Ikeda 2012 Snatch

COMPARISON OF THE SNATCH TECHNIQUE FOR
FEMALE WEIGHTLIFTERS AT THE 2008 ASIAN

CHAMPIONSHIPS
YUSUKE IKEDA,1 TSUTOMU JINJI,1 TAKEO MATSUBAYASHI,1 AKIFUMI MATSUO,1 EIICHI INAGAKI,2
TOSHIRO TAKEMATA,2 AND MIYOJI KIKUTA2
1
Department of Sports Sciences, Japan Institute of Sports Sciences, Tokyo, Japan; and 2Japan Weightlifting Association, Tokyo,
Japan
ABSTRACT
Ikeda, Y, Jinji, T, Matsubayashi, T, Matsuo, A, Inagaki, E,
Takemata, T, and Kikuta, M. Comparison of the snatch technique
for female weightlifters at the 2008 Asian Championships.
J Strength Cond Res 26(5): 12811295, 2012The purpose of
this study was to compare the snatch techniques of Japanese
and international female weightlifters. Two high-speed cameras
operating at 250 Hz were used to record the snatch lifts of the 5
best weightlifters in the snatch and 5 Japanese weightlifters
during the 2008 Asian Weightlifting Championships held in
Japan. The results revealed that the forward velocity of the barbell
for the Japanese weightlifters during the second pull was
significantly greater than that for the best weightlifters and that
barbell trajectories of Japanese weightlifters except for the 53-kg
class crossed the vertical reference line with great forward
displacement of the barbell. In addition, the best weightlifters
extended the knee and hip joints during the second pull earlier
than the Japanese weightlifters did. These findings indicate that it
is important to improve the way of pulling the barbell during the
second pull for Japanese female weightlifters.
KEY WORDS biomechanics, three-dimensional kinematic analysis, kinematics
INTRODUCTION
he primary factors that affect the performance of

weightlifters in the snatch event of weightlifting
competitions are the explosive power output
required to lift a heavy weight and the skill required
to lift a barbell efficiently. The average power output generated
during a snatch lift ranges from 1,300 to 4,000 W among elite
male lifters (5), and weightlifters use the elastic energy
produced during the stretch-shortening cycle by flexing their
Address correspondence to Yusuke Ikeda, ikeda.yusuke.trsc@gmail.com.

26(5)/12811295
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2012 National Strength and Conditioning Association
knee between the first pull and the second pull (7). In light
of these facts, many studies have analyzed the lifting motion of
the barbells during weightlifting competitions in terms of
different factors such as the kinematic characteristics of the
barbell (13,10,12,15) and the strength and power of lifters
(11,16). However, it is reported that the barbell path suggested
to be correct is different in each region (15). Because the lifting
technique is affected by coaching, it is important to reveal the
characteristics of the lifting technique in consideration of the
methods of coaching in each country or each region.
With regard to lifting techniques (2,8,9,13), Baumann et al. (1)
demonstrated that the hip extensor moment plays a dominant
role in weightlifting and that the impact of the extensor
moments of the knee and ankle on the weightlifters performance is relatively small. Furthermore, the position of the
knee joint with regard to the direction of the ground reaction
force is an important technical factor that should be considered
during analysis. Okada et al. (13) reported that the time interval
between the peak angular velocity of the hip joint and peak
vertical velocity of the barbell for Japanese weightlifters was
longer than that for international weightlifters. Because these
technical factors seem to considerably affect the kinetics of
lifting, kinematic analysis of elite weightlifters provides useful
information for improving the weightlifting performance.
With regard to the barbell kinematics, the barbell displacement, barbell velocity, barbell acceleration, and angle of the
resultant acceleration of the barbell are used as parameters for
technical evaluation. Stone et al. (15) reported that the amount
of forward or backward displacement from the liftoff position
greatly influenced the success of a lift; by comparing successful
and unsuccessful attempts, they found that the horizontal
displacement during successful attempts was small. Although
studies on the lifting patterns of world-class weightlifters
suggested that top weightlifters pull the barbell backward during
the first pull and the transition phase (1,10), the study of the
lifting patterns of college weightlifters suggested that no
significant relationship existed between the horizontal displacement of the barbell and the number of successful attempts (14).
With regard to the barbell velocity and acceleration in the
vertical direction, it is reported that the velocity curves for the
VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2012 |
1281
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Motion Analysis of Snatch
TABLE 1. Characteristics of weightlifters.*

Weight
category (kg)
Nationality
48
48
53
53
63
63
69
69
75
75
CHN
JPN
THA
JPN
CHN
JPN
CHN
JPN
CHN
JPN
Age (y)
Height (cm)
Body mass (kg)
Barbell mass (kg) and the

percentage of world record
22
23
20
29
27
22
23
24
24
25
150
153
153
151
160
150
165
164
168
165
47.9
47.8
52.5
52.4
62.7
62.7
68.9
67.5
73.8
74.6
87 (89)
78 (80)
93 (90)
70 (68)
104 (90)
91 (78)
117 (91)
91 (71)
121 (90)
93 (69)
*CHN = China; JPN = Japan; THA = Thailand.
best lifters (BLs) seldom show any notable dip (1,7,10) and that
the maximum barbell velocity for the BLs was smaller than that
for other lifters (1). In a study conducted for elite Asian
weightlifters, Isaka et al. (10) observed 3 vertical acceleration
peaks of the barbell during the pull movement. However, no
studies have been conducted that determine the relationship
between the horizontal component and the lifting motion.
Although many studies have researched the lifting motion
and the barbell kinematics, it is unclear as to why a big
difference is seen in weightlifting performance because the
motion analysis and the barbell analysis have been disconnected. We hypothesized that international weightlifters
show rational motion and barbell trajectory during the first

pull and the transition phase to exert the explosive force
during the second pull. To consider the factors affecting the
lifting ability, it is important to recognize the characteristics of
the lifting technique and the coaching method of lifting in the
region. Thus, this study had 3 major purposes: (a) to describe
the characteristics of the barbell kinematics and kinetics
for international weightlifters and Japanese weightlifters; (b)
to describe the characteristics of the lifting motion for
international weightlifters and Japanese weightlifters; (c) to
look at the rational motion to exert the explosive force during
the second pull in the snatch lift.
Figure 1. Control points and calculation of coordinate values with respect to the barbell.
1282
the
TM
the
TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
Asian Weightlifting Championships held in the city of

