FWIS3

A fireside analysis of the Rousie-Holm mixed martial arts fight last weekend:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/uf ... /75900678/

And then she lost.  Badly

Suddenly, all the bluster and taunts weren't quite as appealing. Instead of a strong woman standing up for herself, Rousey's behavior is now seen as no better than that of a bully.

So, "appealing" behavior is transformed by a single loss into "bullying"? You can only be a bully if you're a loser. Discuss.

I'm going to say the author of that article is just trying to get published. If what it written in that article is true, Rousey was a bully long before she lost. I really don't like the implication that if she kept winning, her behavior would be considered acceptable.

Sports reporters, slightly better than demons, a touch below used car salesmen.

I don't know anything about Roussie, and don't follow MMA (duh?). I'm guessing this is along the lines of Muhammad Ali's "God is on my side" stuff, i.e. par for the course for athletes.

But this

You can only be a bully if you're a loser.

sounds an awful lot like "history is written by the victors," which is a real thing, and also a serious problem.

A couple of thoughts (first I have not read the article): I do not follow MMA at all but it was hard to avoid all the Rousey coverage in the last year. It seemed to me maybe the promoters of the sport liked to get the women taunting and verbally harassing each other. Perhaps a bit more than on the men's side. Maybe there was a perception that they wouldn't get enough coverage from just the "sport" of it. A second thought occurred to me when I read the OP: Our penchant for building up our heroes then tearing them down. Now often time our "heroes" help themselves handily in getting torn down. Think Lance Armstrong or Bill Cosby. But with all the recent Rousey coverage, I figured it was just a matter of time before there was some backlash. What better time than right after she's handily defeated.