jazzcyclist wrote:I agree that male athletes never get media attention because of their looks but they do get attention because of their personalities and life stories (eg. Dennis Rodman, Charles Barkley, Jeremy Lin, Oscar Pistorious).
What about David Beckham; he seems rather overrated as a soccer player, and yet he's in the news all the time; and I guess getting married to a pop singer is not what you'd consider a compelling life story.
sprintzfan wrote:Somebody please give me some feedback if you would, on my "Ryan Bailey to Lo Lo" analogy on page one of this thread. The portion I put in red font.
One difference between Bailey and Lolo is that Lolo has been a world class hurdler for several years, while Bailey hasn't been world class until this year.
sprintzfan wrote:Somebody please give me some feedback if you would, on my "Ryan Bailey to Lo Lo" analogy on page one of this thread. The portion I put in red font.
Another aspect of the specific Bailey example is that he's tall, I believe about the same size as Bolt. And there used to be that perception out there that that's too tall for a world class sprinter, so a tall athlete was more likely to play basketball or something else.
Now it's been a few years since Bolt has proven that perception wrong, and it should be a question of time until there are more tall world class sprinters. And that's something that makes Ryan Bailey's story compelling, so I'd actually like to see more coverage.
bekayne wrote:Just for the record, it wasn't the writer that made the comparison; he just quoted the professor at Western Ontario.
But the writer decided who he wanted to interview and what parts of the interview he wanted to print. Surely you don't believe there was any chance that the writer would have quoted any praise that the professor gave Lolo, do you? For all we know, the professor's interview could have been 90% pro Lolo, and the writer just cherry-picked the bad stuff.
j-a-m wrote: What about David Beckham; he seems rather overrated as a soccer player, and yet he's in the news all the time; and I guess getting married to a pop singer is not what you'd consider a compelling life story.
Not if you saw Beckham during his Man U days. Back in the 1990's he was something. But also a bit petulant. His antics against the Argies in the WC 1998 probably cost England's best hopes in the last 20 years.
Adriana S wrote:The only thing Lolo can be blamed for is the whole "virginity" thing.
I think if she had kept that one to herself, then the media downfall wouldn't be as harsh.
For some reason or another, that particular information really brought out the Internet haters. The backlash was both interesting and chilling to see.
Except for sometimes using it to project some kind of aura of immaturity on her, the attacks were not concentrated on the "virginity" thing, but on finding fault on anything and everything about her (the definition of a "hater", I guess). Was it just about holding on to their weird social norms (virgin = loser, Lolo = virgin, therefore Lolo must be a loser -> hate when she gets more attention than her "betters")?
But, in any case, I don't see how Lolo can be blamed for other peoples prejudices and sexual hangups.
Hating on her media coverage is a bit different. Luckily, I am not in a position to comment whether or not that was annoying enough to be a reason to hate the subject as well
Last edited by lapsus on Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Adriana S wrote:The only thing Lolo can be blamed for is the whole "virginity" thing.
I think if she had kept that one to herself, then the media downfall wouldn't be as harsh.
For some reason or another, that particular information really brought out the Internet haters. The backlash was both interesting and chilling to see.
Except for sometimes using it to project some kind of aura of immaturity on her, the attacks were not concentrated on the "virginity" thing, but on finding fault on anything and everything about her (the definition of a "hater", I guess). Was it just about holding on to their weird social norms (virgin = loser, Lolo = virgin, therefore Lolo must be a loser -> hate when she gets more attention than her "betters")?
But, in any case, I don't see how Lolo can be blamed for other peoples prejudices and sexual hangups.
Not that I care at all about this silly story, but it probably reminded everyone of what annoyed them about Tebow. Without Tebowism setting the scene this tale probably would never had gone far.
Conor Dary wrote:Not that I care at all about this silly story, but it probably reminded everyone of what annoyed them about Tebow. Without Tebowism setting the scene this tale probably would never had gone far.
Sounds like a reasonable explanation too. I was spared any excess Tebowism, too, here in Europe - just saw some news and clips about some surprise victory and thought to myself "that would probably have been very interesting to see live... perhaps I should try watching some NFL matches next year to see what is so interesting about it" - so I couldn't associate it with Lolo.
Conor Dary wrote:Not that I care at all about this silly story, but it probably reminded everyone of what annoyed them about Tebow. Without Tebowism setting the scene this tale probably would never had gone far.
Whay annoyed me about Tebow is the fact that he wore his religion on his sleeve. The virginity thing didn't bother me just like it didn't with AC Green.
