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 5

post #73 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

 

Again.......ask BP if any publicity is good publicity.  GD wants to sell magazines.  If the talk is more negative than positive, that talk may reduce magazine sales in the longer term.

 

 

Again,

 

That's a irrelevant comparison...BP didn't create the oil spill to get attention, GD did create the cover to get attention. They understood the risk and reward of picking what some might think is subjective or controversial.

 

Golf Digest knows who their target market is...

 

78% Male with 63% of those males being 18-54. Of the males who are in that group I wonder how many can name 3 members of the LPGA or even care about the LPGA! At your course this weekend I'd be curious how many people know the name of the LPGA victor from the major this past weekend...or how many even knew there was a major. I do suspect there will be lots of discussions about various T&A of which some might be of Paulina.

 

As others said...Paulina is connected to golf...they are promoting the game.

post #74 of 144

Aren't they promoting golf by putting a recreational golfer, Paulina, who happens to be an attractive and famous "starlet" to men on the cover of a golf magazine? It's obvious that nearly everyone in this forum who has posted so far knows who she is. She's also attractive to most men and the cover is eye-catching. I think that's a win-win for them. They wanted attention and they got it.
 

The bottom line is that beauty sells. The unfortunate truth is that this magazine with <insert attractive woman's name here> on the front cover will sell. A magazine with Paulina on the cover will sell. A magazine with an SI model who has nothing to do with Golf on the cover, will undoubtedly sell. A magazine with the best LPGA player at this time (most of us don't even know who that would be), or the last winner on the LPGA Tour (most of us, again, can't name that woman) will probably not sell as well if she's not attractive.

The answer to this "travesty" is simple. Biology and marketing (consumer demographics). Majority of the market = men, so you cater to men. Biology typically dictates that men want to see attractive women in general, so having one on the front cover on a magazine is playing it safe by sales standards. As sexist, disgusting, or horrible as this may sound to women and LPGA players, it's the truth.
 

However, I'd personally rather see Christina Stockton, Blair O'Neal, Anna Rawson, or Kathleen Ekey on the cover. They're much more relevant to the game than Paulina and they're also very attractive.

I still wouldn't sway my readership or subscription status either way just because they put Paulina on the cover. To me, that is ridiculous.

post #75 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

 

However, I'd personally rather see Christina Stockton, Blair O'Neal, Anna Rawson, or Kathleen Ekey on the cover. They're much more relevant to the game than Paulina and they're also very attractive.

I still wouldn't sway my readership or subscription status either way just because they put Paulina on the cover. To me, that is ridiculous.

I agree, but of the players you mentioned, only Kathleen Ekey is on the LPGA Tour and she's not even Top 100.  I would think if any of those women were featured on a cover in provocative clothing the LPGA would still be upset.

post #76 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post

Not her sexiest magazine cover, but to be fair:

 

The Kate Upton cover was not only not exactly "sexy" it had… Arnie Palmer on it too.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

I can't imagine why anyone would cancel their subscription to GD because they chose to do a sexy cover with Paulina rather than most of the unattractive LPGA players. Covers aren't really designed with the subscribers in mind, it's for newsstands so they can catch peoples eye.

 

Covers should still not offend the subscribers.

 

And do you seriously believe there are not 10-20 highly attractive women on the LPGA Tour? Or that you couldn't learn something from Annika Sorenstam, or Stacy Lewis, or Yani Tseng, or whomever else might be "unattractive" to you but still have a helluva better golf game than you?

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

Aren't they promoting golf by putting a recreational golfer, Paulina, who happens to be an attractive and famous "starlet" to men on the cover of a golf magazine? It's obvious that nearly everyone in this forum who has posted so far knows who she is. She's also attractive to most men and the cover is eye-catching. I think that's a win-win for them. They wanted attention and they got it.

 

As I said before, I don't think she's attractive. I like "girl next door" types.

 

And attention is not always good. Y'all keep downplaying the BP example, but it simply boils down to the fact that "any publicity is good publicity" is not true.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

The bottom line is that beauty sells.

