本文關(guān)鍵詞： 高爾夫揮桿 空揮桿練習(xí) 擊打泡沫球 桿頭速度 表面肌電 到達(dá)峰值時(shí)間 肩髖夾角　出處：《上海體育學(xué)院》2016年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：研究目的:由于受場(chǎng)地條件等外界環(huán)境因素所限,空揮桿練習(xí)和擊打泡沫球練習(xí)常常應(yīng)用于日常訓(xùn)練中。本研究旨在比較兩種揮桿動(dòng)作與真實(shí)揮桿動(dòng)作的差異,分析造成這一差異的生物力學(xué)原因,并為空揮桿練習(xí)和擊打泡沫球練習(xí)的實(shí)際應(yīng)用提供實(shí)驗(yàn)依據(jù)。研究方法:選取上海體育學(xué)院高爾夫?qū)I(yè)的10名學(xué)生(其中8名為男性,2名為女性,均為右手球手,身高171.8±4.96cm,體重62.45±6.36kg,年齡20.2±1.23y,運(yùn)動(dòng)年限均為2.5y)作為研究對(duì)象,受試者隨機(jī)進(jìn)行空揮桿練習(xí)、擊打泡沫球練習(xí)和真實(shí)揮桿擊球。使用Vicon三維運(yùn)動(dòng)捕捉系統(tǒng)(120 Hz,MXT40,Vicon Motion Analysis Inc.,Oxford,UK),kistler三維測(cè)力臺(tái)(960Hz,Kistler Instruments AG Corp.,Winterthur,Switzerland),Delsys表面肌電采集分析系統(tǒng)(4000Hz,Delsys Inc.MA,USA)同步采集揮桿全程的運(yùn)動(dòng)學(xué)數(shù)據(jù)、表面肌電數(shù)據(jù)及其它相關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)。采用單因素重復(fù)測(cè)量方差分析比較空揮桿練習(xí)和真實(shí)揮桿擊球以及擊打泡沫球練習(xí)和真實(shí)揮桿擊球時(shí)的數(shù)據(jù),事后檢驗(yàn)采用Bonferroni法,顯著性差異水平α=0.05,所得數(shù)據(jù)均以“平均值±標(biāo)準(zhǔn)差”的形式表示。研究結(jié)果:1)空揮桿練習(xí)時(shí)的桿頭速度顯著小于真實(shí)揮桿擊球的,擊打泡沫球時(shí)的桿頭速度與真實(shí)揮桿擊球時(shí)的沒(méi)有顯著性差異。2)在上桿階段三種揮桿動(dòng)作經(jīng)歷時(shí)長(zhǎng)都十分接近,沒(méi)有顯著性差異。在下桿階段空揮桿練習(xí)經(jīng)歷時(shí)間顯著小于真實(shí)揮桿擊球的,擊打泡沫球時(shí)的與真實(shí)揮桿擊球時(shí)的沒(méi)有顯著性差異。3)空揮桿練習(xí)時(shí)的肩髖夾角下桿階段最大值顯著小于真實(shí)揮桿擊球時(shí)的,擊打泡沫球時(shí)的與真實(shí)揮桿擊球時(shí)的沒(méi)有顯著性差異。4)在上桿階段和下桿階段,所有肌肉表面肌電達(dá)到峰值時(shí)間(Time to Peak)在三種揮桿動(dòng)作的情況下都十分接近,沒(méi)有顯著性差異。5)在上桿階段,腰背部肌肉(腹外斜肌、豎脊肌、背闊肌,均取左右兩側(cè))RMS值在三種揮桿動(dòng)作的情況下都十分接近,沒(méi)有顯著性差異。在下桿階段,左右兩側(cè)豎脊肌和左右兩側(cè)背闊肌RMS值均在空揮桿練習(xí)時(shí)顯著小于真實(shí)揮桿擊球時(shí)的,左右兩側(cè)腹外斜肌在兩種揮桿下都沒(méi)有顯著性差異;擊打泡沫球時(shí)的所有肌肉RMS值與真實(shí)揮桿擊球時(shí)的沒(méi)有顯著性差異。研究結(jié)論:空揮桿練習(xí)時(shí)的擊球效果比真實(shí)揮桿擊球時(shí)的差,而擊打泡沫球時(shí)的擊球效果和真實(shí)揮桿擊球時(shí)的十分接近。在揮桿動(dòng)作過(guò)程中,三者肌肉的活動(dòng)模式?jīng)]有顯著性差異,但空揮桿練習(xí)時(shí)腰背部肌肉活動(dòng)度較小,而擊打泡沫球時(shí)與真實(shí)揮桿擊球接近。這提示,空揮桿練習(xí)和擊打泡沫球練習(xí)都可以作為訓(xùn)練手段,但擊打泡沫球練習(xí)顯然更接近于真實(shí)揮桿擊球,效果更好。
[Abstract]:Objective: to compare the difference between the two kinds of swing movements and real swing movements because of the limitation of environment factors such as field conditions and other environmental factors, the empty swing practice and the hitting foam ball practice are often used in daily training, and the purpose of this study is to compare the difference between the two kinds of swing movements and the real swing movements. The biomechanical reasons for this difference were analyzed. The research methods are as follows: 10 students (8 male and 2 female) of golf major in Shanghai Institute of physical Education are selected. All of them were right-hand golfers. They were 171.8 鹵4.96cm tall, 62.45 鹵6.36kg, 20.2 鹵1.23ys. exercise years were 2.5ys. The subjects were randomly engaged in blank swing, foam ball and real swing. The Vicon 3D motion capture system was used to capture 120Hz MXT40. Vicon Motion Analysis... Oxfordl. Kistler three