Relationship Between Jump Metrics and Speed

Which Test Has the Strongest Relationship with Sprint Ability?

By Richard Burnett, MS, SCCC, CSCS, CAFS

At Triple F Elite Sports Training, we’ve spent the last three years rigorously tracking athlete development through consistent, repeatable testing protocols. With over 400 paired data points across 5th to 12th grade athletes ranging from a multitude of sports and training ages, our assessment battery includes sprint splits from 0–5, 5–15, 15–30, and 30–40 yards, alongside jump metrics from both Plyomat (switch mat) and force plates.

This post explores which vertical jump variables best correlate with sprint ability, specifically focusing on the 40-yard dash and its components.

Why Compare Jumping and Sprinting?

Research has long supported a connection between explosive lower-body power and sprint performance. Studies show strong relationships between reactive strength index (RSI), jump height, and sprint speed, especially over short distances where force expression is critical. While jumping and sprinting are distinct tasks, both demand high levels of lower limb stiffness, elasticity, and rate of force development — particularly during ground contact.

1. Faude et al. (2010) – “The relationship between running speed and measures of vertical jump and leg‑knee extensor muscle strength in elite junior athletes.”

In 33 professional basketball players, this study examined the relationship between squat jump, countermovement jump (CMJ) and 40‑m running speed. They found that jump‑height measures from both squat and CMJ modes were significantly correlated with sprint times over 10, 20 and 40 m (r values not specified in the abstract) though they noted the relationship was stronger when jump height was expressed relative to body mass. 

Why this matters: It demonstrates that vertical jump output (jump height) has a meaningful statistical link to linear sprint performance. This supports the idea that the abilities required to jump high also contribute to sprinting fast.

2. Pereira et al. (2023) – “Exploring the Relationship Between Vertical Jump and Short Sprint in Basketball Players.”

This study of basketball players found very strong associations (r ≈ 0.80–0.82) between CMJ height and short‑sprint performance: 0–10 m (r = 0.805), 10–20 m (r = 0.798), and 0–20 m (r = 0.822). 

Why this matters: It shows that when jump height is measured (especially via CMJ) it can be strongly predictive of sprinting ability across multiple phases of acceleration, reinforcing the value of jump testing.

3. Jarvis, Turner & Bishop (2022) – “Reactive Strength Index and its Associations with Measures of Physical and Sports Performance: A Systematic Review with Meta‑Analysis.”

In their meta‑analysis, the authors reviewed multiple studies on RSI and other jump‑based indices. They reported strong associations between RSI and sports performance indicators (including sprint speed) across healthy individuals. Although they do not provide a single correlation, they note that higher RSI is typically associated with better sprint and change‑of‑direction performance. 

Why this matters: RSI (which blends jump output with contact/ground‑time) is not merely a jump height metric, it includes how efficiently force is applied and how quickly the ground is re‑contacted. The fact that RSI links well to sprint ability gives context for why our SL‑RSI finding (r ≈ −0.75) in the Triple F data is meaningful.

Summary of Significance

• Jump height (via CMJ) is consistently tied to sprint performance in a variety of athlete populations.
• RSI adds a layer of nuance by combining output (jump height) with velocity/ground contact time — an attribute especially relevant in sprinting where ground contact time and limb stiffness matter.
• These associations support the premise that jump tests (especially CMJ and RSI variants) provide a valid window into sprint‑specific qualities, which is why our internal testing at Triple F focuses on these metrics.

But which test gives us the clearest window into sprint performance?

Our Methodology

All data was collected on-site at Triple F, where athletes are assessed three times annually using standardized protocols. We analyzed correlations between sprint splits and the following jump-derived metrics:

Jump Metrics Analyzed

• Plyomat (Switch Mat)
• Single-Leg RSI (SL RSI)
• 5-Hop RSI
• Force Plate (Various)
• Modified RSI (mRSI)
• Takeoff Velocity
• Relative Propulsive Net Impulse
• Peak Relative Propulsive Power
• Jump Height

Each athlete’s 40-yard dash was split into four segments plus total time. The result: a rich dataset pairing sprint mechanics with jump outputs across grades, genders, and positions.

What Is the Single‑Leg 1‑Hop RSI Test?

