- 20 Aug 08, 02:46 PM
Don't knock synchronised swimming - imagine the strength, the poise, the precision and the amount of practice it takes to be the best of the best in aquatic gymnastics?
All while maintaining a rictus grin which would embarrass an angry hyena.
I did recently read that synchronised swimming doesn't now require its competitors to hold an incessant smile, but the performers still seem keen to show how much they're enjoying themselves while carrying out their routines.
If you've ever seen the camera shot from under the water, you'll get a much better idea of how difficult synchronised swimming really is.
The swimmers are like ducks, everything is going hammer and tongs under the water, while above it, everything is grace and serenity.
That's just one of the reasons I think synchronised swimming may well be one of the most impressive and skilful Olympic sports of all.
On Friday's edition of My Games we'll be talking about what you think is the most difficult and the most demanding Olympic sport.
You can e-mail us at mygames@bbc.co.uk or comment at the bottom of this blog.
Here's what a few current and former Olympians have to say:
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions
There must be something about water sports that makes me gravitate towards them, because I would also nominate water polo as one of the most impressive, difficult and skilful Olympic sports.
The amount of skulduggery that goes on under the water is astonishing. Water polo players not only need to be fantastic swimmers with huge lung capacity, they also have to be very very strong.
Apart from water polo's physical battles, one of the biggest differences I can think of between synchronised swimming and water polo is that the swimmers ALWAYS perform the same routine/routines.
Endless practice makes perfect, but in water polo, the players have to react to any given situation, so they have to watch, think, and then react.
Apart from the tactics required to outwit an opponent, just think of the other skills required to be a top class water polo player, you've got to be able to control, defend, and pass the ball, you've got to be able to shoot from all angles and ranges, and you have to be able to defend, distract and dominate your opponent.
All while trying to stop from drowning! I am in awe of them all.
So let us know what you think is the most impressive Olympic sport, and who knows maybe some of the world's top athletes will share the same opinion.
BBC Sport The Olympic Broadcaster
React to comment, analysis and opinion from BBC Sport experts at Beijing's Olympics and Paralympics.
Interactive Beijing map
Meet Monkey
Latest Photos
Clicking on any of these photos will take you to an external site.
Recent Comments
- SimonTheKid on Taekwondo needs to move with the times
- MariaFalouri on The odd couple unveil new shoes
- Ranga2522 on Hunt is on for Paralympic talent
- The-Shed-Bar on London confidential
- fionnualadooley on Which sports would you add to the Games?
Topics
Podcast
Download or subscribe to this programme's podcast
Fun and Games
Olympic standard
Do you have what it takes to excel at Denise Lewis' heptathlon?
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Wogan was not wrong ; Synchronised Drowning!
Complain about this comment
The Olympic motto is 'Citius, Altius, Fortius' - 'Swifter, Higher, Stronger' and so any 'sport' requiring the opinions of judges to decide the winners has no place there. First past the post or furthest etc. is all that should apply antherefore the Olympics could be slimmed down by removing such nonsensities as Gymnastics, Synchronised smiling, Diving etc. which would also remove many points of contention.
Complain about this comment
Nice to see some appreciation for water polo, but for those of us with just freeview the opportunities to follow it are rather slim. Granted there is no GB team as we didn't qualify but volleyball is there everytime I turn on my TV.
Come on BBC I want to see some skullduggery!
Complain about this comment
The problem with synchronised swimming is, whilst I'm sure it's very technically difficult it doesn't have the visual 'wow' factor of artistic gymnastics or diving.
As for the most impressive, what about table tennis? Incredible speed and skill in the control of spin - guile, power and a surprising amount of athleticism when played at the top level.
Complain about this comment
As a dad of a member of the GB synchro team who is training for London 2012 and also as a water polo coach, can I say how good it is to see that somebody appreciates how tough these two sports are. They both require fantastic levels of fitness, great swimming ability and also a special type of treading water called eggbeater but the similarity stops there.
Synchronised swimming blends gymnastics with swimming and yes, the swimmers do have to repeat their routines, but with absolute precision copying exactly what their partner or team mates are doing. This adds greatly to the difficulty.
