I remember P Mulins the author maybe I missed spelled his name talking about swimming being a white upper-middle class sport and the country club set. I guess he had not met Shirley Bashashoff that came from a blue collar background. Anyway, swimmers in elite circles tend to be more from upper-middle families than the non-elite. In high school programs, their are plenty of them from the barrio and the ghetto. Also, he seems to think swimming is divided between whites and blacks. In his state, both Latinos and Asians outnumber blacks. And Latinos are the group lowest on the income level in that state and Arizona mainly done to immirgation. I think the swimming world is seeing that in the states, its not a black and white world anymore,even in the south asians and latins have increase.
Former Member
Yes, I spent all summer at a local pool--white, white, white.
Local swim team--white, white, white
Local school system 70% African American 30% WASP
The issue of why more minorities do not participate needs to be addressed.
American swimming is strong primarily because of our strong college program. We are steadily losing college teams for various reasons, but if swimming were more popular these reasons would not be good enough. Good college programs allow swimmers to swim in the prime of their life, when otherwise they would be studying somewhere with no swimming, or working. It is not clear that our club system can replace our college system.
American swimming was strong 40 years ago because few other countries had swimmers at all. Now many other countries have large swimming programs, and my impression is that things are more competitive than ever. I doubt that the U.S. is more dominant now than it was then. We certainly underperform relative to our population and wealth, when compared to countries like Australia, Netherlands, or Sweden.
If you want the best athletes swimming, you need to have large participation at all levels from all groups.
If you are comfortable with limited participation you will also have to be comfortable with reduced international performance.
If you comfortable with limited participation, you will also have to be comfortable with fewer adults taking advantage of one of the best exercises around.
Finally, pointing out that this sport is "white, white, white" is not race baiting, it is pointing out the obvious. Why do people ignore or deny what is in front of their face? I can't imagine what I could have said that was race baiting (silly is another matter . . ), but the subject was certainly swimming. Finally, aquageek reads far more into my posts than is there. I swim myself, as he well knows, and I don't consider myself, subtly or otherwise, a racist.
(and we are still pretty weak in the #1 world sport, men's soccer.)
Water is colorless….and so is every single swimmer I have ever swam with, against and around…because in the water…..we are neither White, Black, Hispanic, Asian or anything else….we are swimmers….
Well, I agree that swimming being more popular in Irvine than East Los Angeles is ok. But the biggest concern is that the white kid population in a state like California is going to go down to 25 percent of the average in 20 years if current trends don't change. Maybe, swimming youth programs will survive by fielding uppper-middle class or middle class whites, some asians and hispanics. Who knows with demographic changes of that sort. Now as far as club involvement developing swimmers, in my youth the clubs develop the female swimmers, the college programs were just starting to get near the male level. Female swimmers have to be developed by a club program because they mature 2 to 3 years earlier than male swimmers. The college system is more responisble for the development of men since they are about 2 to 3 years behind the females.
Cricket? Rugby? Field hockey? Why not include basket weaving as a major sport?
Cycling - dominated by US and Europe. Watched the Tour de France in the past decade?
Baseball - same
Basketball - same, although many other countries making great strides
Track and field - same but only since East Germany went out of business in the field events.
Gymnastics - same
I agree with Sam and Dorthy. That observation is consistent with what we know about swimming being a middle/upper class sport.
My granddaughter's swim team offers scholarships to any swimmer who maintains an A/B average (killing two birds with one stone, more or less increasing the chance that a swimmer will get an athletic scholarship when they enter college).
Okay, if part of the problem is money, could USMS start a scholarship fund for members to donate to on a volunteer basis; and/or local clubs could have a scholarship event or two during regular swim meets where the fee for swimming in the event would go to the fund?
Phil - again, I believe you are off base. American swimming isn't strong because of college. Most kids start swimming at age 4-6 and college is the culmination, not the beginning. Many of our best female swimmers are actually pre college years and Michael Phelps is a prime example of a male athlete excelling before college.
Swimming starts at the youth level and goes from there. Kids don't get good in college, they are already superior by the time they get the shcolarship.
How can you claim we underperform compared to your size and wealth? We compete and win in almost every major sport. If size was all that mattered, then China would win everything. If wealth was all that mattered, Saudi Arabia would win it all. Quoting a sinlge country in a single sport is a poor analogy. Sure, the Australians are good swimmers, but they stink at most other sports (save Volleyball). The Netherlands? What else do they even play?
No one really cares how we swam 40 years ago. America rules in the pool now. There is zippo evidence that forcing swimming on the less fortunate has made any difference. Maybe we should build pools in rural Iowa so our farming brethren can excel at that as opposed to football.
Why do we have to put everyone in a group? ie WASP, African-American, Oriental. I would prefer to think of each person as an individual. I think as a society we'd be alot better off. :confused:
My thoughts on scholarships. Paying for club fees are just part of the costs. The club fees are probably only 1/3 to 1/2 of what I pay for swimming. There are also meet fees, 2.50-3.50 per event, swim a 3 day meet with 2 kids, you do the math. Do one of those meets a month, you are talking 300.00 in a season meet fees. In Central Illinois, we have to travel for meets, USA, Masters, no meets close. That means hotels and having a reliable car to get you there. A 3 day meet weekend in Chicago or Indy costs me anywhere from 200-400. The 200 is if I cart my microwave along, pack a bunch of meals in coolers, and eat in my room. Something I have done for JOs. There are admission fees, heat sheet fees at the meets that cost upwards to 30-50 dollars a meet.
My kids have not even got to the elite level. Sectionals last summer probably would have cost around 1000.00 to travel, y-nats if my son ever makes it will cost around 3000.00.
Also, going to all these meets takes time away from work. If you are working a job that you get paid if your there, not paid if your not, then you are not going to meets.
Yes, you can keep the cost down by doing small local meets, but if you want to bring your kids up to a level that colleges would be looking at them, you have to fork over the bucks and go to the meets.
Everyone is an individual, but there are groups out there that have things in common. These groups are under represented in our sport. If we want to reach those groups then we need to understand how we are failing now.