 

Sometimes.

 

But let's say Golf Digest put a nearly nude female model on the cover every month. Do you think that, over time, their subscriber and reader base would go up or down? The content stays the same inside - it's still about golf. Do they get more readers or fewer?

 

I think they get fewer. Golfers cancel their subscriptions, newsstand people have other magazines to look at (MAXIM, etc.) that actually show more pictures of hot chicks inside, etc.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

The answer to this "travesty" is simple. Biology and marketing (consumer demographics). Majority of the market = men, so you cater to men.

 

That oversimplifies things too much. Majority of market = GOLFERS, many of whom would disagree with you about how "attractive" Paulina is.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

I still wouldn't sway my readership or subscription status either way just because they put Paulina on the cover. To me, that is ridiculous.

 

Because you think she's attractive.

 

I think the cover sucks. If golf weren't my life, I'd probably cancel too (I think I get my subscription free right now, as a PGA member…?).

 

I'm the father of a daughter, and the husband to a wife. It's a shitty message to send that Paulina is how women should be taught to look. It sure as hell doesn't belong on a golf magazine. Like it or not, though their market is primarily men, it's not entirely comprised of men. They still have Stina writing for them, IIRC, and they still have female instructors in their Top ## lists and thus publishing tips in the magazine.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

I agree, but of the players you mentioned, only Kathleen Ekey is on the LPGA Tour and she's not even Top 100.  I would think if any of those women were featured on a cover in provocative clothing the LPGA would still be upset.

 

The others are or were very recently professional golfers, and have been for quite some time. It's not like they're simply marrying a pro golfer and playing (poorly) recreationally.

post #77 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

I can't imagine why anyone would cancel their subscription to GD because they chose to do a sexy cover with Paulina rather than most of the unattractive LPGA players.  Covers aren't really designed with the subscribers in mind, it's for newsstands so they can catch peoples eye.

I believe that there are at least two posts in this thread where somebody said that they were either cancelling their subscription, or never buying a GD again because of this.  Seems a little rash, but, hey.  And I agree with your second point.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cfritchie View Post
 

 

Again,

 

That's a irrelevant comparison...BP didn't create the oil spill to get attention, GD did create the cover to get attention. They understood the risk and reward of picking what some might think is subjective or controversial.

He's not comparing Paulina to an oil spill.  He's simply using BP as an example as to why the old saying that "any publicity is good publicity" is inaccurate.  That doesn't mean that publicity from Paulina on the cover falls into the "any publicity" category, it just means that its not a guarantee that just because she is on the cover, that its a good thing.

 

And using our little community here as a barometer (albeit, a very unscientific, unrandom one) I would point out that I've read of a couple of guys that said they'd stop buying or subscribing to GD because of this and I haven't read of anybody who is going to start buying or subscribing or buying GD because of this.  That would push the needle ever so slightly in the direction of this having been a bad idea.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

Aren't they promoting golf by putting a recreational golfer, Paulina, who happens to be an attractive and famous "starlet" to men on the cover of a golf magazine? It's obvious that nearly everyone in this forum who has posted so far knows who she is. She's also attractive to most men and the cover is eye-catching. I think that's a win-win for them. They wanted attention and they got it.
 

The bottom line is that beauty sells. The unfortunate truth is that this magazine with <insert attractive woman's name here> on the front cover will sell. A magazine with Paulina on the cover will sell. A magazine with an SI model who has nothing to do with Golf on the cover, will undoubtedly sell. A magazine with the best LPGA player at this time (most of us don't even know who that would be), or the last winner on the LPGA Tour (most of us, again, can't name that woman) will probably not sell as well if she's not attractive.

The answer to this "travesty" is simple. Biology and marketing (consumer demographics). Majority of the market = men, so you cater to men. Biology typically dictates that men want to see attractive women in general, so having one on the front cover on a magazine is playing it safe by sales standards. As sexist, disgusting, or horrible as this may sound to women and LPGA players, it's the truth.
 