Conor Dary wrote:His antics against the Argies in the WC 1998 probably cost England's best hopes in the last 20 years.
I'm no Beckham fan but I don't blame him too much for that red card. Simione had just finished kneeing him in the back, when the ref was not looking, and Beckham's retaliatory flick was trivial in comparison (but stupid), and probably some what instinctive as he was trying to get rid of the Argentine.
tracknut2012 wrote:Lolo had some crocodile tears on her interview on NBC.Fake, phony. Damm I hate it. Your 5 minutes of viginity fame is up Lolo.
Actually she didn't shed any tears. Look at the video in 1080p if you don't believe me.
She wanted to and you could hear it in her voice. She just needs to go away.
You heard in her voice that she wanted to cry fake crocodile tears?
When the biggest and most pretigious newspaper in the country publishes an article that sounds like it was written by your bitterest enemy, I don't think it's necessary for most of us to fake being shaken up a bit. My voice would probably be quivering a bit if that happened to me. Who wouldn't be rattled under those circumstances? And how do you know "she wanted to cry fake crocodile tears", but couldn't? Are you a mind reader?
I finally got around to reading the piece. Yes, it is over the top. Frankly, he should have gone after NBC for promoting LJ so heavily. After seeing so many preview ads, and I don't watch that much TV, that I kept wondering if NBC realized she lost in 2008 and was unlikely to do much better this time around.
And I see Tebow is mentioned! Without Tebow setting the pathway I really doubt there would have been much of a LJ story.
And did she really send a silly twitter with the gun story?
jazzcyclist wrote:When the biggest and most pretigious newspaper in the country publishes an article that sounds like it was written by your bitterest enemy, I don't think it's necessary for most of us to fake being shaken up a bit. My voice would probably be quivering a bit if that happened to me. Who wouldn't be rattled under those circumstances? And how do you know "she wanted to cry fake crocodile tears", but couldn't? Are you a mind reader?
Lets see.. all Lolo has done is overcome a difficult childhood, devote eight years to becoming a world class hurdler, suffer a crushing defeat graciously, work four more years and come nearly all the way back in record time from surgery to correct a congential defect, endure unwarranted sniping for presenting a naturally pleasant personality to the public as she captured the attention of the media. What's not to hate? Yep, I don't know how it came up in the interview but, although admirable, she probably should have kept the virginity thing to herself. Actually, I thought it refreshingly amusing that she commented staying chaste was more difficult than training. I am not aware she has ever criticized her competitors. It is not her fault she is attractive or that the media did not lavish praise on her contemoraries. Anyone in her circumstances would be foolish not to captilize on once a in lifetime opportunity. .
Not that I care at all about this silly story, but it probably reminded everyone of what annoyed them about Tebow. Without Tebowism setting the scene this tale probably would never had gone far.
Hmm. Interesting theory.
I have never quite understood why her virgin thing bothered people as much as it apparently does. Maybe it is linked with Tebow resentment. Thank CD.
As for Tebow resentment. The guy bugs me too. But it isn't because of his religion or any stance he has taken on sex. I just think he is SUPER overrated by a lot of folks....Apparently John Elway agrees with me.
lonewolf wrote:Lets see.. all Lolo has done is overcome a difficult childhood, devote eight years to becoming a world class hurdler, suffer a crushing defeat graciously, work four more years and come nearly all the way back in record time from surgery to correct a congential defect, endure unwarranted sniping for presenting a naturally pleasant personality to the public as she captured the attention of the media. What's not to hate? Yep, I don't know how it came up in the interview but, although admirable, she probably should have kept the virginity thing to herself. Actually, I thought it refreshingly amusing that she commented staying chaste was more difficult than training. I am not aware she has ever criticized her competitors. It is not her fault she is attractive or that the media did not lavish praise on her contemoraries. Anyone in her circumstances would be foolish not to captilize on once a in lifetime opportunity. .
Let's cut her some slack.
And, kudos to her for finally firing back.
Yes, most admirable. The trouble is that when you want to be constantly in the news (a la Brett Favre a few years ago), it may backfire. It backfired. End to the tempest in the teapot.
Pego wrote:Yes, most admirable. The trouble is that when you want to be constantly in the news (a la Brett Favre a few years ago), it may backfire. It backfired. End to the tempest in the teapot.
