Relationship of Fitness Combine Results and National Hockey League Performance: A 25-Year Analysis.

PURPOSE: Along with past performance, professional teams consider physical fitness and physiological potential in determining the value of prospective draft picks. The National Hockey League (NHL) Combine fitness results have been examined for their ability to predict draft order, but not bona fide hockey performance. Therefore, we sought to identify the relationships of combine fitness test results to short- and long-term NHL performance. METHODS: During NHL Combine fitness testing (1994-2007), a standardized battery of tests was conducted. Player performance (1995-2020) was quantified using career cumulative points, time on ice, transitional period to playing in the NHL, and NHL career length. Forward and defensive positions were considered separately. Goalies were not considered. Stepwise linear regression analysis was used to identify fitness variables that predict NHL success. RESULTS: Overall models ranged in their predictive ability from 2% to 16%. The transitional period was predicted by peak leg power and aerobic capacity (V˙O2max; forwards, R2 = .03, and defense, R2 = .06, both P < .01). Points and time on ice within seasons 1 to 3 were predicted by peak leg power and V˙O2max for forwards and defense (R2 = .02-.09, P < .01). Among players accumulating 10 NHL seasons, cumulative points were inversely related to upper-body push-strength-related variables in forwards (R2 = .11) and defense (R2 = .16; both P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The NHL Combine fitness testing offers meaningful data that can inform the likelihood of future success. Peak leg power and V˙O2max predict league entry and early career success. Counterintuitively, upper-body strength is inversely related to long-term performance, which may offer insight into recruitment strategies, player development, or differential team roles.

Is Motor Coordination the Key to Success in Youth Cycling?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the predictive value of a (non-)sport-specific test battery on the future success of young cyclists, test scores were compared with competition performances 2-3 years later. METHODS: Three motor coordination, 5 physical performance, and 2 cycling-specific measurements were collected in 111 U15 (13.0-14.9 y) and 67 U17 (15.0-16.9 y) male road cyclists. In addition, maturity status, relative age, and competition history were assessed. National and provincial competition results 2-3 years later, in the U17year2 and U19year2 categories, were submitted to 2 separate 4-stage hierarchical regressions. RESULTS: The results of the model of the U15 group revealed that maturity, relative age, competition history, motor coordination, physical performance, and cycling-specific performance accounted for 22.6% of the variance in competitive success. For the U15 category, only maturity and motor coordination were significant predictors of competitive success in the U17year2 category. Maturity and motor coordination each uniquely explained ±5% of the variance. However, for the U17 group-neither motor coordination, physical performance, nor cycling-specific performance could predict competitive success in the U19year2 category. CONCLUSIONS: The current study underlines the importance of general motor coordination as a building block necessary for optimal development in youth cycling. However, considering the lack of predictive value from the U17 category onward, other features may determine further development of youth athletes. Nevertheless, it is questioned why athletes need to possess a minimum level of all physical, motor coordination, and cycling-specific characteristics to experience success and enjoyment in their sport.