or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Golf Digest cover with Paulina Gretzky
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Golf Digest cover with Paulina Gretzky - Page 7

post #109 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

SI has models in bathing suits as a special issue and no one here whines that the cover or entire issue should dedicated to the WNBA or LPGA.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

I think the difference with SI is the swimsuit issue is a defined issue, promoted in advance, for a magazine that covers all sports.  GD is a golf specific and targeted at only golfers.  GD may have gotten a bit of interest boost with this, but in the long run, I fear it will hurt their sales.

Actually, I think that is an unfair comparison towards GD because the SI swimsuit issue has been around for 30 or 40 years (whoops, just googled ... actually 50 years old!!!) and has BECOME a defined issue over time, promoted in advance, and for a magazine that covers all sports.

 

But I even remember in the 80's (when the issue was apparently already 20 years old) it was still considered controversial to some because, come on, suntanning on the beach is no more related to sports than Paulina Gretzky is related to golf.  Over time it developed into what it is today, which is an entire issue** devoted 100% to beautiful women in (and out of) bikinis.

 

**It used to be just one "article" out of the entire magazine that still had sports stuff in it.

 

If GD continued with this "fitness" thing, tried to make it a tradition with a hot girl on the cover every year, who knows, maybe it could turn into something positive.  (Next year, will it be Paris Hilton, whose affiliation with golf is that her family owns some hotels that are part of golf resorts around the world, or will it be Kim Kardashian, whose dad used to play golf with OJ a lot? ;-))

 

But if you're going to compare this to the SI swimsuit issue, I think you'd have to compare it to the issues from the 60's, and it's a safe bet that the reception was pretty similar for a lot of people.

post #110 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

There aren't facts to dispute, it's opinion.  You'd prefer an LPGA player on the cover and I don't have a problem with Paulina being on it.

 

My quote was in direct response to a fact, not the entire opinion. Her connection to golf is incredibly weak. That's a far closer to fact than an opinion. The opinion is whether you think her weak connection is enough to justify the cover, not that the connection itself is weak.

post #111 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post

This is basically how I feel. At this point, there's no "facts" to debate or discuss since this is purely subjective. It also appears as though nobody is changing anyone's mind. I don't care or have a problem with Paulina being on it as I find her attractive and I don't base my purchase on who is on the cover any way. When I ate Wheaties as a kid, I wouldn't not buy the cereal because of the athlete on the box. It was what was inside that was so damn good and kept me coming back for more.

Count me as another who doesn't mind Paulina on the cover (and I have a daughter too). It's harmless and it helped them sell a few more mags. No biggie. All the histrionics over it here and elsewhere will probably result in a few more LPGA cover stories over the next year so it's all to the good.
post #112 of 144
I don't have an issue with this at all. I try to be a big picture guy, and for me this doesn't really matter in the "real world" scheme of things. Are people going to go hungry because of this? Will people die? I know that may be over the top but that's just me.
post #113 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by colin007 View Post

I don't have an issue with this at all. I try to be a big picture guy, and for me this doesn't really matter in the "real world" scheme of things. Are people going to go hungry because of this? Will people die? I know that may be over the top but that's just me.

 

Gotta be honest - I never understood trying to make that point. If we applied that standard to everything, none of us would ever talk about GOLF let alone the cover of a golf magazine.

post #114 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

My quote was in direct response to a fact, not the entire opinion. Her connection to golf is incredibly weak. That's a far closer to fact than an opinion. The opinion is whether you think her weak connection is enough to justify the cover, not that the connection itself is weak.

My opinion is I don't have any issues with Paulina on a cover of GD regardless of her connection to golf, it's my opinion.  I don't care if the LPGA has their nose out of joint, I watch LPGA when no other golf is on, but I'm not cancelling my subscription to GD because their feelings are hurt.

 

If Holly Sonders looked like Mary on Big Break she wouldn't have been on a cover either.  Holly was on the cover because she's attractive and looks fit, not because she played D1 golf and is on the GC.

 

I'd be just as happy to look at Blair O'Neal wearing the same outfit on the cover if it makes you feel better.  The Holly and Paulina covers are eye candy, the purpose of them is to make you pick it up on the newsstand and browse through the pages.

post #115 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post

This is basically how I feel. At this point, there's no "facts" to debate or discuss since this is purely subjective. It also appears as though nobody is changing anyone's mind. I don't care or have a problem with Paulina being on it as I find her attractive and I don't base my purchase on who is on the cover any way. When I ate Wheaties as a kid, I wouldn't not buy the cereal because of the athlete on the box. It was what was inside that was so damn good and kept me coming back for more.

Count me as another who doesn't mind Paulina on the cover (and I have a daughter too). It's harmless and it helped them sell a few more mags. No biggie. All the histrionics over it here and elsewhere will probably result in a few more LPGA cover stories over the next year so it's all to the good.

What makes you think they sold more mags? I haven't seen anything to confirm that.....
post #116 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

What makes you think they sold more mags? I haven't seen anything to confirm that.....