As regards water polo, you write about skulduggery and I agree there is a lot of this. What many people don't realise, however, is that if a player is holding the ball the opposition can do virtually anything they like to them short of hitting them and if the player is sunk and takes the ball down with them, they are committing the foul, not the person doing the sinking!
Anyway, it is really good to see these two sports get such positive treatment. Thanks
Complain about this comment
Water Polo is definitely the "naughtiest" game there is. I played it as a youth but also took part in many other sports (e.g. rugby). When I played Waterpolo, we always wore 2 pairs of trunks so that hopefully we would have at least one set intact on at the the end of the game (and also the more important pair!!!).
The girls in my Swimming Club partook of synchronised swiming. When we boys tried it, we found it very hard and also extremely tiring (and we were strong swimmers and won championships at county and national level).
Between the 2, I would say that Synchro is harder. Water Polo does need you to have the ability to handle a ball with one hand and be a strong swimmer, but Synchro needs incredible stamina and fitness. I must admit though Synchro is rather boring to watch!
Britain has never been that good at Synchro or Water Polo. Hopefully, there will be efforts to get it together for 2012.
Complain about this comment
Rowing, over 6 minutes of driving your body to its limit whilst retaining mental focus to keep technique, to the extreme of collapsing as they cross the line and can't stand up when they get out of the boat/ being physically sick.
That's impressive in my book.
Also the marathon/ long distance events (cycling, openwater swimming etc), shear mental determination to keep driving for extended periods at phenomenal intensity.
Whilst impressive I am still sceptical of the judged events as there is so great a possibility of subjectivity.
Complain about this comment
Rowing must be in with a shout - strength, aerobic endurance (ticking the huge lung capacity thing in spades, look up Pinsent's VO2max), teamwork/synchronisation, balance and technical skill. Plus it's against the clock and a significant number of competitors need hospital treatment afterwards.
I'd guess whitewater kayaking needs similar skills to water polo? And they're not doing it in a nice warm, flat pool.
The multievents - tri/modern-pent/hept/decathlons are too obvious.
I'd also nominate my new favourite sport - open water swimming. Needs so much energy they start carbloading three days before the event. No contact in theory but in practice it's as bad as water polo. Fairground skills needed to pluck bottles of water from fishing rods held above the water. Danger of being stung by jellyfish or eaten by alligators.
Oh, and it requires such a unique set of skills that apparently only people from Stockport are any good at it.
What more do you want?
Complain about this comment
Meant to add - I only caught Spain in the synchro - well impressed, the Russians must have been amazing to beat that.
Complain about this comment
I have heard that doing a synchronised swimming routine is similar to running 400m under water. That sounds tough.
Complain about this comment
Dear ceedee63 and anyone else of the same opinion,
Your point about the olympic motto, while slightly better thought out than most brainless criticisms of synchro and other judged sports, still doesn't make the definitive point you think it does...
How do you think synchro swimmers get higher marks than their competitors? By being *swifter* at changing from one movement to another, one pattern to another, covering the area of the pool, etc. By being *higher* out of the water, both in eggbeater (head / body out) and vertical (legs out) positions, boosts, lifts, etc. And by being *stronger* to allow both of the above, particularly to provide the bursts of shear power required for lifts, and to be able to hold their breath for long periods of time while undergoing intense aerobic activity.
Far from fulfilling none of the "criteria" it fulfills all of them in complex ways that necessitate it being judged as opposed to in some ways simpler sports where anyone can tell who wins. Perhaps your actual reason for objecting to it is that you don't understand it.
I'd say that the lack of "wow" factor some people mention is also possibly at least partially due to a lack of understanding. I certainly find the Olympic synchro routines very impressive, as having done synchro competitively for 9 years (and I wish longer) I know just how tricky it all is. Have a go yourself, do some thinking about what the athletes are actually managing to do in an unstable medium where even staying on the surface of the water expends energy, and you'll have a new appreciation for it all! And I don't see how anyone can fail to find the lifts in the team events impressive.
I'm very glad though to see some appreciation for both synchro and water polo. Incidentally, synchro swimmers can make quite good water polo players, I found my synchro eggbeater legs extremely handy for water polo goalying, and I know other synchro swimmers who've become far better water polo players than me!
