Rethinking Drop Landings
Drop landings are one of the most misunderstood exercises in performance training.
What began as an effective strategy to improve reactive power has, over time, been transformed into a social media stunt, where athletes jump off boxes taller than they can jump onto and chase the biggest number on a force plate, as if that signifies progress.
The original method was never about “withstanding” higher forces. It was about teaching the body to manage them; to store, redirect, and reuse energy efficiently.
Today, though, many coaches and athletes have lost sight of that distinction. Big forces look impressive, but they often say more about how hard an athlete hit the ground than how well they controlled it.
This post revisits the purpose, physiology, biomechanics and science behind drop landings and explains why more impact doesn’t mean more adaptation.
Here’s what we’ll cover:
- Shock Method Gone Wrong ⮕ How Verkhoshansky’s original “shock training” concept got lost in translation.
- External Forces Are Not Internal Forces ⮕ Why what the force plate measures isn’t what the muscles produce.
- Higher Peak Force Doesn’t Mean More Eccentric Work ⮕ Understanding why high GRF spikes don’t equal better training.
- The First 100 Milliseconds: Impact, Not Muscle ⮕ Breaking down why early “energy absorption” is actually passive impact, not muscle control.
- Early Energy Absorption Isn’t Always Better ⮕ Why the initial impact energy is offloaded to passive tissues, not active muscles.
- Landing Heights Are Limited to Jump Heights in Sport ⮕ Why real sport landings don’t replicate extreme training impacts.
- Drop Landings Are Not the Same as Jump Landings ⮕ Dropping from a box and dropping from a jump are different task
- The Relationship Between Eccentric Variables and Jump Height is Unclear ⮕ Improving the eccentric variables may not necessarily contribute to the CMJ height.
- 3 Better Ways to Program Drop Trainings ⮕ Smarter ways to train eccentric strength, deceleration, and landing skill without unnecessary impact.
- Coaching Takeaways ⮕ Summary of practical applications.
By the end, you’ll see why force isn’t the goal and control is. And how reframing drop landings through that lens can make your athletes stronger, safer, and more explosive.
Lets dive in.
Shock Method Gone Wrong
Verkhoshansky’s original shock method was built around rapid transitions, specifically dropping from a box and rebounding immediately to train the stretch–shortening cycle.
The purpose wasn’t to withstand high forces, but to use them efficiently. Short ground contact times, precise technique, and controlled drop heights were non-negotiable.
As the method spread, that nuance was lost. Coaches saw the massive ground reaction forces reported in Soviet data and assumed the key was to increase impact, not improve reactivity.
The result was a shift from shock training to impact training.
Over time, “altitude landings” became popularized as stand-alone drills: drop off a higher box, stick the landing, and chase a big number on the force plate. But that was never the goal. Verkhoshansky used the drop as a means to enhance reactive power, not to glorify landing impact.
What began as a method to train efficient energy transfer turned into a contest of who could hit the ground the hardest.
External Forces Are Not Internal Forces
Force plates measure external forces. More specifically, they measure the reaction forces between the athlete and the ground (Newston's 3rd Law).
In a landing, the force represents the impact created when the athlete’s downward momentum is rapidly decelerated by impacting the earth. It tells us how hard the athlete hit the ground, not how much muscular work was done to manage that deceleration.
The internal forces generated by muscles, tendons, and connective tissues act within the body to manage the deceleration load. This internal work comes from joint torques and eccentric contractions that dissipate mechanical energy across time and range of motion.
The two are related, but not the same.
A high external force (big GRF spike) can occur with minimal internal muscle involvement if the landing is stiff and passive, meaning the athlete crashes into the ground with little active control.
Conversely, a smooth, controlled landing may exhibit a lower GRF but require greater internal effort, as muscles actively regulate the braking phase through coordinated eccentric contractions.
Higher Peak Force Doesn’t Mean More Eccentric Work
When athletes drop from higher boxes or land stiffer, the force plates show greater values. But those spikes mostly reflect landing strategy, not greater muscle work.
So while the plates see a massive “hit,” the muscles might be doing less work, not more. In fact, there is an inverse relationship between landing stiffness and eccentric work. Stiffer landings have higher peak forces yet lower eccentric work, and vice versa.
In other words, softer landings actually demand more eccentric work.
The figure below from Fritz et al. (2019) demonstrates that peak force was nearly half in the softest landing strategy, while lower limb eccentric work (sum of the ankle, knees, and hips) was nearly doubled.
Interestingly, jump height was not affected by landing strategy when performing loaded jumps with 50% of bodyweight. This suggests that softer landings are protective, require more eccentric work contributions from muscular forces, and do not sacrifice jump height.
