For high school coaches Dan Fichter and Chris Korfist, the fundamental question when designing training programs is rarely how many impressive jumps an athlete can execute. Instead, they look at whether an athlete can successfully turn a landing into a controlled, explosive takeoff. In a comprehensive discussion on plyometric training, the two coaches explain why sprinting, deliberate landing practice, rigorous foot and ankle work, and joint-angle-specific strength frequently command more of their programming time than traditional high boxes and complex hurdle-hop circuits.
The conversation challenges conventional high school training models. Rather than relying on generic jump menus, Fichter and Korfist advocate for a functional approach rooted in biomechanical efficiency, kinetic transfer, and injury reduction. Their perspective does not suggest that advanced plyometric exercises have no place in athletics; rather, it serves as a critical reminder that coaches must choose drills based on observable adaptations and direct transfer to sport performance.
Define the Task Before Choosing the Drill
Dan Fichter frames the core philosophy of their training approach with a simple working definition: plyometrics are fundamentally about "how you turn a landing into a takeoff." Chris Korfist builds on this concept by noting that sprinting itself is already an intensely plyometric activity. Consequently, Korfist finds far more value in prioritizing landings, toe pops, and basic footwork than in accumulating volume through traditional, high-impact jump routines for the majority of his high school athletes.
This preference is not a blanket condemnation of hurdle hops or depth jumps. Instead, it is an argument for intentionality. Coaches should select a drill based on the specific adaptation and transfer they can actually observe on the track or field. If an exercise does not directly improve the mechanics of acceleration or sprinting, its presence in the program warrants reevaluation.
Practice the Landing Position
To build a resilient athlete, Fichter emphasizes the importance of altitude drops as a prime opportunity to rehearse the precise joint angles and body organization required when an athlete meets the ground. He connects this practice directly to the use of isometrics in relevant positions. The primary rationale behind this focus is straightforward: athletes have very little time to practice mechanical perfection when they are sprinting at maximum velocity.
A controlled, coached landing provides an environment where the task is slower and far more observable, allowing the coach to correct structural flaws before asking the athlete to solve the same biomechanical puzzle at full sprint speed. Regardless of the height or intensity of the drop, coaches must ensure that the progression matches the athlete’s current physical capacity and receives adequate supervision.
Evaluate Bounds by Transfer, Not Distance Alone
The pitfalls of measuring training success by raw metrics alone are highlighted by Korfist, who shares an illuminating comparison between a state champion who bounded significantly farther and a faster world champion whose ankle and forefoot action closely mirrored his sprint mechanics. Despite covering less ground in the individual bounds, the faster quarter-miler exhibited superior contact mechanics that directly benefited his start, acceleration, and top-end speed.
This observation led Korfist to rethink how he evaluates bounding drills. Rather than simply ranking athletes by a single bound-distance score, coaches should examine the underlying movement pattern and its subsequent effect on sprinting. The specific detail worth watching is the ankle and forefoot rocker. Recognizing these mechanics in an elite sprinter’s acceleration phase provides a clearer guideline for modifying training exercises than simply pushing athletes to cover maximum distance per bound.
Use the Athlete and Sport to Make the Final Choice
When asked what athletic programs should use instead of generic plyometric circuits for sports like football, Korfist points directly to sprinting and acceleration work. Fichter supplements this by recommending altitude drops and lunge bounces executed with meticulous attention to foot position and landing organization. The intention is never to copy high-intensity exercises blindly across an entire roster, but rather to match the speed and movement demands of the sport to the athlete’s developmental stage.
The conversation also critiques the over-reliance on jump testing and force plate ratios, cautioning against slowing down a naturally reactive athlete simply to satisfy an isolated metric. Fichter questions which joint angles an athlete can actually produce force from, and whether they can react without a lengthy preparation phase. For these coaches, a larger isolated vertical jump score matters only when it directly supports the dynamic movements the athlete needs during competition.
The dialogue also touches on the integration of specialized equipment like the 1080 Sprint in modern athletic development, though the coaches emphasize that advanced technology is never a strict prerequisite for sound training principles. Ultimately, the insights shared by Fichter and Korfist provide a compelling framework for coaches seeking to bridge the gap between weightroom metrics and on-field performance.
