is defined as the ability to change

direction and speed with precision and control. This skill is essential in many sports, such as baseball,

where players must quickly locate and strike a ball; basketball, which demands constant, deliberate

movements to outmaneuver opponents; and tennis, where players must react swiftly to a rapidly moving

ball. However, one sport that often goes unrecognized for its reliance on agility is fencing. Fencing

requires athletes to remain in constant motion, reacting quickly and decisively to opponents' attacks. In

high school fencing, skilled and agile fencers frequently employ an "on your toes" strategy, characterized

by rapid back-and-forth movements, small jumps, and precise footwork. Additionally, fencers execute

quick, coordinated movements with their limbs, such as shifting their blades between an opponent's inside

and outside lines. Combined with advanced footwork techniques, parries (or blocks), and counterattacks,

agility becomes indispensable for mastering the sport of fencing.

There are several established methods athletes use to improve agility, including plyometric exercises,

strength training, and running or jumping drills. However, these conventional approaches often

overshadow other potential strategies, such as stretching, which is frequently overlooked in agility

training. Many high school athletes, in particular, neglect stretching due to the heavy emphasis placed on

speed and strength in sports. Yet, it is well-documented that both lengthening and strengthening muscles

are essential for athletic success and injury prevention. Stretching enhances range of motion, enabling

quicker and smoother movements—key components of agility. This is especially relevant in fencing,

where athletes must perform rapid lunges and "recoveries," returning to an upright position with bent

knees after a lunge. These movements demand a combination of flexibility and agility. Therefore, this

study aims to investigate how stretching, specifically dynamic stretching, impacts the agility of high

school fencers. The hypothesis of this study is that dynamic stretching will have a measurable increase in

the agility of the test group.

Methodology

After establishing the hypothesis, the next step was to determine the specific stretches the fencers would

perform. Through research, it was learned that dynamic stretching involves controlled movements that

take muscles through their full range of motion, making it an ideal choice for athletes, particularly

beginners. With this in mind, six dynamic stretches targeting the entire body were selected: high knees,

lunges, walking toe touches, hip circles, butt kicks, and arm circles. Next, it was necessary to decide how

frequently participants should perform these stretches. According to the American College of Sports

Medicine, both teenagers and adults should stretch 2–3 times per week. Taking this recommendation into

account, as well as the participants' motivation levels, it was decided to have participants complete the six

dynamic stretches twice a week. Finally, it was determined that the study would span five weeks, as it was

hypothesized that this would provide sufficient time to observe noticeable results while remaining a

manageable commitment for participants to maintain consistently.

2

In experimental studies like this one, it is common to have two or more groups: one or more experimental

groups and a control group. This study aimed to include 25 participants, with a small portion assigned to

the experimental group to complete the dynamic stretching routine. The high school fencing club consists

of 31 fencers aged 16±2, most of whom joined the club this year, making them beginner or novice

fencers. Of these, 27 are novices in grades 9–11. To select the 25 participants, a randomized wheel

containing all 27 names was used and spun 25 times without replacement. The selected participants were

Participant 1, Participant 2, Participant 3, Participant 4, Participant 5, Participant 6, Participant 7,

Participant 8, Participant 9, Participant 10, Participant 11, Participant 12, Participant 13, Participant 14,

Participant 15, Participant 16, Participant 17, Participant 18, Participant 19, Participant 20, Participant 21,

Participant 22, Participant 23, Participant 24, and Participant 25. Next, the same randomization method

was used to choose 4 of these 25 participants for the experimental group, leaving the remaining 21 in the

control group. The experimental group consisted of Participant 22, Participant 23, Participant 24, and

Participant 25. It was pleasing that this random selection included both male and female fencers, as it

allowed me to observe potential differences or similarities in their results. Fortunately, all participants in

both the control and experimental groups consented to participate in the study and completed PAR-Q

forms with their signatures.

