If that "power" means a _feeling_ of "powerfulness", then Yes, "put the foot
down close" (if you like that feeling).

Gene Goldenfeld wrote
. . . to put the strong side skate foot down directly
underneath, as close as possible, vs reaching out.
Allows for maximum power.

No -- not if "power" means the technical concept in physics -- the kind of
Power which is a critical driver of how _fast_ I will go on skis.

I'm thinking No because "planting the foot close" misses the best "gearing"
leverage for hill-climbing. So while it increases one factor for Power
(distance range of push), at the same time it non-optimally _decreases_ one
of the other two critical factors (turnover frequency).

My analysis of the biomechanical geometry is that the more-bent-knee
sub-range of the skate leg-push is the "high-gear" part, especially for
vertical work -- and the more-extended-knee sub-range is the "low-gear"
part.

In other words, the more-extended-knee sub-range is where I want to focus
when I need to deliver higher forces (especially vertical) at lower speeds.

It's fine to _prove_ that I can survive getting up a hill forcing myself to
use the "high-gear" range and get this satisfying _feeling_ that my leg
muscles are strong enough to "handle it". But it's not necessarily the way
to win the overall race, as experienced bicyclists know.

Just like there's a Power-Torque-RPM curve for my car's engine, against
which my gear shift-points are selected to optimize -- there's a
Power-Force-MuscleSpeed curve for each muscle-joint motion in my skiing.

What's trickier in skiing is that there's a different
Power-Force-MuscleSpeed curve for each _sub-range_ of a pushing motion
(because the human bone-joint geometry is made of lines with angles, not
circles).

When I add in a sub-range whose Power-Force-MuscleSpeed curve is less
suitable for the demands of my current situation, I end up _reducing_ my
average power over the stroke cycle. So I actually climb the hill slower --
or even stall out and stop before the top.

Ken