monkeypower Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 You said the Leafs almost ripped off the Lightning, which means you at least see some similarities. You don't get timeline: The O6 Leafs unveiled the original logo in 1933. The Lightning unveiled their current logo in 2011, which was at the very least "heavily inspired" by the O6 looks. The Leafs unveiled their new logo in 2016, which is an update of the 1933 logo which is the era the Lighting logo is inspired by. There's no possible way the Leafs ripped off the Lightning with this new logo as it's an update of the Leafs older logo which existed prior to the Lightning's. That and they don't look alike outside of the colours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 5 minutes ago, monkeypower said: You said the Leafs almost ripped off the Lightning, which means you at least see some similarities. You don't get timeline: The O6 Leafs unveiled the original logo in 1933. The Lightning unveiled their current logo in 2011, which was at the very least "heavily inspired" by the O6 looks. The Leafs unveiled their new logo in 2016, which is an update of the 1933 logo which is the era the Lighting logo is inspired by. There's no possible way the Leafs ripped off the Lightning with this new logo as it's an update of the Leafs older logo which existed prior to the Lightning's. That and they don't look alike outside of the colours. ALMOST MAKES IT LOOK LIKE. You guys need to stop picking and choosing what words you read. You are fabricated what I said to twist your own agenda. I never stated I think the leafs ripped off the Lightning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chcarlson23 Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 3 minutes ago, CreamSoda said: ALMOST MAKES IT LOOK LIKE. You guys need to stop picking and choosing what words you read. You are fabricated what I said to twist your own agenda. I never stated I think the leafs ripped off the Lightning. Saying Almost is close to saying it is. People add words that have that effect all the time. Especially the words like "Like", "Almost" "Maybe" You never said that they did, but with that post, you actually said that they probably did. And not to mention with someone said "No" to your post, you quoted them and said that you would expect that from a leafs fan. So you just solidified the fact that you agree that the Leafs copied the Bolts. "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...
CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 1 minute ago, chcarlson23 said: Saying Almost is close to saying it is. People add words that have that effect all the time. Especially the words like "Like", "Almost" "Maybe" You never said that they did, but with that post, you actually said that they probably did. And not to mention with someone said "No" to your post, you quoted them and said that you would expect that from a leafs fan. So you just solidified the fact that you agree that the Leafs copied the Bolts. Dude it's a phrase. Not just the word almost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypower Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Almost isn't a phrase. Almost is an adverb meaning "not quite" or "very nearly". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 1 minute ago, monkeypower said: Almost isn't a phrase. Almost is an adverb meaning "not quite" or "very nearly". You need to learn to read.. "almost makes it look like" is the phrase. Which means "it is not" but it once again leaf fans tear apart any post that goes against their precious logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 How dare you almost kind of sort of imply that the leafs could ever dream of being the Lightning. Never mind that's not what I said, at all! But go ahead and freak out, it makes your insecurities glow vibrantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 If someone who had zero knowledge of hockey looked at the Leafs' and Lightning's logos, I think the Leafs' update makes it less likely to think that the Lightning inspired the Leafs. The old one was pretty modern and simple, even if the "modern" was from the 70s. The new Leafs logo is readily identifiable as old-timey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orgo Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Just now, CreamSoda said: You need to learn to read.. "almost makes it look like" is the phrase. Which means "it is not" but it once again leaf fans tear apart any post that goes against their precious logo. Preface: I liked the Ballard leaf, in a vacuum. The leaf shape is nice and modern. Even the Kabel I liked (although I know it's not popular here). Given the team's suckage for most of that logo's tenure and my preference for the 35-point leaf, I was happy to see it go. 1 hour ago, CreamSoda said: They are both one color logos with super modern design styles. The shape of the leafs logo is vintage but the execution is super modern. I think this is a pretty weak explanation for the Leafs "ALMOST" ripping off TBL. You have the burden of proof, not us. You might think you're getting ripped apart by people here. That's fair. I think I've been as polite as I could be, but respectfully, you have to build a better case, especially around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Morgan Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Stop feeding the troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 7 minutes ago, Orgo said: Preface: I liked the Ballard leaf, in a vacuum. The leaf shape is nice and