In modern athletic development, the visual spectacle of high-box jumps, sprawling hurdle-hop circuits, and towering vertical measurements often dictates how programs are evaluated. However, experienced high school coaches Dan Fichter and Chris Korfist are challenging these traditional metrics, arguing that the true value of plyometric training lies not in how high an athlete can leap, but in how efficiently they can absorb force and transition from a landing into a controlled takeoff.
In a recent discussion exploring the nuances of speed and power development, Fichter and Korfist detailed why their programs prioritize sprinting, landing practice, foot and ankle mechanics, and joint-angle-specific strength over generic, high-volume jump menus. Rather than chasing impressive numbers on a force plate or celebrating maximal distances in isolated bounding tests, the two coaches emphasize that training must directly translate to the movement demands of the athlete’s sport.
Defining the Task Before Choosing the Drill
The foundation of Fichter and Korfist’s philosophy begins with a fundamental re-examination of what plyometrics actually means in a practical training environment. Fichter distills the concept into a clear, functional definition: the ability to seamlessly turn a landing into a takeoff.
Building upon this, Korfist points out that sprinting itself is already a highly plyometric activity. Consequently, he finds significantly more value in dedicated landing practice, toe pops, and fundamental footwork than in accumulating reps on a massive, traditional jump menu. Their perspective is not a blanket condemnation of standard plyometric exercises like hurdle hops or depth jumps. Instead, it serves as a deliberate call to action for coaches to select drills based on tangible adaptations and observable performance transfers rather than tradition or visual aesthetics.
Practice the Landing Position
A central pillar of this training philosophy is the intentional rehearsal of landing positions. Fichter utilizes altitude drops as a primary vehicle to help athletes rehearse the precise joint angles and body organization required when meeting the ground under load. He connects this directly to the implementation of isometrics in relevant positions, noting that athletes have very little time to practice mechanical perfection when moving at high velocities during a sprint.
By introducing controlled landings, coaches gain a slower, more observable task to evaluate before asking athletes to solve complex mechanical problems at full sprint speed. Both coaches emphasize that regardless of the height or intensity of the drop, any variation must be carefully matched to the individual athlete’s current capacity and subjected to proper supervision to ensure safety and effectiveness.
Evaluate Bounds by Transfer, Not Distance Alone
The limitations of evaluating athletic progress solely through raw metrics become apparent when examining how coaches assess bounding exercises. Korfist shares an insightful comparison between a state champion who covered significantly more ground during a bounding session and a faster world champion whose ankle and forefoot action closely mirrored his actual sprint mechanics.
Despite the state champion’s superior distance, Korfist noted that the farther bound did not translate into a superior carryover for speed. Emphasizing the importance of fine details, Korfist focuses heavily on the ankle and forefoot rocker during these movements. In his observation of the faster quarter-miler, shorter and more efficient contacts aligned directly with the mechanics needed for powerful starts, smooth acceleration, and top-end sprinting. This realization shifts the coaching focus away from ranking athletes by a single bound-distance score toward refining movement patterns that genuinely enhance speed.
Use the Athlete and Sport to Make the Final Choice
When coaches look for alternatives to generic plyometric circuits—particularly in collision-heavy sports like football—Korfist and Fichter advocate for a streamlined approach centered around speed and acceleration. Fichter supplements this with altitude drops and lunge bounces, always maintaining strict attention to foot position and landing organization.
The strategy avoids forcing every athlete through identical, high-intensity regimens. Instead, coaches are encouraged to anchor their programming in the specific speed and movement demands of the sport, introducing tasks athletes can perform cleanly and progressing the difficulty only when landings and subsequent steps remain structurally sound.
This contextual approach extends to modern jump testing as well. The coaches caution against the trap of slowing down a naturally reactive athlete simply to satisfy a rigid ratio derived from a force plate or trying to meet an arbitrary vertical jump standard for an entire team. Fichter raises critical questions regarding the specific joint angles from which an athlete can effectively produce force and whether they can react without an extended preparation phase. For Fichter and Korfist, a larger isolated score only matters if it directly supports the dynamic movements the athlete must execute on the field or track.
The ongoing conversation surrounding these training methods highlights a broader shift toward individualized, movement-driven coaching models. By prioritizing the mechanics of landing, foot function, and direct sport transfer, Fichter and Korfist continue to challenge the fitness industry to look past flashy numbers and evaluate what truly drives athletic performance.