Kanazawa, Japan. The heaviest
successful snatch attempts of
the 5 BLs and Japanese lifters
( JLs) in 5 weight categories (i.e.,
48, 53, 63, 69, and 75 kg) were
analyzed. The weight category,
nationality, age, height, body
mass, and barbell mass of each
subject are listed in Table 1.
Procedure
Figure 2. Phases of the snatch and barbell trajectory.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the problem
To examine whether there are any differences in the snatch

technique between international and Japanese female weightlifters, the lifting motion and the kinematics and the kinetics of
the barbell were quantified by analysis. The data for this study
were collected at the 2008 Asian Weightlifting Championships held in the city of Kanazawa, Japan. Permission for
filming was granted by the Japan Weightlifting Association.
Subjects
The snatch techniques of 10 female weightlifters were

recorded under competitive conditions during the 2008
Two
high-speed
cameras
(HSV-500C3, Nac, Tokyo, Japan) operating at 250 Hz were
used to record the movements
of a lift as in previous research
studies (1,2); the cameras were placed approximately 30 m
from the platform. The shutter speed was set at 1/1,000
seconds. Three-dimensional data were obtained using the
direct linear transformation method. A calibration system (3
3 3 3 2.9 m) was positioned on the platform. Barbell
trajectories during the snatch were recorded using another
camera (Sony Inc, Tokyo, Japan) that was placed perpendicularly to the platform (Figure 1) and the lifters sagittal
plane (9,10,14,15). The sampling frequency was 60 Hz, and
the shutter speed was set at 1/1,000 seconds.
A digitizing system (DKH Inc., Tokyo, Japan) was used to
manually digitize 25 points on the body and the barbell. The
coordinate values were filtered digitally using a Butterworth-type
TABLE 2. Experimental variables.

Symbol
Unit
Definition
BH
DxL
Dx1
Dx2
Dx3
Dy1
Dy2
Dy3
Dy4
Dy5
Dy6
pvV
phVf
phVb
pAf
pAv
pFf
pFv
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
ms-1
ms-1
ms-1
ms-2
ms-2
N
N
Body height
Most forward position to the catch position (amount of loop)
Start position to the beginning of the second pull (horizontal displacement during the pull phase)
Start position to catch position
Second pull position to the most forward position
Start position to maximum height
Start position to the catch position (vertical displacement)
Maximum height to the catch position (vertical displacement)
Start position to the beginning of the second pull (vertical displacement during the pull phase)
Start position to the most forward position (vertical displacement)
Second pull position to the most forward position (vertical displacement)
Peak vertical velocity
Peak horizontal velocity in the forward direction
Peak horizontal velocity in the backward direction
Peak forward acceleration during the second pull
Peak vertical acceleration during the second pull
Peak horizontal force in the forward direction
Peak vertical force
1283
Figure 3. A) Typical sample of vertical and horizontal accelerations of the barbell. B) Calculation of the angle of the resultant acceleration at peak vertical accelerations
Ap. (Peak vertical accelerations Ap correspond to the first and second pulls, respectively.) Ax and Ay represent the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively.
fourth-order low-pass filter. The cutoff frequencies for the

3-dimensional coordinates and the barbell were 4 Hz (4).
Because the barbell position on the platform was different for
each attempt during the competition, the location of the X3 dots
parallel to the x-axis was calculated using 4 control points

(C1C4) and the y-coordinate of the barbell was calculated
after considering the depth of the video image (Figure 1).
The coordinate values of the barbell were interpolated at
1/250-second interval by cubic
spline interpolation.
The analysis focused on the
part of the snatch technique
beginning from the barbell liftoff to the lowest position of the
barbell during the catch phase.
The movement was divided
into 5 phases based on the
height of the barbell and the
change in the angle in which
the knee moved (Figure 2). (a)
The first pull: from the barbell
liftoff to the first maximum
knee extension. (b) The transition from the first to the second
pull: from the first maximum
knee extension to the first
maximum knee flexion. (c)
The second pull: from the first
maximum knee flexion to the
second maximum knee extension. (d) The turnover under the
barbell: from the second maximum knee extension to the
maximum height position of
Figure 4. Comparison of barbell trajectories of best lifters and Japanese lifters during their heaviest successful snatch.
the barbell. (e) The catch phase:
1284
the
TM
the
TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
Figure 5. Barbell velocity-time curves for best lifters and Japanese lifters.
from the maximum height position of the barbell to the

stabilization in the catch position.
To study the movement of the body, the angular displacements (Figure 2) and angular velocities of the knee and hip
joints in the sagittal plane were calculated to compare the
movements of the BLs and JLs.
The barbells movement was described by the displacement
(Table 2), the velocity (Figure 3), and acceleration (Figure 4)
in the vertical and horizontal directions. The parameters used
for analyzing the barbell kinematics were based on the
horizontal and vertical barbell velocities during the snatch.
Regarding the velocities and acceleration of the barbell,
positive values represent the movement of the barbell toward
the lifter, and negative values represent movement away from
the lifter. In this study, the angle between the direction of the
resultant acceleration vector of the barbell and the horizontal
line was calculated by a method similar to that reported by
Isaka et al. (10) (Figure 4). The forces applied to the barbell in
the vertical and the horizontal direction were calculated by
the following equation:
Horizontal force horizontal acceleration

