I analyze the hierarchy of large cardinals between a supercompact cardinal and an almost-huge cardinal. Many of these cardinals are defined by modifying the definition of a high-jump cardinal. A high-jump cardinal is defined as the critical point of an elementary embedding j:V→M\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${j: V \to M}$$\end{document} such that M is closed under sequences of length sup{j|f:κ→κ}\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\sup\{{j\,|\,f: \kappa \to \kappa}\}}$$\end{document}. Some of the other (...) cardinals analyzed include the super-high-jump cardinals, almost-high-jump cardinals, Shelah-for-supercompactness cardinals, Woodin-for-supercompactness cardinals, Vopěnka cardinals, hypercompact cardinals, and enhanced supercompact cardinals. I organize these cardinals in terms of consistency strength and implicational strength. I also analyze the superstrong cardinals, which are weaker than supercompact cardinals but are related to high-jump cardinals. Among the results, I highlight the following. Vopěnka cardinals are the same as Woodin-for-supercompactness cardinals.There are no excessively hypercompact cardinals.Furthermore, I prove some results relating high-jump cardinals to forcing, as well as analyzing Laver functions for super-high-jump cardinals. (shrink)