RELATIONSHIP OF PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST RESULTS
AND HOCKEY PLAYING POTENTIAL IN ELITE-LEVEL
ICE HOCKEY PLAYERS
JAIME F. BURR, RONI K. JAMNIK, JOSEPH BAKER, ALISON MACPHERSON, NORMAN GLEDHILL,
AND E. J. MCGUIRE
Human Performance Laboratory, York University, Toronto, Canada
ABSTRACT
Burr, JF, Jamnik, RK, Baker, J, Macpherson, A, Gledhill, N, and
McGuire, EJ. Relationship of physical fitness test results and
hockey playing potential in elite-level ice hockey players.
JStrengthCondRes22(5): 1535–1543, 2008—The primary pur-
pose of this study was to determine the fitness variables with
the highest capability for predicting hockey playing potential at
the elite level as determined by entry draft selection order. We
also examined the differences associated with the predictive
abilities of the test components among playing positions. The
secondary purpose of this study was to update the physiolog-
ical profile of contemporary hockey players including positional
differences. Fitness test results conducted by our laboratory
at the National Hockey League Entry Draft combine were
compared with draft selection order on a total of 853 players.
Regression models revealed peak anaerobic power output to
be important for higher draft round selection in all positions;
however, the degree of importance of this measurement varied
with playing position. The body index, which is a composite
score of height, lean mass, and muscular development, was
similarly important in all models, with differing influence by
position. Removal of the goalies’ data increased predictive
capacity, suggesting that talent identification using physical
fitness testing of this sort may be more appropriate for skating
players. Standing long jump was identified as a significant
predictor variable for forwards and defense and could be
a useful surrogate for assessing overall hockey potential.
Significant differences exist between the physiological profiles
of current players based on playing position. There are also
positional differences in the relative importance of anthropo-
metric and fitness measures of off-ice hockey tests in relation to
draft order. Physical fitness measures and anthropometric data
are valuable in helping predict hockey playing potential.
Emphasis on anthropometry should be used when comparing
elite-level forwards, whereas peak anaerobic power and fatigue
rate are more useful for differentiating between defense.
KEY WORDS fitness, ice hockey, positional differences,
strength, power
INTRODUCTION
I
ce hockey is a physically demanding contact sport
involving repeated bouts of high-energy output, with
shifts lasting from 30 to 80 seconds (11,15,17). Given
the anaerobic nature of the sprint-based shifts (69%
anaerobic glycolysis) and the aerobic recovery (31% aerobic
metabolism) between shifts and periods, as well as the
physicality of the game, success at the elite level requires
players to develop well-rounded fitness including anaerobic
sprint ability, a strong aerobic endurance base, and high levels
of muscular strength, power, and endurance (7,10,15,19).
Despite the overwhelming number of participants in amateur
hockey, only the fastest, strongest, and most skilled players
will ever achieve the goal of being drafted to play in the
National Hockey League (NHL). Although there are infinite
combinations of ‘‘real-world’’ factors that interact to make
one player more skilled than another, there are specific,
quantifiable characteristics that can be used to determine
a player’s physiological capacity.
At the elite hockey level, there have been long-standing
debates among scouts, coaches, strength/conditioning spe-
cialists and physiologists as to the relative utility of off-ice tests
for talent identification. On the basis of personal experience
and point of view, the diverse professions often place different
emphasis on test components, with the belief that one test
result may be better suited to revealing hockey potential than
another. Some believe that certain test results, either by
themselves or in combination with others, are sufficient to
distinguish overall hockey potential between players. As
a result, fitness tests sometimes include duplicate measures of
the same physiological components using different protocols
to satisfy all points of view. An example of one such test is the
vertical jump, which is used to calculate leg power and has
repeatedly been shown to be related to skating abilities
Address correspondence to Dr. Norman Gledhill, ngledhil@yorku.ca.
22(5)/1535–1543
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

2008 National Strength and Conditioning Association
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 5 | SEPTEMBER 2008 | 1535

(3,5,8,16). Many variations of the vertical jump test have been
developed with differences such as simple jump and reach
devices vs. electronic measuring devices, the allowance or
forbiddance of arm swing, and complete cessation of move-
ment before jumping vs. bouncing countermovements. Until
recently (6), the answer to the question of ‘‘which jump
protocol gives the most useful results for determining a
player’s potential?’’ would depend highly on who was asked.