3 barbell mass;
Vertical force vertical acceleration 3 barbellmass
barbell bass 3 9:8:
Statistical Analyses
Values for each parameter were recorded as mean 6 SD for

each of the BL and JL groups. An unpaired t-test was
TABLE 3. Barbell kinematics.*

48 kg
Dx1 (m)
Dx2 (m)
Dx3 (m)
DxL (m)
Dy1 (m)
Dy1/BH
Dy2 (m)
Dy2/BH
Dy3 (m)
Dy4 (m)
Dy4/BH
Dy5 (m)
Dy5/BH
Dy6 (m)
53 kg
63 kg
69 kg
75 kg
BL
JL
BL
JL
BL
JL
BL
JL
BL
JL
0.056
0.253
0.011
0.208
0.882
0.588
0.748
0.499
0.134
0.431
0.287
0.590
0.393
0.159
0.053
0.161
0.042
0.150
0.970
0.634
0.789
0.516
0.181
0.560
0.366
0.831
0.543
0.271
0.045
0.114
0.050
0.119
0.944
0.617
0.796
0.520
0.148
0.392
0.256
0.806
0.527
0.414
0.118
0.192
0.068
0.142
1.016
0.673
0.778
0.515
0.238
0.455
0.301
0.882
0.584
0.427
0.044
0.112
0.037
0.105
0.911
0.569
0.792
0.495
0.119
0.455
0.284
0.772
0.483
0.317
0.040
0.031
0.078
0.069
0.916
0.611
0.784
0.523
0.132
0.446
0.297
0.798
0.532
0.352
0.062
0.157
0.043
0.138
1.047
0.635
0.852
0.516
0.195
0.579
0.351
0.849
0.515
0.270
0.015
0.015
0.093
0.093
1.070
0.652
0.869
0.530
0.201
0.571
0.348
0.966
0.589
0.395
0.096
0.138
0.059
0.101
1.011
0.602
0.856
0.510
0.155
0.557
0.332
0.897
0.534
0.340
0.025
0.000
0.106
0.081
1.051
0.637
0.863
0.523
0.188
0.505
0.306
0.940
0.570
0.435
BL
0.061
0.155
0.040
0.134
0.959
0.602
0.809
0.508
0.150
0.483
0.302
0.783
0.490
0.300
6 0.02
6 0.06
6 0.02
6 0.04
6 0.07
6 0.03
6 0.05
6 0.01
6 0.03
6 0.08
6 0.04
6 0.12
6 0.06
6 0.09
JL
0.050
0.080
0.077
0.107
1.005
0.641
0.817
0.521
0.188
0.507
0.324
0.883
0.564
0.376
6 0.04
6 0.09
6 0.02
6 0.04
6 0.06
6 0.02
6 0.05
6 0.01
6 0.04
6 0.06
6 0.03
6 0.07
6 0.03
6 0.07
*BL = best lifter; JL = Japanese lifter.

Significance at p , 0.05.
1285
Figure 6. Barbell acceleration-time curve for best lifters and Japanese lifters.
1286
the
TM
TABLE 4. The kinematics and kinetic characteristics of the barbell.

48kg
BL
JL
BL
63kg
JL
BL
69kg
JL
BL
75kg
JL
BL
JL
1.90
1.92
1.90
1.86
1.82
2.10
2.00
1.81
1.95
20.17
20.46
20.40
20.47
20.34
20.66
20.49
20.77
20.51
20.82
0.57
0.49
0.43
0.45
0.40
0.27
0.45
0.42
0.39
0.29
24.28
28.83
24.57
25.68
25.26
29.06
29.75
213.46
27.69
211.19
5.36
5.14
7.38
5.51
7.88
5.24
5.67
6.15
4.01
5.47
127.0
80.6
120.4
121.2
117.9
143.1
148.5
148.9
150.7
154.0
1.89 6 0.13
-0.38 6 0.14*
0.45 6 0.07
JL
1.91 6
0.07
-0.63 6
0.17
0.38 6
0.10
26.31 6 2.35 29.64 6

