世界花式撞球冠軍選手三種基本技術擊球動作之探討

Investigation on Three Fundamental Techniques ofPool Stroke Motion Performed by 2005 9-Ball WorldPool Champion

目的：比較花式撞球基本技術-定桿、推桿、拉桿在擊球期之出桿控制模式、上肢鐘擺式運動與下肢運動特徵。方法：研究對象為一位2005世界花式撞球錦標賽冠軍選手，資料拍攝於同年11月，以Motion Analysis 3D動作擷取系統(Eagle系列攝影機七台，拍攝頻率為60Hz)拍攝三種基本技術之動作各十次。單因子變異數分析比較三種技術在各部位之位移量、平均速度、關節角度與平均角速桿最慢，上肢部位運動學參數有隨出桿速度增快(拉桿>定桿>推桿)而增大的趨勢，而下肢的運動範圍小且移動速度慢。結論：出桿控制模式主要固定出桿距離控制不同出桿速度的策略擊球，動作差異性的趨勢有隨出桿速度有相同趨勢(拉桿>定桿>推桿)，推測出桿速度可能是造成動作差異的主因。三種基本技術之上肢動作主要是隨出桿速度增加而增加運動範圍，且推桿僅利用下臂擺動與手腕加速，上臂相度之差異，再以Tukey法進行事後比較，顯著水準α=.01。結果：出桿速度以拉桿最快、定桿次之、推較於拉、定桿較為固定，推桿技術較相似於鐘擺式運動；定桿和拉桿除下臂擺動與手腕加速外，上臂的擺動也參與加速度的角色，兩者肩部加速行為不同。三種技術下肢部位整體而言皆運動範圍小且移度速度慢，主要屬於穩固上半身運動的角色，而拉桿與定桿可能因隨球動作在髖和膝部的控制仍有較相似的動作模式。

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare characteristics of whole body movement during thestroke phase in three fundamental pool techniques (push shot， PS; stop shot， SS; and draw shot， DS).Methods: The participant was the winner of the 2005 World Pool Championship and the data wascollected on November of the same year. Each technique was performed ten times and recorded bythe Motion Analysis System at 60 Hz with seven high speed cameras. One-way ANOVA wasconducted to compare maximum displacement， velocity， maximum angular displacement andangular velocity of each body segment during the stroke phase of the three techniques. ANOVA wasfollowed by Tukey post hoc comparisons to determine which techniques showed significantdifferences. Results: The stroke velocity of the draw shot was greatest followed by the stop shotand then the push shot. Although stroke velocities differed， the same swing distance was observedfor all shots. Kinematic parameters of the upper arm tended to increase with stroke velocity， butkinematic parameters of the lower arm did not. Conclusion: It was shown that the strategy of strokewas to control different stroke speeds in the same stroke distance. We found the correlation betweendifferent movements and stroke speeds (DS>SS>PS) inferring that the stoke speeds might be themajor cause of the movement differences in upper limbs. The range of motion (ROM) in upperlimbs increased with stroke speeds in these three techniques. The motion of upper limbs in PS wassimilar to the pendulum motion compared to SS and DS. In SS and DS， the upper arm would alsoswing and the controls of shoulders were different between these two techniques. In these threetechniques， the movements occurred in lower limbs were overall small in range and slow in speedand it was thought that lower limbs played a role in stabilizing upper limbs. In SS and DS， a similarmovement pattern in controlling knees and hip was observed and it could be due to thefollow-through of upper body.