Currently, much of the hockey-related fitness research
focus is on off-ice testing and the relationship of these off-ice
tests to on-ice measures of skating performance (2–5,8,
13,16,18). Although skating speed and acceleration are
undoubtedly essential components of a successful hockey
player, skating proficiency is not the only essential fitness-
dependent variable determining ability. Given the quick pace,
intensity, and physicality of the game of ice hockey, other
physical factors such as size, strength, coordination, and
muscular endurance play important roles in determining
success. In a prior study, we examined the predictive capacity
of various vertical jump protocols to determine which
protocol was the most appropriate for use with elite hockey
players and which showed the highest correlation with draft
round selection order in an attempt to settle the debate
surrounding this particular test (6). After our study of the
vertical jump, the next step is to examine other commonly
used testing protocols to determine whether any test, or
combination of tests, more accurately predicts hockey success.
Previous research by Green et al. (12) has examined the
relationship of various fitness results to hockey playing
success as measured by total ice time and scoring chances
(6) of a player’s line while on the ice using NCAA hockey
players. Despite the novel use of these outcome variables,
which reflect an in-season quantifiable measure of success,
this study was limited by the laborious nature of the data
collection and the resulting fact that it only covered a single
hockey season. As such, the study population is greatly
limited, and so is the ability to generalize these results to other,
similar populations. By using draft round selection order as an
outcome variable, as opposed to individual success indicators
or a discrete skill such as skating speed, Vescovi et al. (20)
examined 3 years of National Hockey League Entry Draft
(NHLED) combine fitness data to determine whether the
physiological profiles of players could differentiate which
round of the draft a player was selected in. These authors
found that the combine variables were unable to predict draft
order selection in elite athletes. However, because all 3 years
of data were analyzed separately, there is a possibility that the
sample sizes were not large enough to detect a significant
difference even if one existed. Further, all playing positions
were examined together, thus suggesting that all players,
including skating players (forward and defense) and non-
skating goalies, are expected to have similar physiological
attributes, and that they are treated as such when drafted.
Given the differences in positional requirements, assuming
that all players are similar may introduce error into the
predictive ability of the fitness test results. It is our belief that
further analysis of the test variables using numerous years of
draft-eligible players and stratifying by player position may be
able to more accurately determine the fitness-related factor,
or factors, most highly predictive of hockey potential. As
indicated by Geithner et al. (9), studies on positional dif-
ferences in physical characteristics or performance among
men’s ice hockey players are limited. Further, the normative
data that exist (1,14) were developed using relatively small
numbers of players and are 20 or more years old.
Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to determine
which fitness variable, or group of fitness variables, is most
useful for predicting hockey playing potential at the elite level
as determined by draft round selection. Within this objective,
we hope to highlight the differences associated with the
predictive abilities of the test components between playing
positions. Finally, we aim to provide an updated physiological
profile of contemporary hockey players, both collectively and
by playing position.
METHODS
Approach to the Problem
Every June, the top 110–120 players worldwide are invited to
the NHLED testing combine, where they participate in
a battery of hockey-related tests designed to assess player
fitness. These tests, which were all considered as possible
predictor variables, include the Wingate 30-second anaerobic
power test (peak watts and fatigue index), aerobic power
( _VO2max), physical development, height, weight, percent
body fat, grip strength, bench press, sit-ups, push-ups,
standing long jump, vertical jump leg power, upper-body
power, flexibility, and isometric push and pull force. These
specific measures were chosen for test inclusion on the basis
of the expert opinion of a group of exercise physiologists,
with feedback from NHL scouts and strength and condi-
tioning coaches. Members of the human performance
laboratory at York University carried out all tests and
measures, thus making this a novel study because of the
degree of control the researchers had in data collection and
reporting. Throughout the combine, care is taken to ensure
that protocol reliability is held to laboratory standards. Using
test results from 1998 through 2006 allowed us to include the
highest-possible combination of subjects and testing varia-
bles, with the exclusion of only the upper-body power
variable, which was not introduced until 2002.
Draft selection order was designated as the outcome
variable because it includes the combination of physical
fitness variables as well as on-ice performance as assessed by
central scouting and individual team scouts. It is commonly
acknowledged that during the draft a teamwill always choose
the best player still available for selection, thus essentially
ranking the players on overall potential playing ability within
each year’s draft. Because the study period encompassed
a total of 8 years, players were grouped by selection round as
opposed to rank, to collapse all of the years together and to
1536 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchthe
TM
Physical Fitness Test Results and Hockey Playing Potential