Jungle Jim Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I don't know that the Reds double knit pullovers of the 70s were "made classic" by the team's success, but it will forever bug me that those great teams played in these uniforms......rather than these, which they retired in 1971, just as things were getting rolling...The Reds are on their fifth different uniform set since those 1969-71 models. They could've followed the lead of teams like the Dodgers and Yankees and kept them as-is since then and they'd be regarded as all-time classics. Instead, we've had to witness, in one decade or the other, pullovers, elastic waistbands, wide pants leg stripes, vests, ice cream hats, cut off sleeves, excessive black, and now gimmicky number and name fonts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyk33 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Surprised that no one's mentioned the Thunder. I guess it goes without saying?The Oklahoma City Thunder haven't won any championships and they've only been in OKC for 7 years. Who would think of their set as "classic"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynasty Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Those uniforms are very generic and it makes me appreciate the addition of piping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 They're the oldest baseball team. They don't need anything fancy. The Patriots were the first team to come to mind. The side panels, the three-striped white socks that don't belong anywhere, the ugly NOB lettering, ugly numbers, their stupid little brushstroke of a logo. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habsfan1 Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Surprised that no one's mentioned the Thunder. I guess it goes without saying?Not just the Thunder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Surprised that no one's mentioned the Thunder. I guess it goes without saying? Not just the Thunder...Like the Thunder, nobody is claiming those Clippers uniforms are "classic". Until somebody does, they belong in plenty of other conversations, but not this one. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoffingYayap Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 My WorkFull MLB Concept (Plus Expos)The Modern Philadelphia Athletics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AHcreative Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Surprised that no one's mentioned the Thunder. I guess it goes without saying? Not just the Thunder...Like the Thunder, nobody is claiming those Clippers uniforms are "classic". Until somebody does, they belong in plenty of other conversations, but not this one.I don't watch, nor do I care about basketball, so pardon my ignorance... But... I kinda think those jerseys are nice. They're crisp, clean, and get the job done. Yes, they would look better if "Clippers" were in blue, but I don't see a big problem. The logo, however, is a mess, I'll agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chcarlson23 Posted December 6, 2015 Author Share Posted December 6, 2015 Its not that good of a logo. It's only a double outlined star, I could have made this in Kindergarten, but yet it represents decades of Football glory... Simple =/= bad.Simple =/= good all the time either... I.e. The Cowboys, the current Lighting logo, and the Washington Capitals. While the Cowboys logo is classic, isn't a bad logo, is overly simple, and in a vacuum isn't a great logo... "And those who know Your Name put their trust in You, for You, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek You." Psalms 9:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel75 Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 49ers, Packers, Steelers and Pats come to mind, oh and definitely the Isles, they might just lead the pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2001mark Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Chicago Blackhawks.Never understood the love. The logo is too busy and the uniforms are simply "meh."Canadiens? Cowboys? Steelers? Packers????? @2001mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 I don't know that either of these are "bad" but certainly, some logos / uniforms are overrated by storied franchises.Packers. I love the yellow shell. And the uniforms are good overall. But the logo, a "G" for "Greenbay." Crazy as it sounds, I could swear I've heard that the G didn't originally stand for Green Bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fouhy12 Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 How about the Yankees' pinstripes? There's nothing that really stands out about them in any way. Just simple pinstripes with the Yankees logo on the chest, and a navy blue hat also with a Yankees logo. Note the fact that the two Yankees logos on the uniform are similar but not the same. fouhy12's NFL Concepts 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Pinstripes Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Pittsburgh Pirates 70's early 80's. Had they not won a World Series with the group of players they had, there would be 0 and I mean ZERO nostalgia for those banana gone bad unis.I think this question depends on if the fan experienced those 1977-85 years, the Pirates were largely successful during that time period, with memorable moments and talented players. Even today, you'll still see pillbox hats, and those bumblebee jerseys at PNC Park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habsfan1 Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 How about the Yankees' pinstripes? There's nothing that really stands out about them in any way. Just simple pinstripes with the Yankees logo on the chest, and a navy blue hat also with a Yankees logo. Note the fact that the two Yankees logos on the uniform are similar but not the same.Or that their primary logo and it's enitre color palette are nowhere to be found on either of their jerseys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chcarlson23 Posted December 6, 2015 Author Share Posted December 6, 2015 I think a lot of people are misundestanding the point of this thread. This isn't "Is it Classic? Yes? Than it's bad..." This thread is, what logo and uniforms in a vacuum are bad, or are just not good, but yet are hailed as Classic. The Yankees NY logo in a vacuum is good. So is the Habs logo or the Red Wings. The packers uniforms are good too. (Yes, the logo is meh, and same with the islanders.) Edit: (Except for the black uni of the Isles, its the opposite. ) "And those who know Your Name put their trust in You, for You, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek You." Psalms 9:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jungle Jim Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Those uniforms are very generic and it makes me appreciate the addition of piping.I take it you don't like these, either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 <p>I don't know that either of these are "bad" but certainly, some logos / uniforms are overrated by storied franchises.Packers. I love the yellow shell. And the uniforms are good overall. But the logo, a "G" for "Greenbay." Crazy as it sounds, I could swear I've heard that the G didn't originally stand for Green Bay. Oh, please, let's not start that back up. Somebody might take it seriously again. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 <p>I don't know that either of these are "bad" but certainly, some logos / uniforms are overrated by storied franchises.Packers. I love the yellow shell. And the uniforms are good overall. But the logo, a "G" for "Greenbay." Crazy as it sounds, I could swear I've heard that the G didn't originally stand for Green Bay.Oh, please, let's not start that back up. Somebody might take it seriously again.Yes...rumor has it that it stands for "Greatness." Either way it does not work except for the fact that it has been with the most important franchise in the league for so long. Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch B Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Those uniforms are very generic and it makes me appreciate the addition of piping. I take it you don't like these, either?All great looks ... baseball uniforms can look good with or without piping if done well. "Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." Dennis Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.