Complain about this comment
If CeeDee thinks that the Olympics should be slimmed down by removing anything that requires the opinion of judges then I think this would have offended many millions of British Sports fans who voted for Torvil and Deane as sports personalities of the year!
Complain about this comment
In the recent decades of the Olympics, there has been a taint of doping, even if it were small on your track and field events and the like. Is this justification to remove gymnastics because it uses judges? I think not. There sport is not so tainted though judging is flawed at times. So then, taking out judged sports would eliminate boxing and maybe wrestling too....hmmn, wrestling, Greco-Roman Wrestling, what Olympics these would be without such a "judged" event!
Complain about this comment
if the 'wow' factor matters then we could see the rowing events curtailed; 8 men in a boat -wow,it's only the commentators that keep it alive
Complain about this comment
What's the most impressive sport?
Skydiving without parachutes.
Avalache surfing.
and one for the pool...Shark dentistry.
Complain about this comment
After seeing the gymnastics gala, I would have to say tumbling. It's such an awesome spectacle.
Complain about this comment
I must admit, I cant stand synchronised Swimming. When its on the TV, i'm changing the channel!! That said you have to have a lot of respect for the Synchro Swimmers, the shear amount of effort required to do their routines must be immense.
My vote in this is going to the rowers, I could never imagine putting my body through what they put theirs through once a week, let alone for almost each and every day, often for years at a time.
Shouts must also be given to; Cyclists, Gymnasts and Long Distance runners.
Complain about this comment
Inherent
I agree regarding the wow factor - rowing races take a long time to develop and any changes happen gradually, so it is not particularly exciting to watch. Notice that I nominated table tennis but also mentioned the very visual sports of gymnastics and diving.
All those praising rowing in terms of endurance, how is it more demanding than e.g pursuit cycling (4.25 minutes at the highest speed you can maintain) or running e.g. 3000m steeplechase (8 minutes to total exhaustion).
I'm sure the synchro swimmers are just as dedicated, fit and skillful as the gymnasts or divers, it's just that half of the physical work is inevitably unseen by the spectator, so it doesn't look as awesome.
Complain about this comment
I don't really think you can compare the events to come up with the most "impressive." I think a person's knowledge of the sport plays a great deal. If you know nothing about shooting a pistol, comparing that sport to gymnastics or weight lifting seems like no contest. To me, lifting 200 kilos or hitting ten straight tens on a paper target is equally impressive, yet completely different.
Complain about this comment
any "sport" that requires make-up as part of the deal makes a mockery of sports.
synchronised swimming? cant type it without laughing. ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
The "WOW! factor" doesn't come from the sport it comes from the competitors.
I admire the divers, the gymnasts, the sync swimmers but in general the WOW has been missing. Noone took it beyond where they had been 4 years ago. They mayhave edged a few points but not breakthrough.
The GB team cycling has been hugely impressive. Phelps is amazing because of the continued focus.
My two passions have been rugby and sailing so Ben Ainslie has made an impression.
But the thing that will stick with me for years to come has to be Usain Bolt.
So for me, the msot impressive event has been the mens 200m.
In 4 years time it will be something else.
PS:
My apologies to water polo fans - I live in the US where such sports are not considered good enough to broadcast. We get endless hours of diving and gymnastics and not much else. The old saying of "500 channels and nothing to watch" is true.
beldrl
Complain about this comment
What about Dressage?
Ha ha, nah, obviously I'm just kidding.
Any sport whose winners are decided solely by judges is not a sport and has no justifiable place at the Olympics, but sticking to the question at hand, I'd agree with the previous poster who mentioned table tennis. Most sports, eg marathon, rowing, etc, are just about who is the fittest, others, such as the high-jump, are generally exclusive to tall people. Table Tennis, on the other hand, can be played by anyone able to hold a bat (paddle?) and it clearly requires immense skill and reactions.
Complain about this comment
Most impressive in the summer games - Decathlon. As for the winter games - Biathlon without a doubt.
As for Sychronised Drowning, do me a favour!
