NYT Article wonders why women like Suzy Favor Hamilton don't get comebacks like Tiger Woods did (except for Serena)

David S wrote:

-Golf is difficult but it isn't a real sport

-I'm tired of hearing about Tiger Woods

1. Neither is freaking running.

2. Tough beans

Kristin Armstrong won the Rio women's time trial at 42 yo in Rio 2016 olympics (3x winner, 2008, 2012, 2016).

Indeed, she "made a comeback" just becoming a cyclist, retiring from running/triathlon at 27 due to osteoarthritis.

Then retired again in 2009 for family reasons before kicking it into higher gear again.

Came out of retirement to try to compete in 2015 Pan-Am (denied by USA cycling by regs), won the US time trials instead, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristin_Armstrong

She looks much better with a bit more weight on her. I never found her extremely thin look "sexy"...

.Trump2020OP-the real one......... wrote:

What good is a SFH thread without pics?

Thank You!!!

https://www.instagram.com/p/BwmvKhIArbT/

T.M.A.D.H.A.S.F.N.E.

Not Funny wrote:

Women aren’t interesting. Look at Desi

x 1,000,000

Seriously. Desi bores the crap out of me. Just look at her. And women’s sports are boring too. Softball, WNBA, Who cares? Try listening to a female on an Ultra Podcast discuss her feeding plan, running as a single mom, blah blah blah. Very uninteresting.

This guy said it wrote:

And women’s sports are boring too. Softball, WNBA, Who cares? Try listening to a female on an Ultra Podcast discuss her feeding plan, running as a single mom, blah blah blah. Very uninteresting.

So what'didya think of the WWE WrestleMania main event?

Falacious Reasoning wrote:

The comparison that Crouse makes between Woods and Favor Hamilton is a faulty one. Favor Hamilton was long retired from word class racing when reports of her escort work surfaced in 2012 (and long past the age where a comeback would have even been physically possible), whereas Woods was still competing and winning in 2009 when Elin called Rachel.

This. The very premise of the article is asinine.

It pretends such a comeback is even POSSIBLE in our sport at her age after years of retirement.

Woods achieved a come-back. Only the first part of the noun applies to FH.

The hilarity of Trump's screaming about the FAKE NEWS NEW YORK TIMES is that he's dead wrong about all of his specific complaints but would be dead on if he read the sports section. They love the Grrl Power nonsense and don't really even try to hide the lies or the slant.

sparky polastry wrote:

I forced myself to read the article. It is indeed terrible and seems like a straight up troll job. Flawed logic aside though, what really bothered me is her claim that the "public immediately chastised" Serena Williams after her extended argument/game penalty at the US Open last year. That is a bold faced lie and complete misrepresentation of what happened, when the public and media largely backed her claims of sex based discrimination and any public criticisms from media figures were very mild and cautiously worded.

Exactly this. It's not just Williams she lies about in this area:

"Consider how swiftly the Olympic runner and nine-time N.C.A.A. champion Suzy Favor Hamilton was vilified after she was caught working as an escort while coping with mental illness. Nike immediately severed ties, as did many other groups associated with her. The athletic achievements on her Wikipedia page became subsumed by stories of prostitution."

Suzy Favor Hamilton wasn't raked over the coals to nearly the same extent TW was. This is exactly how it should be because TW was a cheater whereas Suzy Favor Hamilton was whoring with hubby's permission, but the point is that the author is either lying or ignorant. This is to be expected of women, who lack both the brains and the integrity to tackle socially controversial subjects. Thus they wind up belly-aching about nonexistent gender discrimination and double standards and a lack of proper respect.

And seriously, claiming that mental illness and not a basic hankering for cash was the driver of Suzy Favor Hamilton's Vegas gig? You basically have to be a demented slattern yourself to even think this. I read some of her book and had to put it down because I risked breaking a rib or something laughing at the rank bullshit in there.

If women would quit being distracted by the urge to gold-dig and leave foul snail-trails wherever they go, they might attain the kind of intellect needed to play alongside the boys. But until that happens, it'll be more "We don't get any respect." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Misogynists be misogyning.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:

Misogynists be misogyning.

And us misanthropes,be misanthroping (?)

I have to be honest, I never followed the Tiger Wood story. Tiger was turning tricks for money in Vegas?

That’s crazy. The guy has serious mental issues.

I thought that he simply had a mistress.

Did Suzy come back and win an Olympic Title?

Tiger came back and won the Masters.

Did She wrote:

Did Suzy come back and win an Olympic Title?