2.90
5.50 6
0.39
132.9 6 15.6
129.6 6
30.1
2928.4 6
376.4
peak horizontal
2387.6 2770.3 2450.4 2419.1 2631.9 2901.4 21297.5 21418.1 21009.1 21133.2 2755.3 6
force in forward
387.9
direction
peak vertical
1327.1 1182.6 1638.1 1094.0 1885.5 1406.6
1861.4
1493.3
1719.0
1466.4 1686.2 6
1328.6 6
force (N)
225.1*
179.3
Interval of time
0.000
0.080
0.012
0.040
0.032
0.020
0.000
0.020
0.004
0.008 0.010 6 0.01 0.034 6
between pAf
0.03
ans pAv (s)
TM
BL:Best Lifter, JL: Japanese Lifter, *Significance at P , 0.05
1287
| www.nsca-jscr.org
6.06 6 1.57
the
1.76
BL
peak vertical
velocity (ms21)
peak horizontal
velocity in
forward
direction
(ms21)
peak horizontal
velocity in
backward
direction
(ms21)
peak forward
acceleration
during the
second pull
[pAf] (ms22)
peak vertical
acceleration
during the
second pull
[pAf] (ms22)
ARA(deg)
53kg
Figure 7. Angle of resultant acceleration at the first and second pulls.
1288
the
TM
the
TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
Figure 8. Joint angular displacement of hip and knee for best lifters and Japanese lifters.
1289
the
1290
TABLE 5. Joint angular kinematics.*
48 kg
BL
TM
Joint angle ()
Knee joint angle at liftoff
Hip joint angle at liftoff
Thigh angle to horizontal plane at liftoff
Trunk angle to horizontal plane at liftoff
Knee joint angle at end of first pull
Hip joint angle at end of first pull
Thigh angle to horizontal plane at end of
Trunk angle to horizontal plane at end of
Knee joint angle at end of transition
Hip joint angle at end of transition
Knee joint angle at VAmax
Hip joint angle at VAmax
Thigh angle to horizontal plane at VAmax
Trunk angle to horizontal plane at VAmax
Knee joint angle at end of second pull
Hip joint angle at end of second pull
Maximum hip angle
Knee joint angle at end of turnover
Hip joint angle at end of turnover
71.6
38.1
6.6
30.6
123.9
75.1
first pull
40.9
first pull
30.7
115.7
122.7
transition
49.1
transition
67.5
129.1
163.6
62.9
100.1
174.8
198.8
second pull 78.9
second pull 112.9
199.0
86.6
145.6
turnover
31.9
turnover
82.8
53 kg
63 kg
69 kg
75 kg
JL
BL
JL
BL
JL
BL
JL
BL
JL
69.7
37.3
3.0
33.9
125.8
85.8
47.4
32.8
124.4
117.4
52.7
58.9
126.8
143.0
59.0
77.3
174.8
201.6
79.1
113.3
203.0
75.0
122.7
20.6
84.6
77.9
47.3
15.2
31.0
135.4
82.2
52.4
24.4
125.8
125.5
55.4
62.1
138.8
166.2
67.4
80.1
177.3
206.7
82.1
116.2
206.8
65.5
121.5
26.2
82.9
73.0
34.0
7.8
25.8
127.4
75.2
46.5
26.8
119.4
115.2
53.6
57.3
121.8
132.4
58.8
68.4
176.4
197.2
80.2
109.3
197.6
81.3
133.9
35.7
98.5
75.9
39.7
10.5
28.3
135.5
84.0
51.3
29.4
118.6
126.0
54.5
67.3
128.3
154.0
64.9
81.3
172.4
200.0
76.4
115.5
202.5
73.4
116.3
17.1
81.8
81.0
37.7
13.1
23.6
120.7
76.2
44.8
28.8
116.1
106.7
50.2
52.1
120.5
139.0
59.6
72.9
165.1
196.1
80.4
111.4
196.1
75.3
98.8
20.0
77.4
74.2
39.0
12.4
25.5
128.6
86.1
49.7
30.9
120.9
117.6
53.2
56.8
143.2
178.2
70.3
103.8
170.0
208.1
77.7
119.6
208.8
71.0
99.0
15.0
74.7
68.1
26.5
20.5
26.7
131.5
82.5
46.8
31.6
124.9
123.6
54.7
62.8
131.1
151.1
64.6
77.8
157.0
180.3
72.7
105.4
180.5
77.4
110.3
18.5
81.9
69.3
38.6
8.2
29.8
133.3
88.9
52.2
32.6
127.4
127.5
58.3
62.1
144.5
170.7
72.3
96.3
169.1
198.5
81.5
113.0
199.5
74.3
103.0
21.4
78.8
70.7
32.7
5.0
27.0
134.8
74.6
49.9
23.4
121.7
119.1
55.3
61.4
134.5
159.9
69.1
80.9
163.3
191.0
78.4
111.6
191.0
78.2
96.0
17.0
77.8
BL
73.8 6
40.5 6
10.6 6
29.0 6
131.3 6
83.3 6
49.3 6
29.6 6
121.7 6
123.9 6
54.1 6
63.2 6
136.8 6
166.5 6
67.6 6
92.3 6
172.7 6
202.4 6
79.3 6
115.4 6
203.3 6
74.2 6
117.1 6
22.3 6
80.2 6
JL
3.4
3.8
3.4
2.2
5.0
5.2
4.8
3.1
4.9
3.9
3.4
4.4
7.7
8.9
3.8
10.9
3.4
4.6
2.4
2.8
4.4
7.8
18.4
6.9
3.5
72.5
33.6
5.7
27.4
128.0
78.9
47.1
28.7
121.3
116.4
53.3
58.5
126.9
145.1
62.2
75.5
167.3
193.2
78.2
110.2
193.6
77.4
112.3
22.4
84.0
6 5.1
6 4.5
6 5.1
6 3.9
6 5.4
6 5.0
6 1.8
6 3.8
6 3.7
6 6.2
6 2.0
6 4.2
6 6.0
6 10.7
6 4.5
6 4.9
6 8.2
6 8.2
6 3.2
6 3.0
6 8.5
6 2.6
6 16.0
6 7.6
6 8.6