The First 100 Milliseconds is Impact, Not Muscle
The first 100 milliseconds after ground contact reflect impact, not muscular control. This is when the body’s downward momentum meets the ground, and the force plate captures that collision as a spike in ground reaction force (GRF).
Muscles don’t contract instantaneously. Voluntary eccentric control takes time, about 50 to 75 milliseconds, while peak GRF typically occurs within the first 40 to 50 milliseconds of contact.
Because muscles can’t respond quickly or effectively during this early phase, the impact energy is transmitted through passive tissues, primarily bone compression, along with cartilage, ligaments, and tendons. What appears as “energy absorption” in the first 100 milliseconds is actually impact transmission, not true muscular work.
Peak Impact Occurs Too Fast for Muscular Control
The 100ms Timeline:
- 0 ms – Initial Ground Contact: Foot hits the ground and ground reaction forces (GRF) spike sharply.
- ~7–10 ms – Peak ACL Load: Maximum anterior shear force on the tibia and greatest ACL tension occur.
- ~30–50 ms – Reflexive Response: Stretch reflex and spinal-level activation start to engage the muscles.
- ~100+ ms – Voluntary Response: Conscious muscle control kicks in, but it’s too late to influence the initial impact.
Early Energy Absorption Isn’t Always Better
It’s easy to assume that more “energy absorption” during landing means better control or stronger muscles, but that’s not always true, especially in the first 100 milliseconds after ground contact.
In a 2013 study, Norcross and colleagues analyzed how much mechanical energy athletes absorbed during the first 100 ms of landing (what they called the initial impact phase). Athletes who absorbed more energy early also showed greater knee-extension moments, higher anterior tibial shear forces, and greater quadriceps loading, all of which are associated with increased ACL strain.
As the authors noted, “movement strategies with greater sagittal-plane energy absorption during the 100 milliseconds immediately after ground contact resulted in sagittal-plane knee kinetics and impact forces that likely increased ACL loading.” In other words, more “energy absorption” early doesn’t mean better control, it means the knee is taking more of the hit.
In simple terms, those who “absorbed” more energy early weren’t better at controlling it, they were offloading it onto the knee joint. We don’t want athletes trying to “soak up” impact right at initial contact. Instead, we want them to delay and distribute that energy absorption across time and range, allowing the hips, knees, and ankles to share the deceleration through coordinated flexion.
Landing Heights Are Limited to Jump Heights in Sport
The landing heights and resulting peak forces athletes experience in sport are far lower than those often used in training.
For example, Stacoff et al. (1988) examined landings following volleyball blocks and reported jump heights between 35 and 65 cm. The first impact peak (F1) ranged from 1,000 to 2,000 N, and the second peak (F2) ranged from 1,000 to 6,500 N, reflecting differences in individual landing strategies.
In sport, the height you land from is dictated by the height you can actually produce through your own jump. In training, boxes can be stacked far beyond an athlete’s jump capacity, creating artificial impacts that do not occur in real competition.
Dropping athletes off arbitrary heights to inflate GRF impact spikes is not a reflection of sport demands.
Drop Landings Are Not the Same as Jump Landings
It’s common to see drop landings used in training as if they replicate what happens in sport, but Harry et al. (2018) makes it clear they don’t. When athletes land from a jump (VJL), the body organizes differently than when stepping off a box (STL), even when the landing heights are identical.
During step-off landings, athletes hit the ground with:
- Asymmetrical knee angles at contact, especially between the lead and trail legs.
- A larger first force peak (F1) and a faster second peak (tF2) — both signs of higher impact rates.
- Compensatory movement after impact, where the joints flex more after the second peak to slow the body down.
These differences show that the mechanics of drop landings don’t mirror the coordination and timing of a true jump landing. In a vertical jump landing, the system uses pre-activation, symmetrical positions, and a smoother energy-dissipation strategy. In a drop landing, that coordinated sequence is missing, replaced by reactive compensation.
For coaches, that means step-off landings are a different stimulus altogether. They can increase stress on the knees and lower limbs, especially if used excessively, because of their higher initial impact and asymmetry.
Still, that doesn’t mean they’re useless. When applied with intent, step-off landings can be valuable for improving an athlete’s ability to handle asymmetric or unplanned landings, which are situations that happen in real games.
The Relationship Between Eccentric Variables and Jump Height is Unclear
Coaches often assume that greater eccentric strength or higher braking forces automatically lead to higher jumps. The logic seems simple enough; more force on the way down should equal more power on the way up. But the evidence doesn’t actually support that idea as clearly as many think.
