Hannah Davis' Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Cover Snub Is Right Move for Magazine
It's official, Sports Illustrated has released the cover of its 2013 Swimsuit Issue. It will be Kate Upton, not Hannah Davis, who will grace the cover of Sports Illustrated’s 2013 Swimsuit Edition. You can’t find it on newsstands just yet, hitting the streets next week.
The magazine tweeted the issue cover on Feb. 8:
Before the official announcement a photograph of the cover has leaked out (h/t Fashion Copious) showing Upton wearing white bikini bottoms and a white winter fur-hooded parka—and nothing else.
With the reports being true, Upton will be the first model to be featured alone on the cover in back-to-back years since Australian bombshell Elle Macpherson achieved three straight covers from '86 to '88.
Other names to gain that distinction include Christie Brinkley and Paulina Porizkova.
That’s some pretty distinguished company.
Early on, the popular model was rumored to be taking a seat to Davis, Derek Jeter’s girlfriend and up-and-coming model.
But those notions are gone with the exposure of the cover.
Sources at NYPost.com indicated Davis made a “rare, huge first impression” on the Sports Illustrated staff and was a “top contender” to steal the cover.
Recently, DirecTV also picked her up as the company’s bodacious DVR-pitching Genie.
Adding a Sports Illustrated: Swimsuit Edition cover to her resume surely would have propelled her to superstardom in the modeling world.
It did the trick for Upton her first time around.
While there is no denying the growing star power of Davis and her easy on the eyes looks, Upton was the best choice for the magazine’s 50th anniversary swimsuit issue.
It’s a milestone event and giving an established face a second chance to shine makes sure the issue will be a massive success.
Don’t worry, Davis won’t be going anywhere and will still be displaying her talents in the magazine.
She has a bright future, but one of the most coveted covers in sports will likely have to wait for next year.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?