TABLE 6. Kinematic analysis of joint angle.*

48 kg
63 kg
69 kg
75 kg
BL
JL
BL
JL
BL
JL
BL
JL
BL
JL
52.3
37.0
34.3
0.1
28.2
47.6
8.2
36.8
13.4
56.1
48.5
44.4
21.1
21.4
31.6
5.3
26.1
2.4
57.5
34.9
37.2
26.6
29.6
43.3
3.0
37.7
13.0
54.4
41.2
38.7
1.0
28.0
40.0
7.1
30.5
2.4
59.6
44.3
40.8
1.1
216.9
42.0
3.2
37.9
9.7
39.7
38.5
31.7
5.2
24.6
30.5
5.4
23.3
4.4
54.4
47.1
37.3
5.4
27.7
31.5
3.5
25.9
22.3
63.4
56.0
47.3
4.9
26.6
41.1
7.9
31.2
6.2
64.0
50.3
44.0
2.8
25.9
38.6
6.1
29.5
17.1
64.1
41.9
44.9
23.6
213.1
44.5
5.4
38.0
12.8
40.9
25.6
40.7
17.2
28.0
32.3
60.6
27.5
43.2
40.8
42.7 6 11.7
28.7 6 8.7
13.8
6.3
12.0
5.2
10.4
9.4
17.1
9.9
14.0
13.8
13.5 6 2.5
8.9 6 3.4
32.6
18.4
18.0
11.1
14.0
20.8
47.0
15.0
34.2
19.5
29.2 6 13.3
17.0 6 3.9
41.6
71.9
23.1
50.2
285.1
295.0
261.4
233.8
50.4
51.5
57.0
53.8
84.2
81.2
82.0
74.0
26.4
26.7
26.6
21.9
54.4
54.1
52.0
48.2
299.8 2111.8 295.1 299.0
278.9 285.2 263.3 283.7
258.5 255.9 244.5 259.3
228.7 233.3 210.8 233.7
49.0
49.1
32.1
89.4
90.5
56.7
30.2
24.5
18.0
59.3
62.8
42.6
289.8 299.0 279.6
297.3 2109.1 270.0
260.4 262.7 254.2
234.0 244.9 223.5
41.7
71.0
23.2
50.9
294.8
295.5
260.1
234.2
21.55
20.36
20.99
21.57
21.43
21.30 21.99
8.39
7.54
7.87
7.45
7.37
6.17
6.79
5.26
6.14
8.27
7.70
10.45
7.22
7.54
9.98
9.71
8.72
8.06
21.84 21.23 22.79
57.6 6
42.7 6
38.7 6
0.6 6
29.7 6
40.6 6
4.8 6
33.6 6
15.1 6
51.0 6
78.6 6
25.2 6
52.3 6
298.6 6
285.3 6
257.0 6
235.2 6
JL
4.6
6.6
3.7
4.5
4.3
6.0
2.3
5.5
4.8
6.4
7.6
3.1
6.7
8.6
20.6
6.1
5.6
55.5
45.2
41.4
1.3
26.7
37.5
6.2
29.8
5.6
46.0
76.8
24.9
51.7
289.9
280.9
255.8
226.2
6 9.8
6 7.1
6 6.3
6 3.8
6 4.3
6 6.2
6 1.2
6 5.6
6 4.3
6 9.5
6 12.9
6 4.6
6 6.1
6 8.0
6 15.0
6 6.9
6 9.6
21.81 6 0.60
21.20 6 0.60
5.85
7.31 6 0.90
6.45 6 1.01
8.35
8.80 6 1.20
8.39 6 1.06
215.35 212.94 29.82 29.10 213.75 210.10 213.00 210.48 211.50 29.46 212.68 6 2.10 210.42 6 1.51
| www.nsca-jscr.org
1291
TM

the
59.1
76.1
29.8
45.4
288.2
253.2
247.0
230.1
BL
Joint angular displacement ()

Knee joint displacement during the first pull
Hip joint displacement during the first pull
Thigh angle displacement during the first pull
Trunk angle displacement during the first pull
Knee joint displacement during transition
Hip joint displacement during transition
Thigh angle displacement during transition
Trunk angle displacement during transition
Knee joint displacement from the end of
transition to VAmax
Hip joint displacement from the end of
transition to VAmax
Thigh angle displacement from the end of
transition to VAmax
Trunk angle displacement from the end of
transition to VAmax
Knee joint displacement during second pull
Hip joint displacement during second pull
Thigh angle displacement during second pull
Trunk angle displacement during second pull
Knee joint displacement during turnover
Hip joint displacement during turnover
Thigh angle displacement during turnover
Trunk angle displacement during turnover
Joint angular velocity (rads21)
Maximum knee flexion velocity during
transition phase
Maximum knee extension velocity during
second pull
Maximum hip extension velocity during
second pull
Maximum hip flexion velocity during
turnover
53 kg
Figure 9. Joint angular velocity of hip and knee for best lifters and Japanese lifters.
1292
the
TM
the
TM