However, I'd personally rather see Christina Stockton, Blair O'Neal, Anna Rawson, or Kathleen Ekey on the cover. They're much more relevant to the game than Paulina and they're also very attractive.

I still wouldn't sway my readership or subscription status either way just because they put Paulina on the cover. To me, that is ridiculous.

I agree with most of this.  (Except for the part about not knowing who the last winner on the LPGA tour was ... come on, everybody knows that one!!)

 

They could have easily gotten away with an attractive non-golfer in a less sexy pose (like the Kate Upton cover), or a golfer like Natalie Gulbis in an equally sexy pose (or for that matter, even Holly Sonders, which they did not too long ago without any controversy) ... but the combination of the non-golfer (who happens to have a reputation of being a bit, uhhh, trampy - I don't know of a better word) in a sexy pose pushed the boundaries, apparently too far for a lot of people.  I, personally, do not subscribe to or purchase golf mags, and so I don't really care.  If I was at the newsstand and wanted a magazine with a sexy and ****ty girl on the cover though, all be damned if I'm wasting my money on one that has a bunch of dudes on the inside.

post #78 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfritchie View Post
 

 

Again,

 

That's a irrelevant comparison...BP didn't create the oil spill to get attention, GD did create the cover to get attention. They understood the risk and reward of picking what some might think is subjective or controversial.

 

 

 

You miss the point.  The old adage is that ANY publicity is good publicity.  It isn't.

 

They may understand the risk/reward.  That doesn't mean they come out on the side of that equation they thought they would though.

post #79 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

The Kate Upton cover was not only not exactly "sexy" it had… Arnie Palmer on it too.

I'm sorry, I don't follow you here.  Are you suggesting that Arnold Palmer is NOT sexy?!?!?!?! :bugout:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

That oversimplifies things too much. Majority of market = GOLFERS, many of whom would disagree with you about how "attractive" Paulina is.

Not trying to say I find her unattractive, but (and I'm sure this has already been said in here) to put a rail-thin, well-known party girl on the cover of an issue under the guise of "fitness" is pretty freaking lame.

 

"But, but, but ... she has yoga pants and a sports bra!!"

post #80 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

 

You miss the point.  The old adage is that ANY publicity is good publicity.  It isn't.

 

They may understand the risk/reward.  That doesn't mean they come out on the side of that equation they thought they would though.

 

Oh No, I get your point...

 

But to compare the publicity of a cover you may disagree with to that of a major disaster is ludicrous. That's like saying a shooting that takes place in a McDonalds is a good thing for McDonalds because no publicity is bad publicity which is beyond that of any common sense.

 

There is 0% chance this has a negative impact on subscriptions or more importantly advertisers...seems we've not heard a single advertiser step-up and say they are out. The cover is not overly sexual or the person is not a "demon" in the eyes of the media/public...for example the cover of Rolling Stone that had the Boston Bomber on it...that most of us agree was crossing a line.

 

Pissing off the LPGA? I don't see the LPGA contributing much to the publication? Do they buy ads? Is the demographic that follows the LPGA a big player in GD..I don't think so...

 

Like I said earlier...look at the followers on twitter....Paulina has more then triple that of the LPGA..

post #81 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfritchie View Post
 

 

Oh No, I get your point...

 

But to compare the publicity of a cover you may disagree with to that of a major disaster is ludicrous. That's like saying a shooting that takes place in a McDonalds is a good thing for McDonalds because no publicity is bad publicity which is beyond that of any common sense.

 

 

 

Then you don't understand the context of the original adage......

post #82 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

As I said before, I don't think she's attractive. I like "girl next door" types.


This is the beauty of having diverse opinions. We are all entitled to them. However, I do not believe it is wrong or inaccurate to point out that the majority of men can simply say "Paulina is attractive". That's not a jab at you, obviously. We all have our thing that we look for. Like I said, I would have preferred Christina Stockton, Blair O'Neal, Anna Rawson, Kathleen Ekey, or Holly Sonders.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

And attention is not always good. Y'all keep downplaying the BP example, but it simply boils down to the fact that "any publicity is good publicity" is not true.