One efficient and highly effective assessment in our jump‑testing battery is the Single‑Leg 1‑Hop Reactive Strength Index (SL 1‑Hop RSI). This test is featured in the Instagram post by Plyomat (see @Plyomat, 1‑Hop Single Leg RSI) and breaks down as follows:

·       Protocol: The athlete stands on one leg, then performs a single, maximal‑effort hop on that same leg. The goal is clear: jump as high as possible with minimal ground contact time.

🦵🏼 Start on one foot
⬆️ Hop onto the mat
💥 Pop off instantly

·       Key metrics captured:

o   Flight time (how long the athlete is airborne)

o   Contact time (how quickly the athlete rebounds)

·       Calculation: RSI = Flight Time ÷ Contact Time

·       Why we use it:

o   It isolates unilateral leg function, directly measuring how quickly and efficiently the limb applies force and rebounds via the stretch‑shortening cycle (SSC).

o   It simulates the ground‑contact demands of sprinting and change‑of‑direction movements more closely than bilateral tests.

o   It is simple, fast to administer, and directly translatable to athlete monitoring and training programming.

Key Finding: SL RSI Is the Strongest Predictor

Among all metrics analyzed, Single-Leg RSI (average) from the Plyomat system showed the strongest correlation with 40-yard dash time (r = –0.75). More importantly, it remained consistently predictive across every sprint segment, from acceleration (0–5 yd) to max velocity (30–40 yd), and across multiple age groups.

This suggests that an athlete’s ability to rapidly absorb and re-apply force on one leg in a reactive jump format may reflect sprint qualities like stride stiffness, timing, and ground contact efficiency better than traditional jump height alone.

Comparative Results: Plyomat vs Force Plate

We also directly compared 5-Hop RSI from Plyomat with force plate–derived flight time across sprint splits:

Split	Plyomat 5-Hop RSI	Force Plate Flight Time
0–5 yd	–0.66	–0.56
5–15 yd	–0.70	–0.64
15–30 yd	–0.70	–0.62
30–40 yd	–0.70	–0.62
40 yd Dash	–0.71	–0.63

While both metrics correlated moderately with speed, 5-Hop RSI held a stronger relationship throughout, likely due to its integration of elasticity, timing, and horizontal intent across multiple bounds. In contrast, flight time reflects just the displacement in a single jump.

Grade-Specific Trends

Breaking down SL RSI by grade revealed a powerful trend: older athletes with more mature movement patterns showed even stronger relationships between jump reactivity and sprint splits.

This reflects the growing value of reactive strength as athletes develop and highlights the need to monitor and train it longitudinally. In comparison, below are some bilateral jump metrics from force plate testing and their relationship to Sprint Splits by grade:

Value of Force Plate Metrics

While SL RSI and 5-Hop RSI showed the highest correlations, other force plate metrics also offered insight:

• Takeoff Velocity: r ≈ –0.69
• Relative Propulsive Impulse: r ≈ –0.68
• Peak Relative Propulsive Power: r ≈ –0.65
• Jump Height: r ≈ –0.64

Each of these metrics reflects power output and force production, which clearly relate to speed — but none matched the consistent predictive value of RSI on a switch mat.

A Word on Practicality

One of the benefits of using tools like Plyomat is the ease of collecting RSI data in-field. Coaches can measure RSI from single-leg hops, depth jumps, and multi-hop series in seconds, providing usable feedback for training without needing to calculate velocity or isolate impulse data post-session.

This post isn’t meant to discount force plates, which provide rich biomechanical insights. But from a practical, field-based monitoring standpoint, RSI via switch mat remains one of the most accessible and meaningful metrics.

Conclusion

Sprinting is sprinting. Jumping is jumping.

While they are distinct tasks, both rely on similar neuromuscular qualities, including elastic strength, ground contact efficiency, and limb stiffness. It’s no surprise they relate so strongly.

However, it’s important not to overinterpret these correlations. This was not a controlled research study, just a real-world analysis of athletes’ data aimed at understanding what jump outputs reflect sprint ability best.

The takeaway? RSI — particularly from single-leg and multi-hop jump formats — offers a unique window into sprint-specific traits. And that’s why reactive strength remains a central theme in the teachings of Verkhoshansky and other legends of plyometric development.

At Triple F and Plyomat, we’ll continue to refine our testing to help athletes jump higher, sprint faster, and train smarter.