performed to test the difference in the mean values. The
correlation coefficient between 2 variables was calculated and
tested for significance. The level of statistical significance was
set at 5%.
RESULTS
Kinematics and Kinetics of the Barbell
Barbell trajectories for the BLs and JLs are shown in Figure 5.
The trajectories for the BLs did not cross a vertical reference
line projected upward from the initial position of the bar. For
JLs, except those in the 53-kg category, the trajectories of the
barbell crossed the vertical reference line. Compared with the
trajectories of the BLs, the forward barbell displacement
(Dx3) of the JLs between the most backward position and the
most forward position was greater than that of the BLs. With
regard to the relative vertical displacement, the height of the
maximum position (Dy1/BH) and heights of the most
forward position (Dy5/BH) and catch position (Dy2/BH)
for the BLs were significantly lower than those for the JLs
(Table 3).
The vertical and horizontal velocity curves of the barbell
are shown in Figure 6. As for the peak value of the barbell
velocities, no difference was observed in the pvV value, but
the phVf values of the JLs were greater than those of the BLs
(Table 4). There was a significant negative correlation
between phVf and Dx2 (r = 20.881, p , 0.001) and Dx3
(r = 20.961, p , 0.001).
The vertical and horizontal acceleration curves of the
barbell are shown in Figure 7. Three peaks of vertical
acceleration were observed during the pull movement for the
BLs and the JLs. Negative values of vertical acceleration were
observed for 6 of the 10 lifters during the transition phase.
With regard to horizontal acceleration, no significant
difference was observed in the pAf value between the BLs
and the JLs (p = 0.081), but the values of pAf value for the
JLs were greater than those for the BLs in each category. As
for the ARA of the barbell for the second pulls, there was no
significant difference between the BLs and JLs. Because the
timing of pAf did not necessarily correspond to the timing of
pAv, the interval time between pAv and pAf affected the
values of ARA (Table 4).
Figure 8 shows the curves of the angular displacement of
the knee and hip joints for BLs and JLs. No significant
differences were observed in the angles of the knee joint and
the hip joint at the end of the first pull (Table 5). All the
weightlifters flexed their knees during the transition phase.
The mean values of the knee flexion angle were 9.7 6 4.3 for
the BLs and 6.7 6 4.3 for the JLs. With regard to the joint
angle at each phase, the hip joint angles of the BLs at the
barbell liftoff (BLs: 40.5 6 3.8, JLs: 33.6 6 4.5) and at the
maximum vertical acceleration (VAmax) (BLs: 166.5 6 8.9,
JLs: 145.1 6 10.7) were significantly greater than those of
the JLs. In addition, the trunk angles to horizontal plane
of the BLs at VAmax (BLs: 92.3 6 10.9, JLs: 75.5 6 4.9)
and at the end of the second pull (BLs: 115.4 6 2.8,
| www.nsca-jscr.org
JLs: 110.2 6 3.0) were significantly greater than those of the

JLs. Furthermore, there were major differences between the
BLs and JLs in terms of the hip joint angle at the end of
the transition phase (p = 0.053) (BLs: 123.9 6 3.9, JLs:
116.4 6 6.2), knee joint angle at VAmax (p = 0.053) (BLs:
136.8 6 7.7, JLs: 126.9 6 6.0), thigh angle at VAmax (p =
0.079) (BLs: 67.6 6 3.8, JLs: 62.2 6 4.5), hip joint angle at
the end of the second pull (p = 0.060) (BLs: 202.4 6 4.6, JLs:
193.2 6 8.2), and maximum hip angle (p = 0.053) (BLs:
203.3 6 4.4, JLs: 193.6 6 8.5) (Table 4). With regard to the
angular displacement (Table 6), no significant differences
were observed between the BLs and JLs in the first pull,
transition phase, second pull, and turnover. However, the
displacements of the knee joint (BLs: 15.1 6 4.8, JLs: 5.6 6
4.3) and thigh angle (BLs: 13.5 6 2.5, JLs: 8.9 6 3.4) from
the end of the transition phase to VAmax for the BL were
significantly greater than those for JLs. There was also
a major difference in the displacement of the hip joint (BLs:
42.7 6 11.7, JLs: 28.7 6 8.7) from the end of the transition
phase to VAmax (p = 0.064). There were no significant
differences in the angular velocities, but the angular velocity
of hip flexion for BLs was greater than that for JLs (p = 0.087)
(BLs: 212.68 6 2.10 rads-1, JLs: 210.42 6 1.51 rads-1).
DISCUSSION
The trajectory of the barbell is decided by the force applied to
it by the lifter. Stone et al. (15) reported that the bar path
suggested as correct in many coaching articles published
in the U.S.A. is similar to those in European, Asian, and
Canadian lifters in some regions of the bar trajectory,
although being quite different in other regions. In the
Japanese coaching method for the snatch, the lifters are
directed to pull the barbell backward to hit the barbell to
the lifters pubic bone during the second pull (12). For
achieving efficient lifting, it is important to closely
investigate the barbell trajectory by analyzing the displacement, velocity, and acceleration of the barbell based while
considering the coaching method in the region. In particular,
the horizontal parameters seem to be of considerable
significance for the snatch (1,9,15). Baumann et al. (1)
reported that the horizontal displacement of the barbell for
the BLs was smaller than that for the poorest lifts in each
weight category. In this study, no significant difference was
observed between the Dx2 and DxL values of BLs and JLs.
However, the forward displacement of the barbell (Dx3) after
the second pull for JLs was significantly greater than that
for the BLs (Table 3) and the trajectories of the barbell for
JLs in the 63-, 69-, and 75-kg classes crossed the vertical
reference line projected upward from the initial position of
the barbell. In contrast, the trajectories of the barbell for the
BLs did not cross the vertical reference line, similar to worldclass male weightlifters (1,10). Allowing these points, we can
say that a greater Dx3, which results in a trajectory crossing
the vertical reference line, is one of the most significant
features of Japanese female weightlifters.
1293