That is obviously true. However, I did mention that they (GD) wanted attention. BP definitely did not want that attention. The guys and gals over at GD are smart enough to know what they were doing. Garnering publicity that you intended to receive is a success and much different than receiving negative publicity for a tragedy/accident. I can't see how those are comparable and I think it's a stretch.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

That oversimplifies things too much. Majority of market = GOLFERS, many of whom would disagree with you about how "attractive" Paulina is.


The majority of Golfers are also men, so my point stands. Many may disagree that Paulina is attractive, however I do believe the majority would agree. This opinion, of course, is based solely on her fame and following. There are many attractive "famous athlete's daughters" out there, however there are not many who receive thousands of views on every scantily clad photo that they upload to the internet either.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

I'm the father of a daughter, and the husband to a wife. It's a shitty message to send that Paulina is how women should be taught to look. It sure as hell doesn't belong on a golf magazine. Like it or not, though their market is primarily men, it's not entirely comprised of men. They still have Stina writing for them, IIRC, and they still have female instructors in their Top ## lists and thus publishing tips in the magazine.


When I see this cover, I simply see what I find to be an attractive girl on the front cover who is comfortable with her body and is involved in and enjoys golf. To me, it's relevant. Sure, some may see this as a bad message to send to women by subliminally saying "Look like this and you can be on the cover too!". However, nobody can ever argue the fact that sex does sell when it is tastefully implemented with relevance. To me, there is nothing distasteful about this cover. I do want to show this cover to my wife and ask her what she thinks as well, just out of curiosity. Though, she will probably just say "Who cares?" because she's not interested in anything pertaining to golf.

There are some people that will inevitably think this cover is pig-headed, disgusting, sexist, etc. There are some people who will simply skim right past the cover nearly thoughtless, or mindless to who the "pretty girl on the front is" (or if they find her not attractive, they'll just skip "the girl on the front"). There are also some people who will say "Damn, she's hot!" and move on and keep reading, or perhaps stare at the cover for a while.

The thing is, more people will either fall into B.) Not minding the cover, or C.) enjoying the cover. These as opposed to the number that are A.) Outraged, disgusted, upset, livid, offended, etc.

BUT, you cannot go as far as to throw the scenario of a "half naked girl" on the cover of the magazine. In this case, she's wearing modern athletic attire. She could obviously be covered up more, but hell this is nothing in 2014. I've seen girls wearing much less while jogging in the street, or even at the course with skirts that leave nothing to the imagination and tops that V down to their belly buttons.

post #83 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Not trying to say I find her unattractive, but (and I'm sure this has already been said in here) to put a rail-thin, well-known party girl on the cover of an issue under the guise of "fitness" is pretty freaking lame.

 

Not only lame, but insulting to some.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

I'm the father of a daughter, and the husband to a wife. It's a shitty message to send that Paulina is how women should be taught to look. It sure as hell doesn't belong on a golf magazine. Like it or not, though their market is primarily men, it's not entirely comprised of men. They still have Stina writing for them, IIRC, and they still have female instructors in their Top ## lists and thus publishing tips in the magazine.

 

Anyway…

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cfritchie View Post
 

Oh No, I get your point...

 

You really don't seem to. You seem to be stuck in the concept that this IS good publicity. Circular logic, of a sort.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cfritchie View Post
 

There is 0% chance this has a negative impact on subscriptions or more importantly advertisers... seems we've not heard a single advertiser step-up and say they are out.

 

I know of at least two companies who are no longer going to advertise with Golf Digest, and this thread has had a few people cancel their subscriptions, so I think you're wrong there.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfritchie View Post
 

Pissing off the LPGA? I don't see the LPGA contributing much to the publication? Do they buy ads? Is the demographic that follows the LPGA a big player in GD..I don't think so...

