본 연구는 Snowboard cross 종목의 24주간 훈련 프로그램의 효과를 규명하고자 기술과 체력 측정을 통해 훈련 프로그램별로 나타나는 특성을 파악하고, 향후 동계올림픽과 snowboard cross에 광범위하게 적용할 훈련 프로그램을 개발하는 데 목적이 있다. 이를 위해 연구문제를 설정하였다. 첫째, 측정 시기(12주, 24주)에 따라 snowboard cross 기술에 차이가 있을 것인가?둘째, 측정 시기(12주, 24주)에 따라 행동체력의 차이가 있을 것인가?셋째, snowboard cross 훈련 프로그램 유형에 따라 snowboard cross 기술에 차이가 있을 것인가?넷째, snowboard cross 훈련 프로그램 유형에 따라 행동체력에 차이가 있을 것인가?이를 위해 중국 16-18세 snowboard cross 남자 국가 후보선수 20명을 대상으로 24주간 실험을 실시하였다. A집단은 최근 수년간 캐나다와 유럽 국가의 Snowboard Cross 훈련방법을 접목해 개발한 새로운 형태의 Snowboard Cross 훈련방법을 실시하였고 B집단은 중국의 전통적인 훈련방법을 실시하였다. 통계분석은 SPSS 통계 프로그램 25.0을 활용하여 실증분석을 수행하였다. 구체적인 연구방법은 t-test, 일원변량분석, 사후검증을 Tukey 방법을 실시하였다. 실증분석을 수행한 결과는 다음과 같다.첫째, Snowboard Cross 출발 단계에서 A집단은 실험 전에 비해 12주 후 실험 및 24주 후 실험에서 유의하게 나타났고 24주 후 실험은 12주 후 실험보다 유의하게 나타났다. B집단은 실험 전에 비해 실험 24주 후에 유의하게 나타났다. Snowboard Cross 가속 단계에서 A집단은 실험 전에 비해 12주 후 실험 및 24주 후 실험에서 유의하게 나타났고 24주 후 실험은 12주 후 실험보다 유의하게 나타났다. B집단은 실험 전, 실험 12주 후, 실험 24주 후 3시간 가속 단계 기술이 유의한 차이가 나타나지 않았다. Snowboard Cross 조절 단계에서 A집단은 실험 전에 비해 12주 후 실험 및 24주 후 실험에서 유의한 차이가 나타났다. B집단은 실험 24주에 비해 실험 12주 후에 유의한 차이가 나타났다. Snowboard Cross 안정 단계에서 A집단은 실험 전에 비해 12주 후 실험 및 24주 후 실험에서 유의한 차이가 나타났다. B집단은 실험 전에 비해 12주 후 실험 및 24주 후 실험에서 유의한 차이가 나타났다. Snowboard Cross 스퍼트 단계에서 A집단은 실험 전에 비해 실험 24주 후에 유의한 차이가 나타났다.둘째, 하지 순발력에서 A집단은 실험 전에 비해 실험 24주 후에 유의하게 높게 나타났다. 근지구력에서 A집단은 실험 전에 비해 12주 후 실험 및 24주 후 실험에서 유의하게 높게 나타났고 24주 후 실험은 12주 후 실험보다 유의하게 높게 나타났다. 민첩성에서 A집단은 실험 전에 비해 12주 후 실험 및 24주 후 실험에서 유의하게 높게 나타났고 24주 후 실험은 12주 후 실험보다 유의하게 높게 나타났다. B집단은 실험 전에 비해 실험 24주 후에 유의하게 높게 나타났다. 평형성에서 A집단은 실험 전에 비해 12주 후 실험 및 24주 후 실험에서 유의하게 높게 나타나고 24주 후 실험은 12주 후 실험보다 유의하게 높게 나타났다. B집단은 실험 전에 비해 실험 24주 후에 유의하게 높게 나타났다. 전신반응성에서 A집단은 실험 전에 비해 12주 후 실험 및 24주 후 실험에서 유의하게 높게 나타났고 24주 후 실험은 12주 후 실험보다 유의하게 높게 나타났다.셋째, 12주 후 출발단계 기술, 가속 단계 기술, 조절 단계 기술에서 A집단, B집단 순으로 평균차이가 나타났다. 24주 후 출발 단계 기술 가속 단계 기술, 조절 단계 기술에서 A집단, B집단 순으로 평균차이가 나타났다. 넷째, 12주 후 행동체력은 근지구력, 민첩성, 평형성과 전신반응성에서 유의한 차이가 나타났으며 A집단은 B집단보다 우수하였다. 24주 후 행동체력은 순발력, 근지구력, 민첩성, 평형성과 전신반응성에서 유의한 차이가 나타났으며 A집단은 B집단보다 우수하였다.연구 결과에 따라 기술은 출발 단계, 가속 단계, 조절 단계에서 A집단은 B집단보다 우수했다. 행동체력은 근지구력, 민첩성, 형평성, 전신반응성에서 A집단은 B집단보다 우수했다. 기술은 안정 단계와 스퍼트 단계에서 두 집단 간 차이가 보이지 않았고 행동체력은 하지 순발력, 유연성에서 두 집단 간 차이가 보이지 않았다. 따라서 새로운 프로그램이 전통적 프로그램보다 기술과 행동체력에서 더욱 효과가 있었다.