For this experiment, it was necessary to have a method to assess the agility of fencers both before and

after the intervention. The agility T-test was selected for this experiment, as it is a quick, straightforward,

and effective measure of an individual's ability to change direction, accelerate, decelerate, and perform

rapid movements. The test involves participants running forward, sidestepping, and then returning to the

starting point, tracing a "T" shape—hence its name. In this study, participants began by sprinting 5 yards

forward from the start line to the first cone, touching its tip with their right hand. They then shuffled 5

yards to the left to the second cone, touching it with their left hand, followed by shuffling 10 yards to the

right to the third cone, touching it with their right hand. Next, they shuffled 5 yards back to the middle

cone, touching it with their left hand, and finally backpedaled to the start line. Timing began when

participants passed through the timing gates at the start and ended when they returned through them. The

agility T-test was an ideal choice for this study due to its validity, accuracy, specificity, and reliability in

measuring agility-related performance.

Below is a picture that visually represents the methodology of an agility T-test:

3

With the methodology of the study decided, the study could now begin.

Raw data

Name Agility T-test time before (in

seconds)

Agility T-test time before and

after 5 weeks (in seconds)

Participant 1 11.53s 10.99s

Participant 2 10.46s 10.49

Participant 3 13.00s 13.21

Participant 4 12.78s 10.32

Participant 5 11.10s 10.63

Participant 6 13.88s 10.99

Participant 7 15.03s 13.85

Participant 8 14.20 13.35

Participant 9 13.48 12.15

Participant 10 09.43 10.00

Participant 11 14.09 12.00

Participant 12 10.27 09.46

Participant 13 13.84 12.98

Participant 14 14.00 12.06

4

Participant 15 10.30 12.00

Participant 16 12.40 12.06

Participant 17 13.73 11.95

Participant 18 12.12 11.67

Participant 19 16.12 14.90

Participant 20 10.32 11.09

Participant 21 12.90 12.56

Participant 22 11.99 09.98

Participant 23 11.76 11.00

Participant 24 12.43 10.47

Participant 25 12.01 10.20

Key:

hhhhhhhhh= Control group

hhhhhhhhh= Experimental group

Graphs

Histogram before vs. after dynamic stretching

5

It can be observed from the histograms above that, generally, the time it took participants to complete the

agility T-tests lowered significantly following the 5 weeks of dynamic stretching.

Box and whiskers plot of the agility T-test times before:

6

Box and whiskers plot of the agility T-test times after:

From the two box plots, it can be seen that the mean (the average of all times) and the median (the middle

value of all times) before the five weeks of dynamic stretching were 12.5268 seconds and 12.42 seconds,

respectively. After the five-week intervention, the mean and median decreased to 11.61444 seconds and

11.67 seconds, respectively. This represents a reduction of 0.91236 seconds in the mean—nearly a full

second—and a 0.75-second decrease in the median. For context, reducing one’s agility T-test time by a

second within a few weeks typically requires practices such as plyometric exercises, agility drills, and

footwork training. However, a few sources specifically recommend dynamic stretching as a method to

improve agility and T-test performance. These findings introduce a novel and innovative approach for

individuals seeking to enhance their agility. While traditional methods like drills and plyometrics may be

perceived as too intense or challenging to maintain consistently over several weeks, dynamic stretching

offers a low-intensity, accessible alternative for improving agility T-test times.

Conclusion

Through this study, dynamic stretching does have a significant effect on the agility of high school fencers.

The dramatic visual differences between the before and after histograms and the quantitative difference

between the scores support this conclusion. Thus, we can answer the research question, “How does

dynamic stretching affect the agility of high school fencers?” In conclusion, the original hypothesis for

this study was correct, and dynamic stretching will have a measurable increase in the agility of the test

group.

Strengths/weaknesses

This study successfully achieved its objective of determining whether dynamic stretching has a

measurable effect on the agility of high school fencers. However, some limitations should be noted.

Primarily, the study was constrained by the number of participants available. Ideally, a sample size of at

least 25 participants in both the experimental and control groups would have been used. This larger

sample size would have enhanced the reliability of the findings, provided a broader range of data, and

7

better represented the overall population of high school fencers. Consequently, the results could have been

more confidently generalized to a wider population. Additionally, controlling for confounding variables

posed a significant challenge in this study. A confounding variable is defined as “an extraneous variable

that is not appropriately controlled in a study, which can result in it being unequally present in the

comparison groups” (sciencedirect.com). Since interactions with participants were primarily limited to

fencing-related activities, there was minimal outside contact with them, making it difficult to monitor

external physical activities that could have influenced their results. However, it was confirmed that all

participants consistently engaged in fencing practice and dynamic stretching throughout the study.

