Breaking Down Power: Should Hockey Players Use the Full Olympic Lift or Just the Second Pull?

Olympic lifts have long been a staple in athlete development programs, especially in power- and speed-dominant sports. But when it comes to ice hockey—where explosiveness, edge control, and short burst acceleration rule the game—do we really need the full Olympic lift?

Enter the hang power clean (HPC). A favorite among sprint and strength coaches, the HPC isolates the second pull phase of the clean, often considered the “money” part of the lift due to its high velocity, triple extension, and transfer potential to sport-specific tasks like sprinting—and skating.

For hockey players, the question isn’t just whether Olympic lifting is beneficial. It’s which part of the lift actually delivers the biggest return for on-ice performance. This article explores that question through the lens of biomechanics, training transfer, and the principles of dynamic correspondence.

Section 1: Why the Hang Power Clean Gets So Much Attention

The hang power clean (HPC) is a modified version of the Olympic clean that begins from the “hang” position—roughly mid-thigh, after the bar is lifted off the floor. This position emphasizes the second pull, the explosive upward extension of the hips, knees, and ankles (triple extension) that drives the bar upward before the catch.

What makes the HPC so attractive to coaches across sports is its simplicity and power focus. It removes the complex demands of the full clean’s first pull and lets athletes zero in on the phase most associated with high force and high velocity output. That’s why sprint coaches in track and field have adopted it for decades—to improve acceleration, not just max velocity.

In fact, research shows that the second pull phase has a time frame (0.12–0.16s) remarkably similar to ground contact times during the initial steps of a sprint. This timing match makes the HPC a powerful tool for training rate of force development—a quality highly relevant to both sprinting and skating acceleration.

To evaluate its value for sport-specific transfer, we turn to Verkhoshansky and Siff’s framework of dynamic correspondence. This set of six principles helps coaches determine whether an exercise like the HPC shares meaningful mechanical, energetic, and neuromuscular traits with the sport skill it aims to support.

Section 2: Sprinting Acceleration and HPC—A Biomechanical Match?

At first glance, sprinting and Olympic lifting might not seem all that similar. But dig into the acceleration phase of sprinting—or the first few explosive strides in a hockey sprint—and you’ll find something familiar: triple extension, high angular velocity at the hip and knee, and a demand for maximum force in minimal time. That’s where the HPC lines up almost perfectly.

1. Amplitude and Direction of Movement:

In both sprint acceleration and HPC, athletes generate force through hip, knee, and ankle extension at similar joint angles and directions—even if one is vertical and one slightly more horizontal.

2. Region of Force Production:

Max force during early stance in sprinting occurs at joint angles similar to the peak power point in the HPC, especially at the hip and knee. The match is even stronger in junior athletes, who often rely more on hip extension to compensate for underdeveloped knee extensor strength.

3. Time Constraints and Effort:

The second pull phase of the HPC is performed within a fraction of a second—mirroring the rapid force expression window in sprint acceleration. HPC variations also allow for velocity-based training with loads between 40–80% 1RM, ideal for both force and speed development.

4. Muscle Activation and Energy Systems:

Both sprint acceleration and HPC tap into the ATP-PCr energy system, with major contributions from the posterior chain. Interestingly, minimal ankle involvement in both movements further supports their similarity.

5. Motor Learning Complexity:

Both require coordination and synchronicity across joints. That complexity can build performance—if coached and progressed appropriately.

Section 3: Whole Lift vs. Partial Lift—What’s Better for Hockey?

Olympic lifts like the clean and snatch are powerful tools—but they require time, technical skill, and careful coaching. For most hockey athletes, especially in team environments, the juice may not be worth the squeeze.

The second pull, emphasized in the HPC, is where we see the highest transfer to on-ice needs: explosive hip and knee extension, fast bar speeds, and force application under time constraints. Studies have shown the HPC alone can produce performance benefits equal to or greater than the full lift, especially for sprint and power-dominant sports.

Derivatives like the jump shrug (JS) offer similar benefits with even less technical demand—making them ideal for in-season use or athletes who struggle with mobility or lifting confidence.

That said, the full lift can still have value for certain players, especially if their technical skills are high and they benefit from total-body integration and core/trunk control during bracing. But for most hockey players, derivatives are the smarter, safer, and more efficient option.

Section 4: Practical Recommendations for Coaches

1. Keep it simple, effective, and teachable.

Use HPCs and other derivatives to emphasize power—not complexity.

2. Adapt to the athlete.

For youth or developing athletes, prioritize coaching triple extension, bar path, and force output. For elite players, progress loading and intent.

3. Periodize with purpose.

Offseason = more volume and load. In-season = low-complexity, high-output sessions with limited fatigue.

4. Cue externally.

Replace “extend your hips” with cues like:

• “Snap the bar”

• “Launch like you’re jumping out of your skates”

5. Balance bilateral with unilateral.

Pair HPC with movements that reinforce unilateral skating demands (e.g., RFESS, crossover strides, lateral bounds).

The Big Finish

When it comes to building explosive, hockey-specific power, it’s not about doing more—it’s about doing what transfers. The hang power clean, especially when focused on the second pull phase, offers coaches and athletes a high-impact, efficient way to develop the force, speed, and movement qualities that matter most during the acceleration phase of skating.

While the full Olympic lifts have their place, derivatives like the HPC deliver the same performance benefits with fewer barriers and more flexibility. In a sport where time and energy are precious, choosing tools that align with biomechanics and intent is everything.

You don’t need the whole lift to get the whole benefit.

Sometimes, the second pull is more than enough to drive the game forward.