In a 2023 systematic review, Nishiumi et al. examined 13 studies exploring the relationship between eccentric force variables and vertical jump performance. Their conclusion was straightforward:
The link between eccentric variables and jump height is inconsistent.
Ultimately, the review suggests that eccentric strength contributes to jump performance, but not in a simple linear way. Improving eccentric force may help with early concentric impulse or shorter braking times, yet it doesn’t guarantee higher jump heights.
3 Better Ways to Program Drop Training
If we want drop landings to build athletes who can handle force, not just tolerate impact, the goal needs to shift from chasing force to teaching control.
Heres a few ways we can use drop landings to build better athletes:
Teach Landing CPD
Start by emphasizing how athletes position and organize their bodies through the landing. The focus should be on posture, tension, and joint sequencing, not on the number coming off the force plate.
- Control ⮕ Maintain alignment through the trunk and lower limbs, stay balanced, and manage the deceleration evenly across the hip, knee, and ankle.
- Posture ⮕ Land in positions that keep the joints in an advantageous range for muscle engagement rather than passive collision.
- Dissipation ⮕ Spread the deceleration over time and range, letting muscles do the work instead of ligaments and cartilage.
Use Drop Jumps with Precision
Drop jumps are still valuable when they’re used correctly. They teach athletes how to manage eccentric loading and immediately reapply it. The problem isn’t the method, it’s the misuse.
- Use moderate drop heights (20–60 cm) that athletes can land from while maintaining posture and silent contact.
- Once landing control is consistent, progress to reactive rebounds; short ground contacts that emphasize timing and rhythm, not force magnitude.
- When assessing progress, watch how the athlete moves, not just what the numbers say. Smooth joint motion, consistent postures, and controlled noise on landing are reliable indicators of quality.
Integrate Drops Into the Stretch–Shortening Cycle
When drop landings are integrated back into a full plyometric or shock training sequence, their original purpose becomes clear. Verkhoshansky didn’t design drop landings to test how much impact an athlete could handle; he used them to prepare the system to store and release energy efficiently through the stretch–shortening cycle (SSC).
A smart progression blends landing skill with explosive intent:
- Absorption-focused drops ⮕ Teach position, control, and dissipation.
- Reactive drop jumps ⮕ Introduce timing and rhythm through quick transitions.
- Full plyometric series ⮕ Combine pre-activation, rapid deceleration, and elastic rebound to mimic the SSC demands of sport.
When programmed this way, drop landings aren’t orthopedic stunts.
Coaching Takeaways
The goal of drop landing and jump training isn’t to chase higher forces. Rather, it’s to improve how athletes control, distribute, and reuse them.
The difference between a strong athlete and a durable one isn’t just output; it’s how they manage input.
Here are the key takeaways:
- Force isn’t the goal, control is ⮕ High GRF doesn’t mean high muscular output, it often means poor energy management.
- Teach posture and sequencing first ⮕ Great landing mechanics come from coordinated flexion at the hip, knee, and ankle, not bracing for impact.
- Use realistic heights ⮕ Drop from what athletes can jump to, not from what looks impressive online.
- Chase rhythm, not stiffness ⮕ Reactive power is about timing and elasticity, not grinding into the floor.
- Build the bridge ⮕ Isolate landings early, then integrate them into full plyometric progressions to connect eccentric control with concentric power.
On the way out, let me be clear:
High box drops can still have a place in your programs. But the goal should not be higher forces, which can be achieved with stiffer landings, but the control and dissipation of the impact from the fall. If you coach landing like you coach lifting (e.g. intent, control, and progression) your athletes will not only handle more force, they’ll know how to use it.
I hope this helps,
Ramsey
References
Stacoff, A., X. Kaelin, and E. Stuessi. (1988). The impact in landing after a volleyball block. In: Biomechanics 10-B. Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics, pp. 694–700.
DeVita, P., & Skelly, W. A. (1992). Effect of landing stiffness on joint kinetics and energetics in the lower extremity. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 24(1), 108–115.
Norcross, M. F., Lewek, M. D., Padua, D. A., Shultz, S. J., Weinhold, P. S., & Blackburn, J. T. (2013). Lower extremity energy absorption and biomechanics during landing: Implications for ACL injury. Journal of Athletic Training, 48(6), 748–756.
Harry, J. R., Paquette, M. R., Schilling, B. K., & Barker, L. A. (2018). Bilateral comparison of vertical jump landings and step-off landings. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 34(4), 294–302.
Fritz, J., Schwameder, H., Seiser, M., & Kröll, J. (2019). Effect of landing strategies on lower limb joint kinetics during loaded jumps. ISBS Proceedings Archive, 37(1), Article 32.
