Here is a link to Part 1 of an article Russ Hafferkamp and I wrote for Swimming World magazine. The article discusses the sharp decline (virtual disappearance) of the elite water polo/swimming dual-sport athlete. I will post the link to Part 2 of the article as soon as it appears in Swimming World. My hope is that Swimming World will increase its coverage of water polo.
The Century of the Elite Water Polo/Swimming Dual-Sport Athlete (swimmingworldmagazine.com)
Thanks for sharing this Jeff!.
My completely uninformed hypothesis for the decline is that training specialization and a more competitive landscape is what’s driving this. As the bar for competition has raised, I’d imagine it’s less and less likely that a given athlete will have the combination of physical ability AND training time to become proficient in both.
I think an interesting parallel to explore the crossover between track & field with sports like American football, soccer, etc.
Really looking forward to part 2!
Great article Jeff. Looking forward to part 2.
I often thought that there are less dual water polo/swimming athletes today, due to the way the game has changed with less movement (especially on men’s side.) Countries without a strong swimming tradition like Hungary and the Balkan countries dominate and have made the game (due to current rules), a static, non counterattack game with big guys, who spend them their whole time trying for an exclusion to score an extra man goal.
I think this is a really important discussion to have in our sport, and am excited to read Part 2 of this article.
I believe there are a number of factors at play that influence this shift in American aquatics, some of which others have mentioned in their replies. I’ll add my thoughts to the discussion as well.
The most important factor to me is the rise of year-round competitive club competition for water polo that creates a direct competition with swimming that didn’t exist in the past. Where once water polo was something that was restricted to a high school season for most athletes which made swimming the default option for staying in shape outside that season, now athletes are encouraged to play water polo exclusively or near exclusively throughout the year. Likewise, swimming has pushed for more specialization and training exclusively in swimming for its athletes as well.
As a corollary to this, coaching has seen a similar split. Where once the swim coach and water polo coach at an organization were one and the same, this is becoming more rare. On the club level I don’t know if there are any coaches who coach both swimming and water polo, but it must be very few. Even at the high school level, the increased demands on running a program and the “professionalization” of sports has made it difficult to have a high school program (where you are expected to train kids almost year round) with a single aquatics coach.
The rise of club water polo has also increased the adversarial relationship between the two sports in my view. Where once swim coaches weren’t threatened by water polo because it was mostly something players did as an off season activity as a “break” from swimming, now there is added pressure in both sports to “capture” the good athletes sooner and specialize them in a single sport quicker. Similarly, as club water polo has grown the demands by water polo for more pool time–time that was once monopolized by swim programs–has grown in kind. This furthers that adversarial relationship between the sports where they are competing for limited resources (athletes and facilities).
Some of this is spurred by the overall shift in youth sports in America. The movement away from rec leagues and similar localized competitions and towards pay to play regional and national club competitions has created an arms race that parents and coaches gladly take part in. Parents expect early specialization and year round training in whatever sport they choose regardless of what research suggests is best for athletes.
Overall, I think this has hurt water polo development more than almost anything else because you are not getting players with the aquatic base and skill sets that a lifetime of competitive swimming provides. I think this can be seen in the shift in events that water polo athletes are competing in when they do swim. In my experience, the new crop of water polo athletes that have only ever really played club water polo specialize as sprint freestylers and do not have the developed skills to perform in the other stroke events because they are not ever practicing those strokes the way dual sport athletes in the past were.
@breckweiny that’s a really interesting point about adversarial relationships between the swim and water polo organizations.
I’ve casually observed that swim clubs generally seem to be better resourced. My working explanation is due to the potential team size per practice session.
Let’s say we have an 8 lane short-course pool, I bet a swim team could reasonably run a productive training session w/ 40 - 50 athletes and two average coaches.
On the other hand, I’d struggle to see two average coaches run an effective water polo practice with similar numbers due to the required spacing alone. In the example pool, we’d likely only have 2 half-courts running which limits shooting + tactical drills etc.
IMO the main advantage in water polo is that it’s a more interesting activity 
All that to say, if there’s an arms race, I’d guess swimming is better funded.
You are absolutely correct. It’s a pure numbers game. Swimming can both have more athletes and (at exclusive clubs) charge them more as well.
You can see this reflected in the compensation for club coaches in my experience as well. I was being paid 1/3 to 1/2 the salary as a club water polo coach that my wife was being paid when she was a club swim coach. And that doesn’t even compare the time commitment of each. For instance, my wife only had to attended 1-2 meets a month whereas water polo often had me at events every single weekend.
The club swim teams also compensated for these meets and the travel to them better than any water polo club I worked for (or USAWP for ODP or national team events but that’s another topic).
Obviously these are only my experience and that of those I’m familiar with, but I think it holds true most everywhere. The economics of the two sports and the industry around them are vastly different for two sports that are so closely related.
Here’s an article posted today by the CWPA that dovetails with this:
DID YOU KNOW: THE 1964 YALE UNIVERSITY MEN’S WATER POLO TEAM HAD FOUR OLYMPIC SWIMMERS
This is a very interesting topic. I personally feel that the year-round proliferation of the different club sports has really put a damper on athletes playing more than one. Many clubs demand their absolute attention and put pressure on them to fully commit.
I had 2 athletes in both sports for more than 5 years, and it’s manageable until the first HS polo season. That’s the point where an athlete needs to make a decision which route to take.
When we discovered polo as a club swim family, our oldest daughter realized why her club swim coaches always discouraged her from trying polo. It wasn’t that polo would ruin her swim stroke, it was that she would inevitably choose polo over swim. Her swim times actually improved because of polo, but we all found polo to be much more enjoyable.
The ROI on swim training is just not there, and many elite swimmers could go months/years without seeing an improvement. That can be disheartening. Imagine if club polo players put in the same amount of hours/days training as club swimmers do? The clubs that can pull that off are rare due to the cost/pool constraints mentioned above.