I think one way to get more boys or teenage boys involved with swimming is by getting states to expect the sport of water polo. My state doesn't do it and a lot of other states don't do polo. But if more states adoptive the sport more young men would be involved with swimming at least in the high school level. Most guys at my high school in California during the 1970's played Water Polo in the summer and fall and swam in the spring. They were in better shape in swimming and could work more yardage than if they swam for only 3 months which is common for states without water polo. Water polo is so popular with teenagers in California that they introduce even girls teams in the 1990's. Most boys like a sport which is similar to hockey except that its in a pool instead of an ice rink. Also, US water polo would gain by having a bigger pool to draw from on their national team instead of 80 percent or more just coming from California.
Former Member
Against my better judgement, I will respond. This thread doesn't work (in its present direction), so here goes. Getting boys interested in swimming is made more difficult by the enforcement of Title IX and what it has done to collegiate swimming (among other sports). (NOTE: Nothing wrong with offering opportunities for women, but at not at the expense of men's "minor sports" when football teams take 80-120 players to games and 85 of them-including the 3rd string center- get scholarships) 2. Club water polo and swim coaches continually dual for athletes and while doing both at the HS level works, those at the collegiate level isn't necessarily feasible due to overlapping seasons.
Now, we HAVE discussed Title IX ad nauseum previously, so let's not revisit and the water polo/swimming discussion is about as interesting as the steriod thread has become.
Most high school and water polo players don't swim or play polo past community college in California. I know because most of the guys on my high school back in the 1970's when male swim programs outnumber women programs at 4 year Colleges didn't swim or play polo at a 4 year school. Same does for the Community college team Golden West that win the state Championship in 1977 and few guys played polo at the 4 year schools. Same with swimming, few guys and no girls swam for Cal-state Long Beach or UC Irvine after competing 2 years of community college. In fact, California community college programs for guy swimmers unlike the 4 year progams were not cut. And even if the swimmer or polo player transfers to a 4 year school their polo ability or swim ability is not on the level with many 4 year progams. Also, their are people out there that swim or play waterpolo in high school that rather be something like a truck driver that doesn't require a 4 year degree.
It seems to me that the best way to interest kids in swimming is, if you're a parent, swim yourself. I know that my 4 year old did much better in lessons, and gained a lot more interest in swimming and surfing when I started swimming masters and started surfing again.
But the best way is to make sure that you have a quality age group program in your community . . . so volunteer, give money, join or start the boosters club and help spread the word. If no age group program exists, see if there is a facility that could serve as a home and get some like minded parents to organize a program.
I'm curious, why did this thread start as one trying to interest boys rather than kids generally? And as for the title IX bashing, civil rights laws to provide equal opportunities for girls and women are not the cause of any declination in men's minor sports . . . it's the misplaced priorities of monied interests who take the easy way out in decision making by making the easy cuts rather than providing the necessary resources, or appropriately shifting priorities within the institutions.
My two cents.
carl botterud
When I was a teenager back in the 1970's, on the age group teams the males and females were more even divided. In school swimming it was different. The guys also had water polo and to be fair because they were no female teams for water polo and beginning in 1974, the girls could be on the guys team. But the male to female ratio was in favor of the boys in high school swimming. I think that half of them would not have swam in the spring unless they had become involved in water polo and in those days many high schools required the guys to do both teams. This might not work today and encouraging the game in other states might not effect swimming or increase the level of the national team in water polo. Why wearing a speedo didn't bother a kid in the 1960's or 1970's, I don't know? The reason its title that way is their suppose to be a gap between the number of female to male swimmers under 18 years old. And I notice in my local city in Arizona, that the female swimmers in the regional meet were going out more for year round teams since some of their times were faster than the guys.
In our school system which does not even have a team, it is all about football, basketball and wrestling. Everything else is secondary. I think THAT is why kids don't go out for swimming. We have to drive into another town so he can practice, and after Thanksgiving it will be with all girls because in Illinois you cannot practice or do meets with the club team during HS season.
There is an 11 year boy on our team that is wanting to quit. Why, because there is only one other 11 year old boy, no relays, stuck with the middle school girls, so another boy leaves. If he leaves then the other boy might leave. It is just a domino.
My son really, really loves swimming, and a boy does not have that passion, it is hard to stick with it. The number one question he gets from boys at school when they find out he swims is "ewww, do you have to where a tight Speedo?"
Sorry to ramble.
Styles were different in the 70's. Everything was tight for both boys and girls. Remember the little basketball shorts. Now look at the basketball players. It the shorts don't fall below the knee and are not 3 sizes to big, they won't wear them.
I speak from experience trying to buy clothes for a teenage boy. He is 5-9 and 130, wearing large and x-large basketball shorts. Boys even wear boxers now because they are lose and comfortable.
