Natalie Gulbis: Body Paint Pictorial Will Take LPGA Star to New Heights
Okay, the looks are obvious and always have been. But if you watch her video, you get a hint of her personality, which is also strong. Doing the pictorial alone should tell you that she has a lot of confidence, but Gulbis also comes off as quite humble and happy to be where she is.
That is a star's attitude. She isn't coming across as bigger than the publication. As a matter of fact, despite the fact that Gulbis has done modelling in the past and has had her own reality show on the Golf Channel, she seems quite overwhelmed and honored at the experience, but still poses quiet confidentially.
What that will all create is a crossover star. Gulbis already has a lot of crossover ability but this publication now gives her a higher profile than we've ever seen Gulbis have.
From a purely superficial point of view, it's hard to find a lot wrong with this spread. Gulbis certainly has the body to be a model in any magazine and nobody would think twice about whether she belongs.
Grade Natalie Gulbis' bodypaint layout in Sports Illustrated.
In addition to the higher profile, this also gives Gulbis a slightly different look as rather than a traditional bikini, she's in body paint. The difference may not look that great, but in terms of comfort and confidence, it is immense. Seeing Gulbis embrace the difference both on video and in the pictures should tell you all that you need to know, she's a star.
There really is no limit for Gulbis, she has the look and attitude to be a star for a long time. In addition to all of that, she isn't a bad golfer. Gulbis has one win on the LPGA Tour and two others around the world. Success in the sport isn't always critically important, but it's certainly not going to hurt.
Looking at her career as a golfer and model, as well as her pictorial, there is very little wrong. Gulbis can be as big of a star as she wants to be.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?