The relative maximum height (Dy1/BH), relative catch
position (Dy2/BH), and height of the barbells most forward
position (Dy5/BH) for the BLs were significantly lower
than those for the JLs. According to Okada et al. (13), the
maximum heights of the barbell for Japanese female weightlifters and international female weightlifters in the 2006
Womens Junior World Weightlifting Championships were
0.63 and 0.64, respectively, that is, there was no significant
difference between these groups. In this study, the maximum
height of the barbell for the BLs was lower than these values,
whereas that for JLs was almost the same as these values.
These results indicated that the distinctive feature of the
barbell displacement for BLs was a small forward displacement after the second pull and low height of the barbell at
the maximum vertical position. This implies that the lifting
performance of JLs could be improved by adopting a catching
technique with a lower lifting position than the position
used currently.
Regarding the vertical velocity and the vertical acceleration, there was no major difference between BLs and JLs. The
values of the maximum vertical velocities were almost the
same as those for the junior female weightlifters (13) and
Greek female weightlifters (6). The vertical acceleration
curves of the barbell are required to evaluate the different
aspects of the lifting technique, such as the timing, amplitude
of the acceleration during the second pull, and the direction
of the applied force (6,10). Isaka et al. (10) reported that
3 peaks that corresponded to the first pull, transition phase,
and the second pull were clearly observed in the vertical
acceleration curves and that the appearance of the peak
during the transition phase could be used as a criterion for
judging the lifting skill. In this study, peaks were observed
during the transition phase for both the BLs and JLs.
However, a negative vertical acceleration of the barbell was
also observed during the transition phase for some BLs and
JLs. This result may indicate that there is a technical problem
associated with the transition phase for female weightlifters.
It appears that the horizontal velocity and acceleration of
the barbell are important criteria for assessing the lifting
technique. However, no studies have been conducted that
determine the relationship between lifting ability and the
horizontal velocity and acceleration of the barbell. With
regard to the relationship between horizontal velocity and
displacement, Ikeda et al. (9) reported that the values of phVf
for Japanese male weightlifters in the 2007 All Japan
Weightlifting Championships were negatively correlated
to the values of Dx3 (r = 20.942, p , 0.001) and Dx2
(r = 20.709, p , 0.001). In this study, the same results with
respect to the relationship between phVf and Dx2 and Dx3
were obtained, and the values of phVf, pAf, and Dx3 for the
BLs were smaller than those of the JLs. To lift the barbell
efficiently, applying a large forward force during the second
pull is a positive disadvantage. In consideration of Japanese
technical instruction during the second pull, it is likely that
the way of applying the force to the barbell during the second
1294
the
pull for the JLs affects the barbell kinematics. These results
suggested that Japanese weightlifters and coaches would be
better off reconsidering the technique of the second pull.
There was no significant difference between the BLs and
JLs in terms of the ARA of the barbell at second pulls,
whereas a major difference was observed in the phVf during
the second pull. This result in terms of the ARA can be
attributed to the fact that the value of the peak vertical
acceleration for the JLs during the second pull did not
correspond to the value of the peak forward acceleration
(Table 4) and that the JLs accelerated the barbell vertically in
proportion to the forward acceleration. According to Isaka
et al. (10), the average ARA for Asian weightlifters was 140,
with a range of 110160 in the second pull. The ARA values
obtained in this study were slightly smaller than the value of
Isaka et al. (10). Thus, female weightlifters in this study
accelerated the barbells more anteriorly compared with male
Asian weightlifters.
With regard to the patterns of leg and trunk movement,
almost the same pattern was observed for the BLs and the
JLs (Figures 8 and 9). The knee joint angle reached a first
maximum angle in the first pull and then decreased in the
transition phase and reached maximum extension in the
second pull for both lifters. Baumann et al. (1) suggested that
the position of the knee joint with regard to the direction of the
ground reaction force appears to be an important technical
factor in the transition phase. By comparing the lifting
techniques of male and female weightlifters, Gourgoulis et al.
(6) found that female lifters flexed their knees significantly less
and slower than male lifters during the transition phase. The
values of knee flexion displacement and angular velocity
obtained in this study were almost the same as those obtained
in a previous study (6). As for the function of the knee flexion
during the transition phase, some studies suggested that the
usage of the stored elastic energy permits the lifters to exert the
explosive force during the second pull (6,10), but another
function must be the lifting technique. That is, lifters do not
need to move the barbell toward the lifter by using the knee
flexion such that the knees are pushed toward the barbell
during the transition phase. Moreover, it is possible for lifters to
exert vertical force rather than horizontal force at the
beginning of the second pull phase. The technique of the
transition phase remains as a matter to be discussed further.
The results revealed that the timing of extending the knee
and hip joints was different for the 2 groups. The angle of the
hip joint of the BLs at the end of the transition phase was
greater than that of the JLs (p = 0.053), and the angular
displacements of the knee and hip joints of the BLs from the
end of the transition phase to VAmax were greater than those
of the JLs (Tables 5 and 6). Okada et al. (13) suggested that
the interval between the peak velocity of the hip joint and
peak vertical velocity of the barbell for international female
weightlifters was greater than that for Japanese female
weightlifters. Judging from the results of this study and that of
Okada et al. (13), the way of applying the force to the barbell
TM
the
TM

by hip and knee extensors during the second pull differs
between Japanese female weightlifters and international
weightlifters. This difference might be attributable to the
recognition of the second pull technique in JLs that the
barbell is pulled toward themselves and is intentionally hit to
the part of the hip to accelerate the barbell.
The results show that the maximum hip flexion velocity
during the turnover for the BLs was greater than that for the
JLs. Little attention has been paid to the difference in terms of
hip flexion velocity during the turnover in previous studies.
However, because the barbell can be caught at a low height by
maintaining a high velocity of hip flexion, the fast flexing
movement of the hip joint is an extremely important
technique for improving the performance of weightlifters.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
In this study, we examined the joint movements and the
barbell trajectory of Japanese and international weightlifters
during the snatch event of the 2008 Asian weightlifting
Championships. We found that the peak horizontal velocity
in the forward direction (phVf ) and the forward displacement
during the second pull for the Japanese weightlifters were
significantly greater than those of the best weightlifters and
that the best weightlifters accelerated the barbell in the
vertical direction earlier than the Japanese weightlifters did.
Judging from this study, Japanese weightlifters may need to
reconsider the way of applying the force to the barbell during
the second pull. In addition, it is possible that performance of
the female weightlifters could be greatly improved with the
greater and faster flexion of the knee during the transition
phase, as in the male lifting technique.
REFERENCES
| www.nsca-jscr.org
3. Garhammer, J. Biomechanical profiles of Olympic weightlifters. Int J

