leroyjenkens
- 615
- 49
She's a skier. That's a skiing pose, especially since she's going downhill. That's what they do to reduce drag. What other skiing pose is there?
leroyjenkens said:She's a skier. That's a skiing pose, especially since she's going downhill. That's what they do to reduce drag. What other skiing pose is there?
She should also be paying attention to the slope rather than looking at a cameraman. She could hit a tree!Topher925 said:People will find anything to complain about. The only problem I have with that picture is her hair isn't being blown back when she is obviously traveling downhill at high velocities.
Evo said:It has to do with the supposed "pure" image people want of the Olympic athletes. Doesn't bother me at all, but IIRC, pre Olympic publicity has always been frowned upon. They're supposed to earn their lucrative advertising endorsements after the games.
Yes, you're right, and that's sad. It's a showcase to sponsor professional athletes with multimillion dollar contracts. It's become a farce, a way to get free advertisment. Makes my decison to not watch it feel even better.f95toli said:Maybe 30 years ago. The ban against professional athletes disappeared from most of the sports a long time ago and the vast majority of the all competitors nowadays are full-time professionals. Some of the hockey players that will compete in the Olympic tournament are among the best paid athletes in the world.
Vonn and her competitors are definitely all professionals and if you live in a country where downhill skiing is a popular sport you'll see them on billboards etc quite often. I would be VERY surprised if anyone with any interest in the sport would have a problem as such with Vonn making money via advertising.
Evo said:Yes, you're right, and that's sad. It's a showcase to sponsor professional athletes with multimillion dollar contracts. It's become a farce, a way to get free advertisment. Makes my decison to not watch it feel even better.
I didn't see anyone else cite the original source or say what the real issue was considered to be.BobG said:She should be wearing a helmet, making her hair irrelevant.
I might sound misogynistic here, but there is a definite double-standard when it comes to this kind of thing. We get it hammered into our heads that women are objectified, teen girls are fed an unrealistic body image, etc...but the fact is that popular media feeds us images of men that way too...and men don't care. The originator of this Lindsey Vonn issue - and many, many others like her - has a chip on her shoulder she needs to have removed.Klockan3 said:I don't get it, why don't they endorse this kind of thing?
When they put out pictures of models they say "Women aren't that thin, it is unhealthy, stop promoting bad ideals!". So why don't they accept it when they put up elite sportswomen?
I mean, she obviously isn't too thin or she wouldn't be a top athlete, she got natural breasts etc. What is wrong with pictures of a real woman? Isn't it good to have athletes as ideals? Isn't that their main job, to be ideals for the rest of the population to strive for so that they get healthier by exercising?
Also, about suggestive, just look at:
http://blogg.idg.se/data/portfolio_blog/51/82/62/4421847/6610b86c24c39691
Evo said:Yes, you're right, and that's sad. It's a showcase to sponsor professional athletes with multimillion dollar contracts. It's become a farce, a way to get free advertisment. Makes my decison to not watch it feel even better.
Ivan Seeking said:Well, it's only fair considering that our athletes had to compete with government sponsored athletes from places like China and the Soviet. In the old days, our athletes were expected to train while working a full-time job, among other things. Meanwhile, the Soviet and China were selecting future olympians as small children and then providing dedicated training, facilities, and living needs.
So true. A soviet-era athlete would have been trained intensively, provided with room and board, a commission as a military officer and pay, ostensibly for their military service. It's pretty hard for an amateur with no other financial support to buck that advantage.Ivan Seeking said:Well, it's only fair considering that our athletes had to compete with government sponsored athletes from places like China and the Soviet. In the old days, our athletes were expected to train while working a full-time job, among other things. Meanwhile, the Soviet and China was selecting future olympians as small children and then providing dedicated training, facilities, and living needs.
russ_watters said:I might sound misogynistic here, but there is a definite double-standard when it comes to this kind of thing. We get it hammered into our heads that women are objectified, teen girls are fed an unrealistic body image, etc...but the fact is that popular media feeds us images of men that way too...and men don't care.
turbo-1 said:Amateurs in the US had a tough time competing with the professionals from communist countries.
DanP said:Some amateurs, yeah. But you had your share of athletes in several sports who where far from the image you describe in this post. They where every bit as "professional" as their eastern block counterparts.
Ivan Seeking said:The fact is that ALL US athletes were true amateurs. Some were lucky and came from familes that were well off, but others were playing on a very unlevel field. Still, the US athletes have always been among the best. It is a true testament to not only the talent, but also the dedication of the athletes of old.
As a rule, the money only came after winning gold.
DanP said:Maybe during '50s .
The obvious case-in-point is the 1980 US hockey team which was a bunch of college kids against a Russian pro all star team, akin to a college all star basketball team beating a Dream Team.Ivan Seeking said:Long after that. I would say this was true well into the 80s. It was certainly true while I was growing up in the 60s and 70s.
WELL into the 80s. My young friend was training for the Seoul Olympics (1988) in the hope that white-water kayaking would at least be a demonstration event. One of the women coaching her gave me a short but pointed lecture about not doing anything in compensation for my lessons that might damage my friend's amateur status. They were quite serious about avoiding even the appearance of being pro or semi-pro in their chosen sport.Ivan Seeking said:Long after that. I would say this was true well into the 80s. It was certainly true while I was growing up in the 60s and 70s. It was common knowledge. There was no secret money system. At most one hoped to get sponsorship for training geer and other hardware.
I think her face looks better in the cover photo.fourier jr said:i don't think she looks any better than any other skier. just check out this pic:
even with all the airbrushing sports illustrated probably does she still needs to get a face. you might say she's a "handsome" woman.there are dozens of olympic athletes who look at least better & they don't sell out to sports illustrated
Not yet. NBC embargoes coverage until prime-time, so I'll have to watch tonight if I get a chance. I read that she went down HARD after almost 60 meters airborne - I hope she's not seriously injured.Borek said:Exactly - sex or no, she is fast
Have you seen Anja Paerson falling?
I hope that she's not injured, and that she'll get to compete in other events she has qualified for. It would be sad to see a promising athlete knocked out of a competition that only comes around once in four years.Borek said:Eurosport transmitted live. I think problem was not when she landed after the fly (even if it wasn't controlled landing she still managed to land on the skis and heading in the right direction, she was just too far behind to keep balance), but she rolled after. Hard to say about injuries, after a minute or two she walked to the track side, but then she sit down or even laid back on the snow, I have not seen what have happened later.