本研究目的：在探討2011年世界盃跆拳道品勢選拔賽成績之差異。研究對象：為2011年世界盃跆拳道品勢選拔賽以全國女子個人14-18歲決賽前8名運動員為例，平均身高163.15±6.29公分，平均體重50.75±4.37公斤。研究方法：以SPSS for windows 12.0版進行量化分析，利用比賽事後分析、描述性統計研究對象的各變項分佈；以單因子變異數分析及相依樣本t檢定來考驗8名運動員的成績差異再以Scheffe法及LSD法進行事後比較。研究結果：一、前8名運動員決賽第二指定品勢積分總成績差異經由單因子變異數分析品勢1的技術（F = 9.184，p < .05）、表現（F = 6.016，p < .05）及品勢2的技術（F = 5.714，p < .05）達顯著差異；而品勢2表現部份未達顯著（F = .403，p > .05），再以Scheffe法進行事後比較。二、決賽第二指定品勢成績之差異（一）決賽第二指定品勢成績之差異達顯著（t = 2.383，p < .05），事後比較，品勢1成績高於品勢2。（二）決賽第二指定品勢之技術及表現成績之差異1、決賽第二指定品勢技術部份差異達顯著（t = 3.725，p < .05），事後比較，技術部份品勢1成績高於品勢2。2、決賽第二指定品勢1及2在表現部份顯示未達顯著（t = .619，p > .05）。研究結論：一、各運動員積分總成績（一）品勢1-高麗技術與表現達顯著。（二）品勢2-金剛技術達顯著，表現未達顯著。二、各運動員前後兩次演繹品勢達顯著差異，且品勢1-高麗高於品勢2-金剛。三、整體總成績隨著編號遞增而遞增，整體而言品勢1分數高於品勢2。四、總成績同分時，依表現部份分數高者獲勝。因此表現的成績高低與否為影響比賽勝負的直接關鍵。五、運動員於決賽過程表現差異，第二指定品勢1-高麗運動員演繹差異較大。第二指定品勢2-金剛運動員演繹時差異處不盡相同，有6名運動在金剛防禦；有5名運動員在山型擋；有一半運動員在大鉸鏈處被扣分，由此可驗證金剛品勢著重平衡與穩定。

　　The purpose of this study: To investigate the difference of the 2011 World Taekwondo Poomsae trials results. Subjects: qualifying for the 2011 World Taekwondo Poomsae Championship for instance top 8 of female final (age 14-18), the average height of 163.15 ± 6.29 cm, with an average weight of 50.75 ± 4.37 kg. Methods: quantitative analysis with the SPSS for the windows 12.0, using a post hoc analysis of the game, description of the variable distribution of the statistical study; one-way ANOVA analysis and paired samples t test to the test of the difference of 8 athletes to Scheffe method and LSD post hoc comparisons. The results: First, the top 8 athletes final second specified products potential points total score difference through one-way ANOVA analysis of the product potential of the technology (F = 9.184, p <.05), performance (F = 6.016, p <.05) and poomsae 2 (F = 5.714, p <.05) significant differences; poomsae performance and the majority of less than significant (F = .403, p > .05), and then compare afterwards with post hoc Scheffe method. Second, the scores of the final second specified product potential difference, A: final second specified product potential performance differences significant (t = 2.383, p <.05), post hoc comparison, product potential scored higher than product potential. B: the difference of the second specified in the final product potential and performance (1) scores, the second specified in the final product potential part of the difference significant (t = 3.725, p <.05), post hoc comparison, the technical part of the product potential scored higher than poomsae 2. (2) 1 and 2, not significant (t = .619, p > .05) in the performance part of the show, the final second specified product potential. Conclusion: First, athletes points total score (1) product potential – koryo poomsae technology and performance significantly. (2) the product potential – kumgang poomsae technology significantly, the performance is not significant. Second, each athlete before and after the two interpretation of the poomsae significant difference, and product potential – koryo poomsae is higher than the product potential 2 – kumgang poomsae. Third, the overall total score with the number incrementing increase, a fraction of the whole product potential than poomsae. Fourth, total score with time-sharing, according to the performance part of the high score wins. Performance results is high or low for the game-winning direct key. Final, athletes in the final process performance differences, the second specified product potential – Koryo poomsae athletes quite different interpretation. Second specified product potential - the difference when the interpretation of Kumgang poomsae athletes at different, there are six athletes in the Kumgangmakki; block of five athletes in the Santeulmakki; half of the athletes be penalized in the Kheun doltgeogwi, which verifies the kumgang poomsae emphasis on balance and stability.