Fencing Strength
A study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research by Keiner et al. tested 48 highly trained adolescent male soccer players — athletes with similar physical demands to competitive fencers — over 10 months. The conclusion: traditional strength training outperformed both plyometric training and functional training across every physical test.
Before discarding the plyometric box, it is worth understanding what the study actually measured, and what the methodology reveals about interpreting its conclusions.
What the Study Did
Participants were divided into four groups: a traditional strength training group, a plyometrics and sprint group, a functional training group, and a control group. All were highly trained athletes selected from academies run by professional German soccer clubs.
They were tested on four measures:
- Change of direction speed
- Linear sprint speed
- Jump squat height
- One-rep max squat
At the end of the 10 months, only the traditional strength training group showed statistically significant improvements across all four tests — including change of direction speed and linear sprint speed.
The Problem with the Study Design
The headline finding is legitimate. The plyometric and functional training programmes used in the study, however, were poorly designed — and this significantly limits how far the conclusion extends.
The strength group was given a consistent set of exercises with a clear, logical progression over the full 10 months. Volume and intensity were structured to accumulate adaptation over time.
The plyometric group changed exercises every week — no consistent exposure long enough to develop the specific neural adaptations that plyometric training produces. They were also assigned four sets of eight sprints with only 20 seconds of rest between efforts. That is not speed training. Speed training requires approximately 60 seconds of recovery per 10 metres of maximum-effort sprinting. What was described is an aerobic conditioning protocol labelled as sprint training.
The functional training group was given exercises like banded crab walks and bodyweight glute bridges as main movements. These have their place as warm-up exercises. As the primary training stimulus for a highly trained adolescent athlete over 10 months, they are inadequate. The study’s authors acknowledge that the definition of functional training is unclear — and the programme they constructed reflects that ambiguity.
The Two Takeaways That Matter for Fencers
1. Plyometric and sprint training only works if it is structured
Changing exercises every week for plyometrics, without a logical progression, does not produce meaningful adaptation. Plyometric development requires practicing the same movements consistently over four to six week blocks, with incremental progressions in height, load, or volume. Random variation is not programming — it is variety for its own sake, and it does not build the specific neuromuscular adaptations that make plyometrics worth doing.
2. Strength training improves all athletic qualities
This is the finding that stands regardless of the methodological weaknesses. The strength group improved their sprint speed, change of direction, jump height, and squat strength simultaneously — on a programme that only involved traditional strength training.
This is not surprising to practitioners who understand the relationship between strength and athletic performance. A stronger athlete has greater force production capacity, which feeds directly into sprint acceleration, jump height, and the ability to change direction quickly. Strength is foundational to all of these expressions. Building it consistently, over long periods, with sound progressive overload, produces broad athletic development even without dedicated speed or plyometric work.
What This Means in Practice
The study does not make a compelling case that plyometrics are ineffective. It makes a compelling case that badly designed plyometric programmes are ineffective — which is not the same claim.
For fencers, the practical conclusion is this: a structured fencing training program built on strength is non-negotiable, and it produces a broader range of physical adaptations than most fencers expect. A well-designed plyometric and sprint programme, run alongside that strength foundation, will produce results that neither approach achieves alone. The keyword is well-designed — and the study’s plyometric group simply was not.
Both qualities matter. The priority is building them properly.
Related: Training But Not Getting Faster? Three Exercises Every Fencer Needs — how to structure sprints and plyometrics the right way. The Habits That Separate High-Performing Fencers from Everyone Else — why a structured programme outperforms random training, every time.
The fencing training programs at Fencing Strength combine strength and plyometric training in a structured, periodised 12-week programme — exactly the kind of design the study’s plyometric group was missing.
Study reference: Keiner, M. et al. “Effects of 10 Months of Speed, Functional, and Traditional Strength Training on Strength, Linear Sprint, Change of Direction, and Jump Performance in Trained Adolescent Soccer Players.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.