Originally Posted by Veruka
I always hate it when the "marriage killed the career" argument is made. Even in the cases where a connection does appear to exsist, there's so much more in it than simply marriage and athletic career don't mix. It's a chicken or the egg kind of thing -- Does a player lose his drive to win because he got married? Or, did he choose the timing of marriage in his life because the drive to win lessened first?
I'm curious for anyone who has read the article - does the writer offer up any defense of his putting Jimmy Connors in that mix? Connors got married in 1980. Now, he did go from 1980 until 1982 without winning a major (and won I believe 2 majors in 1982) but in both 1980 and 1981 he won several titles each year, despite having just married. His career went on for quite a while AFTER he got married, as did his racking up the titles. So did the writer just throw his name out there without acknowledging how wrong he was? Or did he come up with some kind of explanation for how Connors got married, continued winning, and was somehow still in a slump?
Hi there Veruka
I have this whole article in my scrap book, but what the write is trying to say is all up for a debate, I will tell you more about what some answers to this article from people who has read it.