Throwdowns > Closed

BuckyBadger. said 06/08, 02:25 PM
This one is simple. Yes of course she was good for the sport. First and foremost she brought in fans to the sport and that alone is always good for a sport. One doesn't have to look very far to see examples of where an individual that moves the public and draws crowds getting the attention of the media and promotion of that sport. There is a certain cute girl in racing that gets the attention over her peers. Tebow gets all the attention of the media and most GMs and head coaches wouldn't want the headache. In MMA and Boxing we have seen lesser guys who have the fan base take the main event or the center of the promotion to sell tickets.

Who society rewards isn't a Women's Tennis issue but a society one. Don't blame Women's Tennis for capitalizing on what the public wants. Even with that said you are still missing the big picture which has become obvious now that the hype has died off. Where is Kournakova today?

Hard work is its own reward. Those who worked hard and succeeded don't completely wash out at age 31. Her modeling career has gone the same way as her Tennis career and she is only mentioned to take jabs about how bad a tennis player she was.

BuckyBadger. said 06/09, 04:41 PM
The world has always favored the beautiful people and in 50 years from now they will do the same thing. All this dooms day talk about what the world is coming to has also been around for generations. People have favored the fairer looking and this will will never change. If anything we recognize this fact a bit more where in past years they would have gotten a pass completely. Look at Marilyn Monroe's acting.

Be it morally acceptable to you, like or not Kournikova brought attention to her sport. People watched because of her. If only a small percentage of those fans decided they like the sport and became fans than the final result was a positive one. For a short period of time they gained millions of viewers, if 1 in a 100 of the net gain is a very good one?

What would you have the big tournaments do when she played? Put her on a side court befitting of what you think she should be and lose a small fortune in revenue? That is plain ridiculous and good for no one.

In the end the sport prevailed and she is now probably overly criticized for it. She didn't have that long of a career and washed out as a singles player rather quickly. Made much more money off the court.

BuckyBadger. said 06/10, 09:45 AM
No in all professions the beautiful people get favored. Was it more for Kournikova? Yes but some people move the needle more than others and for some reason she was a person people wanted to see.

Don't worry the #1 player benefited from Kournikova as well. She brought in revenue which in turn made the purses better. It isn't like the top players didn't get the court on bigger matches. I am sure it was just early ones in which no one cared when they didn't get the court. If they could pack them in they would tpp get the center court. Again it is about who is the draw.

You are trying to make some morality point here but it doesn't exists. The public wanted to see Anna play so that is what was given to them. Should Tennis just ignore what their fans wanted to see? Should they toss away millions of dollars just because you think there is a morality issue? No of course not.

You want all the players to make less money because you don't feel it right to take advantage of a player who fans want to see. You would deny a chance to grow the sport with a player that transcends sport. That my friend would be bad for the sport.