This research aims to provide Snowboard Cross training programs and instructors of winter sports with scientific and effective analyses and evaluations.The athletes concerned are at age of 16 to 18 years old. Their training quantity is clarified herein in the hope that the data disclosed herein can contribute to better performances in the future. Through recording data of athletes who have different levels of skills and physical fitness, the author has figured out how athletes would perform in different training programs, hoping to develop training programs which can be actively applied to the future Winter Olympics and Snowboard Cross competitions.This research focuses on the following four regards: Firstly, the research records skill-developing difference between athletes with 12 weeks of training and those with 24.Secondly, the research records physical fitness difference between athletes with 12 weeks training and those with 24. Thirdly, will there be differences in snowboard cross technology depending on the type of snowboard cross training program?. Fourthly, the research records physical fitness difference between with Type A snowboard cross training program and those with Type B.Therefore, twenty Chinese male players reserved for snowboard cross competitions, 16 to 18 years old, are selected for the research. They are divided into two groups. Before the research, both groups receive same homogeneity analysis. One group is exposed to a new training program and the other a classic training program. Both programs have a training period of 24 weeks. SPSS Statistical Program 25.0, a statistical and analytical software, is employed to process the data collected. From the perspective of Sports Science, T-test, One-way ANOVA and Turkey test positive analyses are conducted based on the differences observed and the following conclusions are drawn:Firstly, in the Snowboard Cross departure phase, it appears significantly faster 12 weeks after the experiment and 24 weeks after the experiment compared to before the group A experiment, and significantly faster 24 weeks after the experiment. It appeared significantly faster 24 weeks after the experiment than before the group B experiment. In the Snowboard Cross acceleration phase, it appears significantly faster 12 weeks after the experiment and 24 weeks after the experiment compared to before the group A experiment, and 24 weeks after the experiment. There was no significant difference in acceleration phase techniques for 3 hours prior to the B group experiment, 12 weeks after the experiment, and 24 weeks after the experiment. During the Snowboard Cross regulation phase, it was significantly faster 12 weeks after the experiment and 24 weeks after the experiment compared to before the group A experiment. It appeared significantly faster 12 weeks after the experiment compared to 24 weeks of group B experiments. In the Snowboard Cross stabilization phase, it was significantly faster 12 weeks after the experiment and 24 weeks after the experiment compared to before the A group experiment. Significantly faster after 12 weeks of experiment and 24 weeks of experiment compared to prior to group B experiments. In the Snowboard Cross spurt phase, it was significantly faster after 24 weeks of experimentation compared to the A group trial. Secondly, the lower extremity net power was significantly higher 24 weeks after the experiment than before the group A experiment. In muscle endurance, significantly higher after 12 weeks of experiment and 24 weeks after experiment than before group A experiment, and significantly higher after 24 weeks of experiment. In agility, significantly higher after 12 weeks of experiment and 24 weeks after experiment than before group A experiment, and significantly higher after 24 weeks of experiment. It was significantly higher 24 weeks after the experiment than before the group B experiment. In equilibrium, significantly higher after 12 weeks of experiment and 24 weeks after experiment compared to before group A experiment, and significantly higher after 24 weeks of experiment. It was significantly higher 24 weeks after the experiment than before the group B experiment. In systemic reactivity, it was significantly higher after 12 weeks of experiment and 24 weeks after experiment compared to before group A experiment, and significantly higher after 24 weeks of experiment than after experiment, it was significantly higher than after 12 weeks of experiment.Thirdly, after 12 weeks , the average difference was found in Group A and Group B in the starting phase technology, acceleration phase technology, and regulation phase technology. After 24 weeks, the average difference was found in the order of starting phase technology acceleration phase technology, regulation phase technology, group A, and group B. Fourthly, after 12 weeks, behavioral strength showed significant differences in muscular endurance, agility, balance and systemic responsiveness, and group A outperformed group B. After 24 weeks, behavioral strength was significantly different in agility, muscular endurance, agility, balance and systemic responsiveness, and group A outperformed group B.According to the results of the study, Group A was superior to Group B in the starting phase, acceleration phase, and regulation phase in the technology. Muscular endurance, agility, balance, and systemic responsiveness in behavioral fitness were superior to group B. In the technology, there was no difference between the two groups, so there was no difference between the two groups of power and flexibility in action. So the new program worked better in terms of behavior and skills than traditional programs.