Call me optimistic but I'm pretty confident they'll see a bump this month. Still on the newsstands I suspect. Perhaps in a month or two I'll take some time to do a little research to validate my assumption.
post #117 of 144

I don't think it's on stands yet. I get the digital edition, which is always available before the print edition, and I haven't received any notifications it is available. Actually it downloads automatically with my Next Issue subscription. Last night I still had the previous GD.

post #118 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

My opinion…

 

The fact that I've been talking about is that her affiliation to golf is far weaker. That's what I was responding to: http://thesandtrap.com/t/73652/golf-digest-cover-with-paulina-gretzky/90#post_973535 It's not a debate, or an opinion, it's just a fact. Even Holly Sonders has a golf-related affiliation that far surpasses Paulina's.

post #119 of 144

I suspect it wouldn't have been all that hard to get Natalie Gulbis to put on that outfit and pose like that for the cover.   She posed in SI wearing nothing but paint and has said before she doesn't mind being known as much for her looks as her golf.    I don't recall that particular picture causing such an uproar.     Since Natalie looks pretty damned fit to me, it seems GD could have avoided most of this argument altogether by choosing her over Paulina.   But with all that said, even as the father of three daughters, I don't have an issue with this cover.   Hell, I see women wearing less at the local WalMart during warm weather..

 

BTW, I feel the argument about whether Paulina is good looking or not is kinda moot.   Everybody has different tastes in what "floats their boat".   

post #120 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post

I suspect it wouldn't have been all that hard to get Natalie Gulbis to put on that outfit and pose like that for the cover.   She posed in SI wearing nothing but paint and has said before she doesn't mind being known as much for her looks as her golf.    I don't recall that particular picture causing such an uproar.     Since Natalie looks pretty damned fit to me, it seems GD could have avoided most of this argument altogether by choosing her over Paulina.   But with all that said, even as the father of three daughters, I don't have an issue with this cover.   Hell, I see women wearing less at the local WalMart during warm weather..

BTW, I feel the argument about whether Paulina is good looking or not is kinda moot.   Everybody has different tastes in what "floats their boat".   

And that my friend, is exactly the point. c2_beer.gif
post #121 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Gotta be honest - I never understood trying to make that point. If we applied that standard to everything, none of us would ever talk about GOLF let alone the cover of a golf magazine.

You're right, of course. We play/talk about golf because we like it. It's like gamers who get up in arms because of some change made to the newest version of Assassin's Creed 67. We'd laugh at them just as they'd laugh at us over this discussion...it just doesn't matter. We think it matters because of our personal interest, but it's just not a big deal.
post #122 of 144

Has anyone read the article?

 

Is the article about golf or fitness?

post #123 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Seriously, dude? I need to open my eyes while you tell me how to raise my daughter? Or how to view women? :doh:

 

My point is there are a million things out there that are more offensive to wives, daughters, and husbands then physically fit gal in workout clothes. If this is the one to take a stance against and companies and consumers are going to boycott then they are wearing rose colored glasses. Raise your daughter or view women as you see fit...that is the great thing about where we live...we can all have different opinions and they both may be right.

 

On a side note...I can promise you...there are many many women who are not offended by this cover...or images that are much more sexual in nature.

post #124 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfritchie View Post
 

My point is there are a million things out there that are more offensive to wives, daughters, and husbands then physically fit gal in workout clothes.

 

Duh. That doesn't mean I wish to expose her to those things yet, or that I should be okay with someone showing up on the cover of a GOLF magazine, a sport I've tried very hard to nurture in her as being fair, as having a great opportunity for women, as one in which you are solely dependent on yourself for your advancement in the game, and countless other things. Golf is one of the areas where I do not expect a floozie with a limited connection to the sport to further enhance the stupid stereotypes of how we expect women to look, behave, think, etc.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cfritchie View Post
 

If this is the one to take a stance against and companies and consumers are going to boycott then they are wearing rose colored glasses.

 

Not necessarily. Could simply be the straw that broke the camel's back, or they care very deeply about women and the game of golf, and are offended. Many members of the LPGA are offended. You don't get to impose your world view on others.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfritchie View Post
 

Raise your daughter or view women as you see fit...that is the great thing about where we live...we can all have different opinions and they both may be right.

 

Then stop telling me how. You assumed way, way too much about why I didn't care for the cover, how I raise my kid, how I view women, etc.

 

I'm well aware of how the world works, and behaves. There are increasingly fewer places where one can have a wholesome experience with their children. I'm saving as many of those as I can for as long as I can, and it was disturbing to have this crap invade a previously wholesome space. It sends the wrong message, and IMO, doesn't belong on the cover of Golf Digest. My daughter knows about a lot of the shit that goes on in the world. She's the opposite of sheltered - she's exposed to a good variety of stuff. We've treated her as an intelligent being since she was a baby, and it's showing.


But that doesn't mean we go out of our way to rub crap in her face, either, nor do we appreciate it when it's thrust into a space in which it does not belong or where better choices could have been made.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cfritchie View Post
 

On a side note...I can promise you...there are many many women who are not offended by this cover...or images that are much more sexual in nature.

 

Obvious and largely irrelevant as nobody's said all women are offended.

post #125 of 144

This thread is more heated than a bunch of adolescents fighting over who gets to use the porno first.

post #126 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bananarama View Post
 

This thread is more heated than a bunch of adolescents fighting over who gets to use the porno first.

I don't think it's necessarily "heated". However, this debate is mostly about moral fabric so it is going to come off as personal and maybe even a little "raw". I'm just glad it has stayed on topic, so that's a plus that we can all be happy about I guess.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Golf Digest cover with Paulina Gretzky