For elite strength coaches and track specialists Dan Fichter and Chris Korfist, the most critical question in a plyometric program is rarely how many impressive jumps an athlete can rack up, or how high they can leap on an isolated testing day. Instead, the core of their coaching philosophy hinges on a much more fundamental physical transaction: whether an athlete possesses the mechanical capacity to turn a forceful landing into a controlled, explosive takeoff.
In a recent discussion on The Fast Lane, Fichter and Chris Korfist unpacked their shared philosophy on speed, power, and athletic development. They explained why foundational elements such as sprinting mechanics, dedicated landing practice, precise foot and ankle work, and joint-angle-specific strength frequently command more training time in their high school programs than high boxes and traditional hurdle-hop circuits.
While the fitness and athletic training industries often lean heavily on large, visually impressive jump menus, Fichter and Korfist argue that coaches must look past the sheer spectacle of a high jump and evaluate what the body is actually experiencing upon ground contact. By prioritizing the invisible details of force absorption and foot behavior, these veteran coaches are challenging conventional paradigms of athletic preparation.
Define the Task Before Choosing the Drill
The conversation begins by reframing how coaches conceptualize plyometrics altogether. Fichter establishes the working definition simply: it is the art and science of how an athlete turns a landing into a takeoff. Rather than viewing plyometrics as a standalone category of high-impact exercises, Korfist points out that high-speed sprinting is already intensely plyometric by nature.
Because sprinting places massive reactive demands on the musculoskeletal system, Korfist argues that he derives far more long-term value from practicing controlled landings, toe pops, and fundamental foot mechanics than he does from programming complex, high-volume jump menus for high school athletes.
This preference should not be misconstrued as a blanket prohibition against hurdle hops or depth jumps. Rather, it serves as a deliberate call to action for coaches to select drills based on clear, observable adaptations and tangible transfer to sport performance. If a coach cannot visibly trace how a specific exercise improves an athlete’s movement quality or speed on the field or track, the utility of that drill must be questioned.
Practice the Landing Position
To build a robust athlete who can handle the violent forces of sprinting and changing direction, Fichter emphasizes the necessity of rehearsing the landing position. He describes altitude drops as a vital training tool, offering athletes a controlled environment to practice the specific joint angles and postural organization required when meeting the ground at high velocities.
Fichter connects this directly to the implementation of isometrics in relevant joint positions, noting that the physiological reality of sprinting leaves virtually no margin for error. "You have very little time to practice perfection when you’re sprinting," he observes.
By utilizing controlled landings, coaches give themselves a slower, highly observable task to evaluate and correct before asking the athlete to solve the exact same mechanical problem at maximum sprint speed. Naturally, any introduction of height or intensity must be carefully calibrated to match an individual athlete’s current physical capacity and should always occur under proper coaching supervision.
Evaluate Bounds by Transfer, Not Distance Alone
In one of the more provocative analytical segments of the discussion, Korfist contrasts two elite athletes to illustrate the limitations of evaluating training tasks by raw numbers alone. He compares a state champion high schooler who could bound impressive distances with a world champion quarter-miler whose actual bound covered less ground.
Despite the shorter distance of his bounds, the world champion displayed ankle and forefoot action that mirrored the mechanical signatures of his elite sprint acceleration. Korfist noted that the farther bound did not automatically translate to superior functional transfer on the track.
"Technique is something that’s very important in looking for the little things," Korfist explains.
For coaching practitioners, the takeaway is clear: movement patterns and subsequent sprint performance must take precedence over ranking athletes by a single score, such as bound distance. Korfist focuses heavily on the ankle and forefoot rocker during these movements. Recognizing those contact mechanics in an athlete’s start and acceleration phase provides actionable feedback on how to modify training stimuli, rather than blindly encouraging athletes to cover more horizontal ground at the expense of proper technique.
Use the Athlete and Sport to Make the Final Choice
When faced with the question of what to substitute for generic plyometric circuits in a sport like football, Korfist does not hesitate to point back to the fundamentals of sprinting and acceleration. Fichter echoes this sentiment by incorporating altitude drops and lunge bounces into the mix, provided they are executed with meticulous attention to foot placement and landing organization.
The goal is never to blindly copy high-intensity protocols across an entire roster regardless of position or readiness. Instead, coaches must anchor their program in the speed and movement demands of the sport itself, selecting tasks that athletes can execute with high proficiency and progressing the demands only when landing mechanics and subsequent movement remain crisp and organized.
This critical eye extends directly into how coaches approach jump testing. Fichter and Korfist push back against the temptation to slow down a naturally reactive athlete simply to satisfy a theoretical ratio derived from a force-plate test. They caution against chasing isolated numbers at the expense of authentic movement profiles.
Fichter challenges practitioners to consider the specific joint angles from which an athlete can actually produce force, and whether that athlete can react efficiently without requiring a lengthy, predictable preparation phase. Korfist’s observations of athletes with varying vertical jump heights underscore a broader philosophy: a massive isolated vertical score only matters if it directly supports the physical expressions the athlete actually needs during competition.
Throughout the discussion, the coaches maintain that context, joint angles, and immediate reactivity must always override any single metrics-driven benchmark. By shifting the focus away from theatrical jump heights and toward the meticulous control of the landing and the foot strike, Fichter and Korfist offer a blueprint for developing more resilient, faster, and more efficient athletes.