Tiger came back and won the Masters.

Exactly.

I won't claim to have "the" answer but I'll offer this:

I did a lot of local media interviews after the Tiger scandal broke because sports scandals is my area. One point that I made was that Tiger would never be loved and redeemed again until he won another major. The rise, fall, rise again story needs "rise again" to be complete and winning any average PGA tournament just wasn't enough. If he never won another major he would always be "the guy who ruined his own career... derailed his pursuit of Jack needlessly" and so on.

The problem for SFH is that there was never an opportunity to rise again within the sporting context.

Saying "I'm sorry" isn't rising again. Speaking engagements on mental illness isn't rising again. We like people who achieve within the domain that made them famous in the first place.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Woods achieved a come-back. Only the first part of the noun applies to FH.

You can get a comeback with Suzy, but you have to pay extra.

For one there was no comeback possible for SFH, her athletic career basically wrapped up nearly a decade before.

Perhaps if it hadn't and she had come back to win the Olympic Trials or medal at the olympics things would have been different.

Also TIGER is GOLF and is responsible for the modern day popularity of golf. He wins and he is forgiven because he is the chosen one.

In what way(s) did Suzy materially suffer from being exposed as a call girl? The article states without evidence that male athletes can redeem themselves after pratfalls more easily than women athletes, then proceeds to make no case for it.

I naturally pictured the reporter to be some huge butch lesbian, especially after seeing that she'd also written a story about female (sic) shot-putters. She's not, though; she's just a lying idiot.

Cameltoe Dreams wrote:

In what way(s) did Suzy materially suffer from being exposed as a call girl? The article states without evidence that male athletes can redeem themselves after pratfalls more easily than women athletes, then proceeds to make no case for it.

Did you read the article? It points out that she lost her sponsorship.

Cameltoe Dreams wrote:

I naturally pictured the reporter to be some huge butch lesbian, especially after seeing that she'd also written a story about female (sic) shot-putters.

This is pretty revealing about you.

Cameltoe Dreams wrote:She's not, though; she's just a lying idiot.

Just because you think her comparison is strained doesn't make anything in the article a "lie." In any event, I think you're missing the point. She's not simply saying that SFH and Woods are the same but being treated differently. She's noting how Woods was embraced after his comeback, questioning whether a woman would receive the same treatment, and using SFH to suggest that, generally, the public is less forgiving of women. SFH can still be a useful case study without being in a perfectly analogous situation.

And Crouse is certainly not an idiot. She ran track at Harvard. She's also one of the few high level, mainstream journalists to cover track and field, and we're lucky that the NYT indulges her when she wants to write about one of her personal interests.

800 dude wrote:

Did you read the article? It points out that she lost her sponsorship.

.

The question is really who is the right comparison for Suzy Favor (B lister a decade past her moment in the sun)? How many awards and sponsorships do OJ, Ray Rice, Nate Newton, and Barry bonds have these days? The author is talking about the Tiger Woods (note moral failing no crimes) and Vicks (definitely a crime) and ignoring the rest. If your a guy with the Q rating of Suzy Hamilton, and you screw up, you get dropped and forgotten pretty quick. Espeically if you past your prime. Now there are basically 0 female athletes with high enough Q ratings to survive a big scandal. But look at what woman in hollywood with high Q ratings get away with. How many second chances has Lindsay Lohan had? Or Drew Barrymore? Britney Spears? If you still have talent and people can make money off you, you will get plenty of second chances.

Now there are probably different lines. Suzy being a whore is a line that a lot of people feel pretty uncomfortable with. It is probably closer to murder than cheating on your wife in most peoples minds. You can debate if that is fair or not. It also doesn't help that she doesn't express regret (i am sorry for what I did to my family) or take responsibility (it was the drugs not me).

The problem with this article is that it assumes that everyone turned a blind eye to Tiger's scandal. Not so -- that was a huge story in the news at the time and a lot of people tore Woods apart. Nike kept him, but that doesn't mean the world dismissed what he did as fine because he was a man. He was plenty vilified and his golf career went into the toilet for a long time after that.

I recognize that sexism exists in society in many places, but to highlight it in this case requires ignoring a whole heap of criticism of Tiger Woods. Beyond that, Suzy Hamilton was eventually able to publish a boring book about her life choices. For a retired marginal miler, that's more opportunity than she would have had without her scandal. Her fame and money-making ability for her sponsors was basically nothing compared to Tiger Woods, one of the most well-known and marketable athletes in the world.