I certainly understand why the women golfers feel this is crap. I watch the LPGA and enjoy their tournaments greatly.
But life ain't fair, Dear Heart.
Golf Digest, a money-making enterprise, owes the LPGA nothing. If they felt putting In Bee Park on the cover would sell more magazines than young Ms. Gretzky, they would do so.
That being said, the Editor's explanation sets a new standard in dissembling: “Sports figures, celebrities and models have appeared on Golf Digest covers since the magazine’s beginning. Paulina ranks at the high end of the golf celebrity scene today, and she has a compelling story to tell. She also might get some new people interested in the game.”
1. Play a lot better than you do so people take notice of your golfing skills not just your looks 2. Up your game: Play tough courses with long fairways and challenging greens instead of the easy courses that are favored by the LPGA 3. Win on the men's golf tour playing against men on the much more difficult PGA golf courses
Golf Digest isn't exactly high brow reading for golfers. I understand that they are trying to sell magazines to duffers who don't have a snowball's chance playing a par round.
It makes sense for them to put Paulina on the cover, I suspect most of the guys who read it only play a few times a year, company outings and the like. I doubt most of those guys even care about the LPGA tour.
The NYT column reads like someone having a snit who doesn't read the magazine. Golf Digest isn't about covering the professional golf tours. It's a lifestyle magazine about all the things amateur golfers might be interested in (equipment, nice courses/vacations, instruction).
This was their fitness issue. There's no message that "this celebrity should be emulated because of her golf game". It explicitly is about her body, which makes some kind of sense.
Sometimes it's just a club on the cover. Why not complain that Stacy Lewis didn't front the equipment issue? It would make as much sense.
I respect the female pros. but game and glamor are what get attention.
There are women pros with lots of game, and it's interesting to watch them play. But there isn't the depth on their tour, so too many of their players are mediocre. Some are just bad (by pro standards.) But the best are really good. But asking them to be equivalent in a contest with the men is ridiculous. The men have a physical advantage that can't be overcome.
Then there is glamor. There are some LPGA pros who are very attractive, but they are definitely the exception. In fact the claws come out for really beautiful female pros, few of which have been the top players as well.
And the men? Greg Norman, Arnold Palmer, Bobby Jones, Adam Scott, Fowler, Faldo, Harrington, Azinger, Baker-Finch, Ballestreros, Ricky Barnes, Darren Clarke, Dustin Johnson, Zac Johnson, Ben Hogan, Jimmy Demaret, Jack Nicklaus (post weight loss), Johnny Miller, Johnny Goodman, Walter Hagen, Hale Irwin, Martin Kaymer, Sidney Levin, Davis Love, Rory McIlroy, Byron Nelson, Jumbo Ozaki, Jerry Pate, Henry Pickard, Gary Player, Doug Sanders, Denny Shute, Camillo Villegas etc etc It's a long list and I'm just thinking of a few.
Men's golf is filled with very good looking men, and is and always has been sold on that basis. That plus having less cream at the top hurts the female pros in the publicity department (which is not the same as respect.)
Female tennis players embrace the sexism and thereby prosper.....That's the path the LPGA should take. There's no reason why women can't play golf in black yoga pants. Get Lululemon (if that's their name) to sponsor a tournament.......Per David above, there aren't many good looking female golfers, but it only takes one, and she doesn't have to be all that good. Again, see tennis. They'd occasionally break away from Kornikova to cover the tournament winner but that's not where the ratings were.
But asking them to be equivalent in a contest with the men is ridiculous. The men have a physical advantage that can't be overcome.
No more or less ridiculous than telling basketball players who are 5'6" that if they want the respect/publicity/etc. accorded to NBA players, they have to successfully compete with the tall. Indeed, we don't even have a special Short NBA.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
18 comments:
step 1. Start your own magazine called Women's Golf digest
step 2. Put LPGA golfers on the cover.
step 3. go out of business.
Bet it does well well on the newsstand (for GD).
Nudity! Or the threat of nudity! Just like everyone...
"We don’t get respect for being the golfers that we are."
Well, actually, you get all the respect that male golfers of your ability level get, and then some.
"It’s like, What do you have to do to get a little respect?"
Place in the top ten in any PGA Tour major?
Women's leagues are minor leagues.
I certainly understand why the women golfers feel this is crap. I watch the LPGA and enjoy their tournaments greatly.