Complain about this comment
I would have to echo the Decathlon for the most impressive for it brings out an all-round Olympian...
That said, I cannot discount ANY of the actual events as to be the Olympics representing your nation (even a combined team such as GB) means that you have to be the best the nation can field...
I fail to see though, how BMX riding, beach volleyball and some other *new* events are Olympic sports - You still must be near brilliant to be there - but is that not what events like the X Games cater for?
Have been adicted to the Olympics though for the sheer ability of so many athletes and so many top medals by Team GB...
Complain about this comment
As a sibling of a gymnast, I am slightly biased but can't help but be amazed at what these gymnasts do, especially the men. The amount of work they do is unbelievable - they normally start the sport at the age of 6/7, by the age of 10 they will be training about 3 times a week and by the time they're 12 they train 5 times a week. When you then take into account the amount and severity of injuries they pick up along the way - all the gymnasts I know (around the age of 16/17) have all broken bones, had fractures, been through countless physio sessions to get their joint problems sorted and still are amazing gymnasts. I also know that those who are good gymnasts, can also then go on to be godd high jumpers etc.
I have to say though that I respect all Olympic athletes that compete, whatever sport they are competing in - to be the best in your country is an amazing achievement!
Complain about this comment
When I was a kid watching synchronised swimming, I always wonder why they keep grinning like that. I will then ask my parents if they can change the channel because the make up and the freakish grin scares me.
Impressive sports on my list : swimming, rugby and yeah table tennis.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the support of the synchronised swimming! I've been swimming now for 11 years, and its physically very demanding. And gunnercalum2903 is right, it has been described as running 400m underwater...except the 400m lasts under a minute, and our routines are a minimum of three!
And those of you wanting wow factor, just watch the free team finals. Who can say that throwing a swimmer (or two at the same time) and them completing a somersault is not wow factor? A dive off of an unsteady platform of usually three swimmers...that's enough wow factor for me! Plus then you have amazing choreography to fit a theme...no wonder synchro finals are often one of the first sell out of tickets. The top swimmers really manage to defy gravity.
But...at the same time, I can understand why some of you have found the duets shown a bit boring so far. I must admit, although the Russians are amazing technically I didn't find them as exciting to watch as some of the lower ranked nations. It was almost predictable in the amount of fast work they did, and not really a hint of a theme (unlike the Canadian dragon duet for example).
I think teams really are the show event for the synchronised swimming...shame there isn't a combination event, because I think they're the most exciting of the lot.
As for other amazing sports, I think they all are in their own way...whether it be things like the gymnastics (and synchro for that matter) where the idea is to make things look effortless or the long distance running, walking and swimming where the amount of training needed and focus is awesome. All of the sports need much training and rectifying of technique, which makes all athletes at the Olympics amazing in their own right.
Complain about this comment
I think any physically demanding sport has to be acknowledged. Some sport like softball has to be questioned - how many countries play that? I am representing GB in dragon boat racing this September in Italy it's a 2000 year old sport yet whilst recognised in over 60 countries and tens of thousands of competitors it isn't in the Olympics!
Complain about this comment
I'll question football. It has no credibilty here, or at least the way the organize it is stupid.
They should have 8 teams, each who compete in a knockout final.
it includes
1. The world cup winner
2. The world cup finalist/loser
3. European Cup Winner
4. African cup of nations
5. South Americas Cup
6. North Americas cup (if there is a double entry)
7. Asian Cup
8. Host Nation
Quarters are played outside of the games, a month before. WE then only have to watch three matches of quality. Otherwise it is too much of too little.
Complain about this comment
Walking has got to go. Stupid sport - run. Otherwise I want to see.
1. Fist fighting
2. Stone throwing (various weights)
3. Stone skimming (pond and pool)
4. Bowls
5. Street running and building jumping.
6. Extreme diving (50 meter boards)
7. Snooker
8. assault course (glamorized steeplechase)
Running
8. 50 miles
9. 100 miles
10. Backwards running (why not)
11. Wheelbarrow race (don't laugh, I've seen it done by real pros - stupidly fast)
12. Uphill running and stair climbing
13. three legged race.
Forget golf. I hate golf.