On the other hand, this study demonstrated strengths in terms of sustainability and accessibility. For

instance, the routine assigned to participants was both simple and effective, ensuring it was well within

their skill level. Furthermore, the study was highly accessible, as it required no specialized equipment or

additional costs and was based on a standardized routine. These factors contributed to strong participant

commitment, enabling the collection of reliable data for analysis.

Improvements

To address the weaknesses of this study, the size of the participant pool could have been expanded.

Although this study was limited to 25 participants, the fencing club consisted of 27 students in total.

Utilizing all available participants from the club would have strengthened the study. Additionally, to

further expand the sample size—for example, to 100 participants—nearby schools with fencing clubs

could have been contacted to recruit interested fencers. A larger sample size would enhance the reliability

and validity of the results by reducing the margin of error, minimizing the influence of outliers, and

providing a more accurate representation of the population. This would increase the likelihood of

detecting statistically significant effects and improve the generalizability of the findings.

Secondly, confounding variables could have been controlled better by creating a more homogeneous

participant pool. For instance, limiting participants by gender or age would have reduced variability and

decreased the potential influence of extraneous factors. Additionally, techniques such as blocking or

stratification could have been implemented to account for differences in participants' outside physical

activity levels. For example, grouping participants into categories based on whether they engage in

additional sports outside of fencing would have allowed for a more controlled analysis, thereby improving

the study's accuracy and reducing the impact of confounding variables.

Extensions

The extension for this study is to plan to continue fencing for the foreseeable future, and I am eager to

further develop skills in the sport, as well as other areas. Providing an accessible and convenient method

to enhance agility could benefit individuals across a variety of sports, particularly fencing. Moving

forward, this study aims to include broader populations and platforms, enabling others to achieve similar

improvements to those observed in this research.

8

Bibliography

Assessing Speed and Agility Related to Sport Performance. (2017, May 1). Www.ncsa.com.

https://www.nsca.com/education/articles/kinetic-select/assessing-speed-and-agility-related-to-spo

rt-performance/

ATIPT. (2023, January 4). Stretch to Success: The Best Pre- and Post-Workout Stretches to Add to Your

Routine. Www.atipt.com. https://www.atipt.com/blog/pre-post-workout-stretches

Bramble, L.-A. (2021, April 19). Static vs. Dynamic Stretching: What Are They and Which Should You

Do? Hospital for Special Surgery. https://www.hss.edu/article_static_dynamic_stretching.asp

Charlesworth . (2022, May 26). The Importance of Large Sample Sizes in Research | CW Authors.

Www.cwauthors.com; Charlesworth Author Services.

https://www.cwauthors.com/article/importance-of-having-large-sample-sizes-for-research

Forster, J. W. D., Uthoff, A. M., Rumpf, M. C., & Cronin, J. B. (2022). Training to Improve Pro-Agility

Performance: A Systematic Review. Journal of Human Kinetics, 85(1), 35–51.

https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2022-0108

Histogram Maker. (n.d.). Statscharts.com. https://statscharts.com/bar/histogram?status=edit

How much and how often should people stretch? Experts say there’s no one answer. (2024, August 7).

Www.heart.org.

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2024/08/07/how-much-and-how-often-should-people-stretch

Hymel, G. (2008). Confounding Variable - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. Www.sciencedirect.com.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/confounding-variable

Physiopedia. (2024). Agility t-test. Physiopedia. https://www.physio-pedia.com/Agility_T-Test

Redirect Notice. (2024). Google.com.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Ffigure%2FA

gility-T-test-procedure_fig1_266318371&psig=AOvVaw0TepAblZ4iehIvkR8qmeBs&ust=17333

33501538000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBQQjRxqFwoTCIjnjuGQjIoDF

QAAAAAdAAAAABAE

Wheel of Names. (2019). Wheel of Names. Wheelofnames.com. https://wheelofnames.com/

Wilson, J. (2020). Agility - an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics. Www.sciencedirect.com.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/agility

Works cited

Hymel, Glenn. “Confounding Variable - an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics.” Www.sciencedirect.com,

2008, www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/confounding-variable.