Ecological perspectives on épée fencing footwork: a Delphi study of coaching and progression

Background: Footwork choices in épée fencing shape distance management, action initiation and load tolerance, yet empirical guidance on stepping versus bouncing footwork is limited. This study elicited expert consensus on definitions, coaching progression and competitive application of these footwork methods.
Methods: A two-round, internet-based Delphi was conducted with Olympic-level épée coaches recruited via purposive sampling (Round One n = 26; Round Two n = 21). Round One open responses underwent inductive thematic analysis to generate statements. Round Two presented concise, operationalised items (single-choice/yes–no). Consensus was pre-specified as ≥70% agreement. For each item, the modal percentage and exact 95% binomial confidence interval (CI) were reported; margins over the runner-up quantified concentration of views.
Results: Two items reached consensus: (i) teaching sequence: teach stepping first, introduce bouncing later (76.2%; 95% CI 52.8–91.8); and (ii) en garde across development: begin static/comfortable, add bouncing later (71.4%; CI 47.8–88.7). Two items showed near-threshold majorities with large margins: bouncing faster for attack initiation (66.7%; CI 43.0–85.4), and typical attack distance has decreased in modern épée (66.7%, CI 43.0–85.4). Confidence intervals were wide because items were rated by approximately 21 coaches; exact binomial 95% intervals for proportions near two-thirds typically span ~±20 percentage points, reflecting panel size rather than disagreement.
Conclusions: Expert coaches supported a progressive footwork movement pathway (step → bounce) and indicated context-sensitive deployment: bouncing likely affords time-based advantages for attack initiation, whereas defence/change-of-direction benefits from a repertoire that includes both modes. Findings bridge practitioner knowledge with motor-learning theory and promote studies linking footwork type to kinetic and kinematics, bout outcomes and tests of moderators such as athlete characteristics and opponent tempo.

© The Author(s) 2026.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).