With girls everything still is about tight and showing skin. In marching band the kids have t-shirts and shorts to wear for 4th of July parading. The boys hate the shorts because they are not long enough or baggy enough and they all sag them on their hips and would prefer to wear the shirt out, but are made to tuck it in.
The girls are rolling the waist down, the legs up and complaining how big they are!!
It is not the total reason for the lack of boys, but it is one of them.
I do think boys and girls do not go into a sport thinking about how much money they will make with it, they do it because they enjoy it. But glory can have a lot to do with that enjoyment. The "money" sports get a whole lot more attention from their peers and the media. The media around here always acts surprised when a kid who has been swimming club all their life suddenly shines for their HS at sectionals. Anyone in the club scene and USA scene knows about the kids, but media only covers HS. Anytime one of our club kids makes it big at Nationals, trials, whatever, the media always associates them with their HS, even though it is the club team that gave them the quality training.
Cinc310, my son's marching band is coming to Arizona in December for the Fiesta Bowl parade. They have been selected to compete in the competition. I cannot go, too much money. Would love to though.
Sorry Cynthia,
I don't think having the High School system of other states support water polo will really make it more popular. If you were to give a High School (or Jr High or even an elementary school age child) a choice - a pair of speedo's, work really hard you might get a college education and possibly a gold medal OR something like a basketball, work really hard you might get a college education, possibly a gold medal and maybe a multimillion dollar NBA / endorsement contract - which do you think someone is more apt to choose.
To get more intrest in water polo there needs to be a way to market this - the best market is professional league (why is water polo big in Europe, because they have professional leagues that a child can dream to be part of). The NHL is good example, for years in So Cal ice hockey existed yet the intrest wasn't that great (you could go to the Kings game real cheap). Roller blades are developed and marketed, Gretzky comes to play for LA now all of sudden what was once a one horse show in California is 3 (Kings, Ducks and Sharks) ice rinks are being built and kids are taking an intrest in ice hockey - because of the way things were marketed to increase the intrest of the sport. For water polo to grow I think something similiar needs to be done.
For example a boy from Santa Ana a high immirgrant city who may not expect to graduate from college as much as an upper-middle class boy from south county where you live at has different motvations for swimming and playing water polo. The boy from Santa Ana is less likely to make his decision based upon whether he will swim or play water polo at a 4 year school because of IX, on the other hand, the boy from the upper-middle family who is more likely to finished college will based his decision on whether there is a swim program for men at the 4 year level. This is true thru out the US, even recently in some parts of the US not as many people finished college because there were still some good paying blue collar jobs but in big metros like New York or Boston or Chicago who have to have a 4 year degree in order to have a half-decent living. So, in some parts of the us going on to college wasn't as important and having swimming for men at the 4 year effective people's decisions differently.
Back in the 1970's, I think families with a little above the national income saw swimming the same way they did tennis. The Bashashoffs, probably the most talent sister and brothers combinations of the 1970's were blue collar and this didn't always set well with families that had parents that were businesss executives or engineers. Both Jack and Billy like their sister Shirley would not have made it big in traditonal sports. Many upper-middle families that use to get johnny into swimming or tennis or figure skating, are more into getting them into football, or soccer-which once in the US was mainly popular in hispanic neighorhoods, or baseball or basketball or hockey.
Cynthia has touched on a subject that has regularly puzzled me. Why isn't water polo more popular, as a spectator sport as well? The similarities to basketball/soccer/hockey are striking. (I did not realize just how similar they were until I volunteered to be an assistant coach for my kids' soccer and floor hockey teams, and found a lot of the drills were pretty much the same.) Moreover,
- Unlike soccer, someone actually scores; more than one or two goals a game.
- Unlike basketball, you do have a goalie and meaningful defense, so each individual goal does have importance.
- Unlike hockey, the pace of the game is just a bit slower, so you can see plays developing, and goals will be scored because the offense executed the shot it intended to make, rather than tossing the puck at the net and hoping to score on a rebound or lucky deflection.
I can understand why a swim meet would be about as interesting as watching paint dry to someone who is not into the sport as a participant. (My family has informed me of this fact frequently.) But, the even smaller following for water polo has puzzled me.
I'm also astounded and bemused that youth today are afraid to wear a classic speedo cut swim suit. When I was on the high school swim team, wearing ANYTHING EXCEPT a speedo would have marked you as hopelessly unhip (think Drew Carey "birth control" glasses), and that would have included the jammers that are popular today. In college, WE WANTED to show off; we ADVERTISED our meets to the student body by mentioning the small quantities of lycra we wore in the pool. Of course, the purpose of youth fashion in general is to astound, scandalize and/or perplex people in their 40's, so I suppose it's not that surprising...
Matt