Sport Biomech 1: 122130, 1985.
4. Garhammer, J. Weightlifting and training. In: Biomechanics of Sport.
C.L. Vaughan, ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Publishers, 1989.
pp. 169211.
5. Garhammer, J. A comparison of maximal power outputs between
elite male and female weightlifters in competition. Int J Sport Biomech
7: 311, 1991.
6. Gourgoulis, V, Aggelousis, N, Antoniou, P, Christoforidis, C,
Mavroamtis, G, and Garas, A. Comparative 3-dimensional kinematic
analysis of the snatch technique in elite male and female Greek
weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res 16: 359366, 2002.
7. Gourgoulis, V, Aggelousis, N, Mavroamtis, G, and Garas, A. Threedimensional kinematic analysis of the snatch of elite Greek
weightlifters. J Sport Sci 18: 643652, 2000.
8. Hiskia, G. Biomechanical analysis of world and Olympic champion
weightlifters. In: Proceedings of the Weightlifting Symposium.
A. Lukacsfalvi and F. Takacs, eds. Budapest, Hungary: IWF, 1997.
pp. 137158.
9. Ikeda, Y, Matsuo, A, Tachi, M, Funato, K, Fuchimoto, T, and
Kikuta, M. Kinematic analysis of the barbell during the Snatch
movement of Japanese weightlifters. Jpn J Elite Sports Support 5:
117, 2010.
10. Isaka, T, Okada, J, and Funato, K. Kinematic analysis of the barbell
during the snatch movement of elite Asian weight lifters. J Appl
Biomech 12: 508516, 1996.
11. Isaka, T, Wada, T, Yamamoto, N, and Stoh, Y. Laterality of maximal
muscle strength of knee and hip joints in weightlifter. J Train Sci Exer
Sport 21: 193201, 2009. In Japanese.
12. Japan Weight Lifting Association. Coaching Weightlifting Technical
Skill and Physical Fitness. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Weight Lifting
Association, 2010. In Japanese.
13. Okada, J, Iijima, K, Fukunaga, T, Kikuchi, T, and Kato, K. Kinematic
analysis of the snatch technique used by Japanese and international
female weightlifters at the 2006 junior world championship. Int J
Sport Health Sci 6: 194202, 2008.
14. Schilling, BK, Stone, MH, OBryant, HS, Fry, AC, Coglianese, RH,
and Pierce, KC. Snatch technique of collegiate national level
weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res 16: 551555, 2002.
1. Baumann, W, Gross, V, Quade, K, and Galbierz, PA. The snatch

technique of world class weightlifters at the 1985 world championships. Int J Sport Biomech 4: 6889, 1988.
15. Stone, MH, OBryant, HS, Williams, FE, Johnson, RL, and
Pierce, KC. Analysis of bar paths during the snatch in elite male
weightlifters. Strength Cond J 20: 3038, 1998.
2. Campos, J, Poletaev, P, Cuesta, A, Pablos, C, and Carratala, V.

Kinematical analysis of the snatch in elite male junior weightlifters of
different weight categories. J Strength Cond Res 20: 843850, 2006.
16. Stone, MH, Sands, WA, Pierce, KC, Carlock, J, Cardinale, M, and
Newton, RU. Relationship of maximum strength to weightlifting
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 10371043, 2005.
1295

Ikeda 2012 Snatch

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ikeda 2012 Snatch

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMPARISON OF THE SNATCH TECHNIQUE FOR

FEMALE WEIGHTLIFTERS AT THE 2008 ASIAN

KEY WORDS biomechanics, three-dimensional kinematic analysis, kinematics

he primary factors that affect the performance of

Address correspondence to Yusuke Ikeda, ikeda.yusuke.trsc@gmail.com.

Motion Analysis of Snatch

TABLE 1. Characteristics of weightlifters.*

Body mass (kg)

Barbell mass (kg) and the

*CHN = China; JPN = Japan; THA = Thailand.

show rational motion and barbell trajectory during the first

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Asian Weightlifting Championships held in the city of

To examine whether there are any differences in the snatch

The snatch techniques of 10 female weightlifters were

TABLE 2. Experimental variables.

VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2012 |

Motion Analysis of Snatch

fourth-order low-pass filter. The cutoff frequencies for the

parallel to the x-axis was calculated using 4 control points

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

from the maximum height position of the barbell to the

Horizontal force horizontal acceleration

Values for each parameter were recorded as mean 6 SD for

TABLE 3. Barbell kinematics.*

*BL = best lifter; JL = Japanese lifter.

VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2012 |

Motion Analysis of Snatch

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

TABLE 4. The kinematics and kinetic characteristics of the barbell.

26.31 6 2.35 29.64 6

BL:Best Lifter, JL: Japanese Lifter, *Significance at P , 0.05

VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2012 |

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Motion Analysis of Snatch

Figure 7. Angle of resultant acceleration at the first and second pulls.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2012 |

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Motion Analysis of Snatch

*BL = best lifter; JL = Japanese lifter.

TABLE 6. Kinematic analysis of joint angle.*

21.84 21.23 22.79

*BL = best lifter; JL = Japanese lifter.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2012 |

Joint angular displacement ()

Motion Analysis of Snatch

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

JLs: 110.2 6 3.0) were significantly greater than those of the

Motion Analysis of Snatch

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

3. Garhammer, J. Biomechanical profiles of Olympic weightlifters. Int J

1. Baumann, W, Gross, V, Quade, K, and Galbierz, PA. The snatch

2. Campos, J, Poletaev, P, Cuesta, A, Pablos, C, and Carratala, V.

VOLUME 26 | NUMBER 5 | MAY 2012 |

You might also like