WIth all due respect Pego, the Favre analogy is unfair and makes no sense IMO. Look at his rap sheet:
Drug addiction
Sent lewd pictures to another woman who isn't his wife, who then filed harassment charges against him
Strung out the Packers for two seasons in a row, not letting them know until midsummer whether he would return to the team
Strung out the Vikings for one season until August, forcing the team to fly down to see him at his house in Mississippi and find out his intentions were
Demanded that he be allowed to skip summer training camp with both the Packers and the Vikings
What does Lolo have on her rapsheet that compares with these things.
Adriana S wrote:On The New York Times calling her the "Anna Kournikova of track":
"They didn't even do their research, calling me the Anna Kournikova of track. I have the American record. I am the American record holder indoors, I have two world indoor titles. Just because I don't boast about these things, I don't think I should be ripped apart by media."
She continued:
"I think it was crazy just because it was two days before I competed, and then the fact that it was from a U.S. media, they should be supporting our U.S. Olympic athletes and instead they just ripped me to shreds."
I give her my utmost respect. Glad she's defending herself
Lolo wasn't winning at 60 meters in the Olympic final, and this is also outdoor season where the race is 100 meters anyway, so how is her being an indoor champ relevant? It isn't.
"They should be supporting our U.S. Olympic athletes" I agree, and they totally didn't support Dawn Harper and Kelley Wells. Lolo is also hypocritical as she has made negative comments about her fellow American track athletes on twitter before.
Lolo basically now comes off as some spoiled, snobbish, brat. She didn't deserve the coverage. She played the media for attention, and some of it whipped right back and smacked her right in the face.
Also, Lolo claiming she is still a virgin is, laughingmya$$offable, and that is real talk. Some women forget that a reputation built up when you are a younger lady, is often hard to seperate yourself from, especially if you end up being someone in the spotlight when you are older. What is even more laughable is that the media took that story and ran with it, like it is truth.
Bottom line, she got what was coming to her. She wanted to be a media darling, even though she hadn't earned that type of attention on the track. Only a spoiled brat would expect to have it only one way.
Nowhere did I imply similar personality traits in any other area but an attention seeking behavior. You want to be a constant celebrity, be prepared that somebody will take a potshot at you and scrutinize your every little move, fairly or unfairly.
Nowhere did I imply similar personality traits in any other area but an attention seeking behavior. You want to be a constant celebrity, be prepared that somebody will take a potshot at you and scrutinize your every little move, fairly or unfairly.
But there are are other athlete/celebrities that you could have compared her to that don't have Favre's character flaws and history of bad behavior (eg. Sharipova, Danica, etc.). I would have thought that you would have compared her to one of them if all were trying to say is that she's guilty of wanting to be a celebrity, which she is. The Favre comparison implies that she's also guilty of unnaceptable/bad behavior other than being a celebrity.
Edit: Here's a funny take on Lolo Jones from the Tom Joyner Morning Show along with some other Olympic and social commentary.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nowhere did I imply similar personality traits in any other area but an attention seeking behavior. You want to be a constant celebrity, be prepared that somebody will take a potshot at you and scrutinize your every little move, fairly or unfairly.
But there are are other athlete/celebrities that you could have compared her to that don't have Favre's character flaws and history of bad behavior (eg. Sharipova, Danica, etc.). I would have thought that you would have compared her to one of them if all were trying to say is that she's guilty of wanting to be a celebrity, which she is. The Favre comparison implies that she's also guilty of unnaceptable/bad behavior other than being a celebrity.
sprintzfan wrote:You guys please feel free to help me tweak my Ryan Bailey analogy to best illustrate the point I'm tring to make there. Maybe he isn't the best Lo Lo type male equivalent in terms of his story and accomplishment level, but I hope you still get the point I'm driving at there, even if Ryan Bailey isn't the best male athlete I could have chosen to serve as my example.
If there is a better case of a "very good looking" male athlete who just is not as good as a couple of his closest competitors, I'll gladly replace his name and chosen even with Bailey and the Men's 100m.
Funny that you mention Ryan Bailey, because when they were lining up the 100m, my wife said "Oh, he's good looking!" Anyhoo...on with the thread...
I keep thinking: Who the hell is Jere Longman? An obscure writer very few people have ever heard of before writing a cheap hatchet job about a high profile athlete? One who trots out an even more obscure "expert" from the University of Western Ontario to support the purely personal opinions that the NYT decided to publish?
Then, too, I keep thinking who are these people who keep posting pathetic mewlings about Lolo's virginity or her intention to cry? What do they know about it and why do they care?