本研究之目的是在整合動作觀察分析模式與運動學分析來觀察與分析選手抓舉膝上發力技術之缺失，並分析槓鈴與人體重心之各項運動學參數，以了解選手技術之缺失對履行「近」、「快」原則時所造成之影響。2位大學女子舉重選手為受試者，所舉之重量為其近期成績之85%。動作觀察分析模式是參考大陸體育學院舉重通用教材（1990）、顧鴻泉等人（1994）和陳五洲（民87）之研究而設計形成，運動學分析則是以Panasonic ag456攝影機（60Hz）進行動作拍攝，以Peak Performance動作分析系統進行分析。研究結果顯示： 1. 在動作觀察分析方面：兩者之伸髖與蹬腿動作一致；但蹬腿動作不足，屬於伸髖大於蹬腿之後抑式發力，因此兩者之蹬腿動作均需加強。在聳肩動作方面，受試者B較為明顯且能和伸髖與蹬腿配和，受試者A則因動作不明顯，需要加強。 2. 在運動學分析方面，兩位受試者髖關節伸展角度算是充分，但是膝關節伸展角度則嫌不足。在肩關節與頸部垂直距離之變化上，受試者A不減反增，聳肩不明顯。受試者B則是由5.88公分減少至3.71公分，聳肩動作適當。 3. 在「近」原則之履行方面，受試者A、B均為伸髖大於蹬腿之後仰式發力，槓鈴和身體重心之水平距離均較朱碧梧（民80）之研究來的大。受試者A之聳肩動作較不明顯，造成槓鈴之水平位移較受試者B大，由此可知蹬腿與聳肩不確實會影響受試者對「近」原則之履行。 4. 在「快」原則之覆行方面，因為受試者A槓鈴向前移動情形較大，所預槓鈴垂直速度除以槓鈴合速度之比值反而是受試者B較大，在「快」原則之履行上較差。

　　　　　The purposes of this study were: 1.using movement observation analysis model (MOAM) and kinematic analysis (KA) to find the shortage of weightlifters' snatch pulling technique. 2.analyzing kinematic parameters of body's center of mass and barbell's to understand how the shortage to affect subjects accomplishing "close" and "quick" rules. Two female college weightlifters served as subjects. The weight they lifted was 85% of the weight they could lift recently. MOAM was designed by collating related research of weightlifting teaching material, 1990; Ku etc, 1994; Chen, 1998. Ku etc, 1994; Chen, 1998. One video camera (Panasonic ag456, sampling rate: 60Hz) and Peak Performance analysis system were used to do KA. Results were as following: 1. According to the result of MOAM, we found both subjects' extending hip motion (EHM) and extending knee motion (EKM) had the same rtythm, but EKM weren't enough that should reinforce. Subject B's shoulder shrug pull (SSP) was obvious and synchronized with EHM and EKM. Subject A's SSP wasn't so obvious that should reinforce. 2. According to the result of KA, we found both subjects' hip extending angles were suitable, but knee extending angles weren't. In the changing of the distance between shoulder and neck's Y-axis coordinate, subject A wasn't decreasing, but subject B was decreasing from 5.88cm to 3.71cm. So we could say subject B's SSP was suitable, but subject A wasn't. 3. Both subjects' EKM were not enough so the distance between barbell and body's center of mass was bigger than the result of Chu (1991). Subject A's inadequacy SSP resulted in its barbell horizontal moving distance was bigger than Subject B's we could say inadequacy EKM and SSP would affect them to accomplish the "close" rule. 4. Subject A's barbell had a bigger ratio between vertical and resultant velocity and it accomplished the "quick" rule inadequacyly because its barbell moving forward motion was more obvious than subject B.