modern. Even the Kabel I liked (although I know it's not popular here). Given the team's suckage for most of that logo's tenure and my preference for the 35-point leaf, I was happy to see it go. I think this is a pretty weak explanation for the Leafs "ALMOST" ripping off TBL. You have the burden of proof, not us. You might think you're getting ripped apart by people here. That's fair. I think I've been as polite as I could be, but respectfully, you have to build a better case, especially around here. I only meant if you looked at each logo, in a vacuum, with the creation date of each, one could almost say the leafs ripped off the Lightning. I nowhere implied this was actually the case but simply found it interesting how the logos looked side by side. I don't have anything to prove because I am not stating the did in fact knock off the bolts. But once again a simple observation of mine gets ripped apart. Why is everyone so touchy on this subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreamSoda Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 15 minutes ago, Dexter Morgan said: Stop feeding the troll. I'm sorry is this not a sports logo message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypower Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 29 minutes ago, CreamSoda said: You need to learn to read.. "almost makes it look like" is the phrase. Which means "it is not" but it once again leaf fans tear apart any post that goes against their precious logo. I'm not even a Leafs fan and I can read much good thanks. "Almost makes it looks like" does not mean "it is not". If you're using "almost makes it looks like", it means something shares similarites or is close. If I say "The snow almost makes it look like Hoth outside", I'm saying the outside resembles the Star Wars planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypower Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 2 hours ago, monkeypower said: I'm torn here. It's not a bad logo by any means (or MEANS if you will ) and it's a great update, but there's just something about it I don't entirely like and I think it's the shape of the leaf. I find it looks dated and out of place in this era, compared to the "cleaner", I guess, Ballard leaf. I think adding an outline, essentially updating the 63-67 logo instead of the 38-63 logo, would be an improvement. All that aside, this is probably my favorite Leafs look of all time and gets the Ken Wregget requirement for today. Quoting this to get discussion back on track, as I kind of had a hand in it going off the rails. Looking more at it now, I have to say I like the Ballard leaf more than this new one. The reasons for this are in the quoted post and again it's not a bad logo, but I just prefer the Ballard one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan33 Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 3 hours ago, monkeypower said: All that aside, this is probably my favorite Leafs look of all time and gets the Ken Wregget requirement for today. This uniform is my main reason for disliking the "Ballard Leaf." It's so plain and goes directly against the aesthetic they cultivated for 35 years prior. Returning to the double stripes in 1992 was a great move. It's just a shame they took so long to follow suit with the logo but hey, better late than never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkychewbarky Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 On February 6, 2016 at 9:11 AM, nash61 said: None of these work, simple as that. In fairness nash, they don't work because they weren't designed for the "Toronto Maple Leafs" text. They were designed for a bunch of "We Want Stanley" T's I did up for some fellow Leaf fans... If you wanted that shape of leaf, you'd have to "shallow out " the valleys to accommodate the "TML" wording, so, for reference, a realistic-type leaf could look something like this... *The Battle of Seattle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 7 hours ago, CreamSoda said: Yet somehow the new logo, which is the old logo, is no longer better than the 1967 logo? You just got swept up with the masses and totally flipped on your opinion. No, I don't think I ever said that the new one is the best one. If I did, then I spoke imprecisely, because I know for a fact that I've said on this thread I still prefer the 60s version to the new. But that's just me. And that doesn't change the fact that the new one is an excellent logo, not to mention a beautiful update of the old. Nice try, though. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uniformity Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 One of the reasons I don't like the Ballard logo is because the shape is so generic. It resembles thousands of other maple leaf logos that are plastered on products and businesses across Canada. The new Leafs logo may not be modern or look like a literal translation of a maple leaf but at least its unique and it's not stuck in the 70s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildwing64 Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 1 hour ago, sparky chewbarky said: I'm kinda digging this take. PotD: 24/08/2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 19 hours ago, Bayne said: I like the new logo. All nice and veiny as it is... In middle school, we used to play a game called The Penis Game, where the object was to say "penis" at ever-increasing volume until someone got caught and thrown out of class. PENIS ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.