 

Okay, how about this: we're going to drop your pay by 10%, because that's not a "big player" in your paycheck, that extra 10%. You shouldn't mind that it's missing.

 

The point I'm making is that while Golf Digest may mostly be for male golfers, there are plenty of ways to appeal to nearly 100% of their audience. This cover not only probably pisses off the majority of the women, it risks pissing off some of the men too. For what? What gains can be made to offset the upset people, even if they're not "big players"?

 

I see this as a net negative.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

This is the beauty of having diverse opinions. We are all entitled to them. However, I do not believe it is wrong or inaccurate to point out that the majority of men can simply say "Paulina is attractive". That's not a jab at you, obviously. We all have our thing that we look for. Like I said, I would have preferred Christina Stockton, Blair O'Neal, Anna Rawson, Kathleen Ekey, or Holly Sonders.

 

So? As I just typed, there are covers they could have put out that wouldn't have pissed off anyone.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

The guys and gals over at GD are smart enough to know what they were doing.

 

That's an assumption you're making because you've already made up your mind. A while ago they put a picture of a noose on the cover after what Kelly Tilghman said. Did they "know what they were doing" then?

 

Just because someone does something doesn't mean we all get to assume they're smart and know what they're doing. This could result in a net negative. It could be a mistake.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

The majority of Golfers are also men, so my point stands.

 

No it doesn't. Decisions are not ruled by "well, 51% of people like it" because if you keep doing things that only 51% (the "majority") of your audience likes, well… you do the math. What's 51% of 51% of 51% of 51%? Gaining ten readers while losing 20 is a net negative.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

When I see this cover, I simply see what I find to be an attractive girl on the front cover who is comfortable with her body and is involved in and enjoys golf.

 

I think we can all stipulate to the fact that you think she's hot. You seem to be giving your own opinion of how attractive she is and how attractive you think she is to other men a lot of weight.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

However, nobody can ever argue the fact that sex does sell when it is tastefully implemented with relevance. To me,

 

I don't think it's particularly tasteful or relevant. I cut that off before you gave your own opinion too much weight again. :)

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

There are some people that will inevitably think this cover is pig-headed, disgusting, sexist, etc. There are some people who will simply skim right past the cover nearly thoughtless, or mindless to who the "pretty girl on the front is" (or if they find her not attractive, they'll just skip "the girl on the front"). There are also some people who will say "Damn, she's hot!" and move on and keep reading, or perhaps stare at the cover for a while.


The thing is, more people will either fall into B.) Not minding the cover, or C.) enjoying the cover. These as opposed to the number that are A.) Outraged, disgusted, upset, livid, offended, etc.

 

Now you're just guessing.

post #84 of 144

I have not been to an Exxon gas station since Capt Hazelwood ran the "Dez" aground.  I will not go to a BP station now either.  So IMO bad publicity is bad.

 

There are a lot of very attractive LPGA players that IMO push Paulina to the average category.  The latest major champ and runner up are two examples.  GD did themselves a disservice by alienating the woman golfer who actually may buy their mag.  Women tend to buy more magazines than men.  Any college marketing major knows that.

 

I don't get GD because it is not a very good magazine anyway.

post #85 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

The point I'm making is that while Golf Digest may mostly be for male golfers, there are plenty of ways to appeal to nearly 100% of their audience. This cover not only probably pisses off the majority of the women, it risks pissing off some of the men too. For what? What gains can be made to offset the upset people, even if they're not "big players"?

This, I can agree with. 

However, on the flip-side, you have to take into consideration how many more Golfers may know what Golf Digest is now when they didn't before. If they already knew about GD, how many of them are interested in buying this specific mag which could lead to a subscription? Surely there are tens of thousands of golfers who never bought the magazine before. Did they reach a small percentage of that untapped market with this controversial cover? Who knows. They will soon find out if this was "worth it" though. I am only stating my opinion that I think it was indeed worth it for them. Only time will tell.

post #86 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

 

 

I know of at least two companies who are no longer going to advertise with Golf Digest, and this thread has had a few people cancel their subscriptions, so I think you're wrong there.