dimensional dynamometer. Kistler Instruments AG Corp.Winterthurn Switzerland. The Delsys surface electromyography (EMG) acquisition and analysis system (4000Hz) was used to synchronously collect the kinematics data of the whole swing. Surface electromyoelectric data and other related data. Single factor repeated measurement of variance analysis was used to compare the data of empty swing practice and real swing shot, as well as hitting foam ball practice and real swing. The Bonferroni method was used in the post test, and the significant difference level was 0. 05% (P < 0. 05). The data are expressed in the form of "mean 鹵standard deviation". The result of the study is that the speed of the pole head in the practice of empty swing is significantly lower than that of the actual swing. There was no significant difference between the speed of club head and that of real swing. 2) in the upper swing stage, the three kinds of swing experienced very similar duration. There is no significant difference. In the next stage of blank swing practice experience time is significantly less than the actual swing shot. There was no significant difference between the foam ball and the real swing. 3) the maximum value of the angle between the shoulder and hip in the practice of empty swing was significantly lower than that in the real swing. There is no significant difference between hitting foam ball and real swing. 4) in the upper and lower stages. All muscle surface electromyoelectric peak time (time to Peak) in the three swing movements are very close, there is no significant difference. 5) in the upper pole stage. Lumbar and back muscles (ventral oblique muscle, vertical spinal muscle, latissimus dorsi muscle) were taken from the left and right sides of the RMS values were very close to each other in the case of three swing movements, there was no significant difference. The RMS values of the vertical spinal muscles and the latissimus dorsi were significantly lower in the empty swing than in the real swing, and there was no significant difference between the right and left ventral oblique muscles under the two swing. There was no significant difference between the RMS of all muscles when hitting foam ball and the actual swing. Conclusion: the effect of blank swing is worse than that of real swing. However, the effect of hitting foam ball is very close to that of real swing. In the process of swing, there is no significant difference among the three muscle movement modes, but the waist and back muscle activity is small in empty swing practice. This suggests that the blank swing practice and the hitting foam ball practice can be used as training methods, but the foam ball hitting practice is obviously closer to the real swing, and the effect is better.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海體育學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：G849.3;G804.6
，

本文編號(hào)：1493782