But life ain't fair, Dear Heart.
Golf Digest, a money-making enterprise, owes the LPGA nothing. If they felt putting In Bee Park on the cover would sell more magazines than young Ms. Gretzky, they would do so.
That being said, the Editor's explanation sets a new standard in dissembling: “Sports figures, celebrities and models have appeared on Golf Digest covers since the magazine’s beginning. Paulina ranks at the high end of the golf celebrity scene today, and she has a compelling story to tell. She also might get some new people interested in the game.”
1. Play a lot better than you do so people take notice of your golfing skills not just your looks
2. Up your game: Play tough courses with long fairways and challenging greens instead of the easy courses that are favored by the LPGA
3. Win on the men's golf tour playing against men on the much more difficult PGA golf courses
Since Golf Digest is "home field" to the most popular recreational hard-on drugs, the cover kind of makes sense.
There's no LPGA seniors' tour. Why is that?
You want respect? Play with the men.
Golf Digest isn't exactly high brow reading for golfers. I understand that they are trying to sell magazines to duffers who don't have a snowball's chance playing a par round.
It makes sense for them to put Paulina on the cover, I suspect most of the guys who read it only play a few times a year, company outings and the like. I doubt most of those guys even care about the LPGA tour.
The NYT column reads like someone having a snit who doesn't read the magazine. Golf Digest isn't about covering the professional golf tours. It's a lifestyle magazine about all the things amateur golfers might be interested in (equipment, nice courses/vacations, instruction).
This was their fitness issue. There's no message that "this celebrity should be emulated because of her golf game". It explicitly is about her body, which makes some kind of sense.
Sometimes it's just a club on the cover. Why not complain that Stacy Lewis didn't front the equipment issue? It would make as much sense.
When your audience is lesbians...
I respect the female pros. but game and glamor are what get attention.
There are women pros with lots of game, and it's interesting to watch them play. But there isn't the depth on their tour, so too many of their players are mediocre. Some are just bad (by pro standards.) But the best are really good. But asking them to be equivalent in a contest with the men is ridiculous. The men have a physical advantage that can't be overcome.
Then there is glamor. There are some LPGA pros who are very attractive, but they are definitely the exception. In fact the claws come out for really beautiful female pros, few of which have been the top players as well.
And the men? Greg Norman, Arnold Palmer, Bobby Jones, Adam Scott, Fowler, Faldo, Harrington, Azinger, Baker-Finch, Ballestreros, Ricky Barnes, Darren Clarke, Dustin Johnson, Zac Johnson, Ben Hogan, Jimmy Demaret, Jack Nicklaus (post weight loss), Johnny Miller, Johnny Goodman, Walter Hagen, Hale Irwin, Martin Kaymer, Sidney Levin, Davis Love, Rory McIlroy, Byron Nelson, Jumbo Ozaki, Jerry Pate, Henry Pickard, Gary Player, Doug Sanders, Denny Shute, Camillo Villegas etc etc It's a long list and I'm just thinking of a few.
Men's golf is filled with very good looking men, and is and always has been sold on that basis. That plus having less cream at the top hurts the female pros in the publicity department (which is not the same as respect.)
Female tennis players embrace the sexism and thereby prosper.....That's the path the LPGA should take. There's no reason why women can't play golf in black yoga pants. Get Lululemon (if that's their name) to sponsor a tournament.......Per David above, there aren't many good looking female golfers, but it only takes one, and she doesn't have to be all that good. Again, see tennis. They'd occasionally break away from Kornikova to cover the tournament winner but that's not where the ratings were.
I thought the cover a few months back with Arnold Palmer and Kate Upton was a bit odd. It was sort of a mock American Gothic.
They must be trying to attract men in their 20s to subscribe.
But asking them to be equivalent in a contest with the men is ridiculous. The men have a physical advantage that can't be overcome.
No more or less ridiculous than telling basketball players who are 5'6" that if they want the respect/publicity/etc. accorded to NBA players, they have to successfully compete with the tall. Indeed, we don't even have a special Short NBA.
Hello? Why don't we have a short/weak men golf tour? Or an NBA for men who are short, can't jump, or run fast?
The only reason we have women's tennis, the LPGA, and WNBA is because the short, slow, and inferior players have boobs and a vagina.
Which is why RH's comment is so on point.
Post a Comment