 

 

 

 

"If" this is true...it does no good to take a stance in private? Who are these companies? To say the 10% of those who are fans of the LPGA are now never going to pickup GD is a big stretch. Because one or two folks who might be out of touch with today's media find this cover offensive isn't going to have any impact on the magazine. I make my living in this world...I can promise you there are more advertisers getting on board and loving all the attention then those leaving the publication. Let's wait and review this in 90 days, a year from now... I don't see GD going under anytime soon...

 

For those who think this cover crossed a line of sexuality and they think it is a bad message for their "daughters" you need to wake up and open your eyes. There is hardly anything overtly sexual about the cover. Her cleavage is mostly covered and she is wearing pants. She is wearing more then your daughter or wife wear to go swimming. Today's high school senior portraiture is much more "mature" then this image.

 

You also can't please 100% of the people....most die trying

post #87 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

However, on the flip-side, you have to take into consideration how many more Golfers may know what Golf Digest is now when they didn't before.

 

Educated guess? Virtually zero.

 

And if there are 100, 99 of those 100 may very well remember it as "that crappy magazine that put a [floozie] on the cover" because that's how it's being discussed.

 

I've made my guess: net negative.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cfritchie View Post
 

"If" this is true...it does no good to take a stance in private? Who are these companies?

 

Not everyone needs to send out a press release to pile on to a controversy.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfritchie View Post
 

To say the 10% of those who are fans of the LPGA are now never going to pickup GD is a big stretch.

 

Nobody has said that.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfritchie View Post
 

Because one or two folks who might be out of touch with today's media find this cover offensive isn't going to have any impact on the magazine.

 

You're guessing (as we all are), and I'd also suggest that you're way off in saying "one or two folks."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cfritchie View Post
 

Let's wait and review this in 90 days, a year from now... I don't see GD going under anytime soon...

 

Weird bar to set, eh? "If they don't go under soon, this was a success!"? Seriously?  You and I will never know the sweeping results, probably because there won't be any. It's a blip. But I think, given what I've seen and heard, it's a net negative blip. You feel otherwise. Fine.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfritchie View Post
 

For those who think this cover crossed a line of sexuality and they think it is a bad message for their "daughters" you need to wake up and open your eyes. 

 

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

post #88 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

I don't get GD because it is not a very good magazine anyway.

 

The more I think about it, only a magazine/company that is in decline would find the need to do something like this  Just a guess (I could be wrong).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyder View Post
 

However, on the flip-side, you have to take into consideration how many more Golfers may know what Golf Digest is now when they didn't before. If they already knew about GD, how many of them are interested in buying this specific mag which could lead to a subscription? Surely there are tens of thousands of golfers who never bought the magazine before. Did they reach a small percentage of that untapped market with this controversial cover? Who knows. They will soon find out if this was "worth it" though. I am only stating my opinion that I think it was indeed worth it for them. Only time will tell.

 

That's all fine and dandy.  Still doesn't explain why they couldn't have placed at least 1 LPGA golfer on their cover in the last 6+ years (that's what, +/- 72 covers or so and not at least 1 LPGA player).  There is no excuse.

post #89 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith View Post
 

 

That's all fine and dandy.  Still doesn't explain why they couldn't have placed at least 1 LPGA golfer on their cover in the last 6+ years (that's what, +/- 72 covers or so and not at least 1 LPGA player).  There is no excuse.

I think the answer lies in the facts and history, very few people would know who the model was from the LPGA.  There are 12 covers a year, at least one of those covers is dedicated to equipment not a person.  Of the other 11, how many are of PGA pro's that do not already get a lot of media attention.  Golfers get covers if they are well known, won a Major recently or are at least in the Top 25 on PGA.

 

I consider the Paulina cover in the same way I did the Sonders cover, except Sonders works on the GC, neither belong on a cover because of their golf skills they just look hot (imo).

post #90 of 144
Sonders played college level golf IIRC.
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