武術套路騰空擺蓮540度接馬步起跳時地面反作用力與下肢運動學之分析

目的：探討騰空擺蓮540度接馬步成敗動作的起跳模式差異。研究比較成功動作與失敗動作在起跳時起跳期（含緩衝期與蹬伸期）地面反作用力的力量峰值與衝量之差異，以及比較成功與失敗動作在起跳期關鍵事件點中髖、膝、踝關節角度之差異。方法：10名國內大專男子組太極拳選手執行騰空擺蓮540度接馬步，使用三維動作捕捉與測力，每人收取五次成功與五次失敗資料。使用相依樣本t檢定比較成功與失敗動作起跳緩衝期與蹬伸期時力板峰值力量與衝量，以及起跳事件點之關節角度差異。結果：成功動作與失敗動作的髖、膝、踝關節角度在腳觸地、骨盆最低點、腳離地三個事件瞬間皆無達顯著差異。在蹬伸期時，成功動作之前向峰值顯著小於失敗動作（p = .029）；而在完整起跳期（p = .045）與蹬伸期（p = .031）時，成功動作之前後向衝量顯著小於失敗動作。結論：較大的前向力量可能會導致過度的水平重心偏移，影響空中轉體的穩定性。此外，空中動作的穩定性依賴在起跳期時地面反作用力水平分量的協調控制，在蹬伸期時，當左右方向上的重心控制幅度可能較小時，失敗組採取透過增加前後方向的衝量來補償；然而此時壓力中心容易超出基底面積的前後範圍，失敗風險提高。教練可以注意選手在起跳推蹬時是否過度借助前後方向的力量，影響後續動作的穩定性。

關鍵字

空中轉體；水平分量；落地穩定性；太極拳

並列摘要

Purpose: This study examined the differences in takeoff patterns between successful and failed Lotus Kicks with a 540° Twist and Horse Stance Landing. Specifically, the study analyzed the peak force and impulse of ground reaction force (GRF) during the takeoff phase (downward and propulsion phases). The hip, knee, and ankle joint angles were compared at key events during the takeoff phase. Methods: Ten male collegiate Tai Chi Chuan athletes participated in this study, and they performed five successful and five failed trials. The hip, knee, and ankle joint angles were recorded using a three-dimensional motion capture system, and peak forces and impulses along three axes were measured using a force plate. Paired sample t tests were used to evaluate differences in GRF peak force and impulse and in joint angles between the successful and failed trials. Results: No significant differences in hip, knee, or ankle joint angles were observed between successful and failed trials at foot contact, the lowest pelvis position, and foot-off events. However, during the propulsion phase, the anterior peak force was significantly lower in the successful trials than in the failed trials (p = .029). The anteroposterior impulse during the complete full takeoff phase (p = .045) and the propulsion phase (p = .031) was also significantly lower in the successful trials than in the failed trials. Conclusion: Excessive anterior force may cause an exaggerated horizontal shift in the center of mass (CoM), which can affect the stability of aerial rotation. Additionally, the stability of aerial movements relies on the coordinated control of the horizontal components of GRF during the takeoff phase. In the propulsion phase, when the mediolateral control of the CoM is reduced, the anteroposterior impulse is increased for compensation in failed trials. However, this strategy often shifts the center of pressure beyond the anteroposterior boundaries of the base of support, thereby increasing the risk of failure. Coaches should monitor whether athletes excessively rely on anteroposterior forces during the propulsion phase, which may compromise the stability of their subsequent movements.