14. Formula 1, must be team entry (guaranteed British gold - they are all based in the UK)
800 meters hurdles.
Any other suggestions please. if you can have synchronized swimming you can have anything. Get organized, get good, make it an Olympic sport, and we'll win first time around.
Complain about this comment
Gymnastics without a doubt, no ball, no machine to help them - put an obstacle in the way - like a horizontal pole, and watch them go!
Complain about this comment
The funniest thing about the 2008 Olympics, besides Usain Bolts antics, is the announcement: 'On your marks' by the Olympic Official at the start of every athletics track race!
Complain about this comment
There is no doubt in my mind that all these sports require an extraordinary level of skill and fitness. Be they synchro or marathon running.
The question for me though, and the answer to this is subjective, is which ones belong at the olympics and which ones at a circus!
Complain about this comment
Triathalon is the toughest, although the Olympic distance does water it down a fair bit.
Would love to see the Ironman distance (2 mile swim, 120 mile bike followed by a full marathon) at the Games. Utterly brutal.
Complain about this comment
Gymnastics demonstrates an athletes grace and strength. Gymnasts also have more chances of getting injured. I love watching gymnasts do their routine.
Athleticism is also demonstrated in the Decathlon where each athlete has to compete in 10 events. Now that, I believe make them well rounded athletes.
So my vote goes to both gymnastics and the decathlon athletes.
Complain about this comment
I'd previously scoffed at synchronised swimming.......until I actually watched it that is! These women have to have the lungs of a whale, the bouyancy of a duck and the smile of the Cheshire cat (all of which I'd fail dismally at!). I don't think it is the most difficult sport, but it is certainly up there.
As for difficulty - gymnastics and any of the 'thon's (decathlon, pentathlon etc) get my vote
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
dummy_half (#18)
You ask how rowing is more demanding of endurance than cycling or running? I really don't want to get into "this sport is better than that one" - they're all amazing. But there is the obvious answer that rowers use all their bodies. Which in turn means that they have more muscles consuming energy, which translates to higher VO2maxes - generally regarded as the single best measurement of cardiovascular fitness by sports scientists. Rowers generally top the scale in absolute VO2max, cross-country skiers and cyclists come top if you allow for body weight, with swimmers and runners close behind. So that does give you some kind of "objective" measure of the endurance demands of each sport.
And if cross-country skiing is one of the most demanding endurance sports - then biathlon is just mental, the ultimate test of recovery from that extreme endurance sport.
I know what you mean about international rowing not being a great spectator sport - it would be much better if they switched to bumps racing, that is fun. ;-/ The standard "bankside" perspective doesn't help, it depersonalises the sport, it could be model boats out there. That's why I've liked the coverage in Beijing, the wire cameras have given a much better idea of the sporting endeavour involved.
That TV technology aspect is crucial I feel. For instance, the 10km swim and triathlon swimming could suffer from the same problems as rowing, they could be a bit impersonal and "abstract" seen from the bank. But those little boom cameras have been absolutely brilliant in drawing you in to the thick of the action so that you see all the little details, I'm sure those cameras have been key to making those events some of the most absorbing to watch in the entire Games. So ironically, perhaps synchro swimming could work on some new ideas for "presentation"? Obviously wire cameras are a bad idea when people are being thrown around the pool (might give people a chance against the Russians though...), but perhaps the teams could be told in advance that there will be an "eyeball" camera dangling down fairly close to the centre of the pool, and they just have to design their routines around it. You need to get casual viewers closer to the action.
Another thing is that the normal coverage is afraid to use the underwater cameras in case they "miss" something on top, but it's those cameras that show how much work is going on beneath the surface. With widescreen TVs more common these days, perhaps directors could be encouraged to make more use of split screens, showing above and below the water at the same time?
Going back on topic - I meant to mention the men's gymnasts, in particular on the rings - just mindblowing what they do there.
And for impressive sports - how about being beaten up for 8 minutes by someone who is stronger and fitter than Mohammed Ali ever was? It's not been a great boxing tournament IMO, but it's an historic sport that everyone can relate to, combining strength, skill, endurance - and getting repeatedly hit in the face.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS