Biggest lateral moves in sports history

[Brown1]

8 hours ago, DeFrank said:

 

It's both. On some jerseys, the striping pattern is still clearly shown as intended. 

 

You’ve been talking 2010. When they wore the gold pants and striped socks, everything went together BUT the jerseys. 

[OnWis97]

2 hours ago, whitedawg22 said:

It's more lateral. Duh.

The biggest possible lateral move would be the uniform equivalent of Frank Wycheck's throw to Kevin Dyson, where people could argue about it for 20 years.

We argue about lots of things for 20 years.  Was dropping brown an upgrade for the Padres (probably 40% think so)?  Was changing from green to black an upgrade for the Devils? (probably 90% think so)? Is using black trim an improvement for the Reds? Flames? Lions? Mets? Not too many would call these lateral moves but they could be polarizing.

 

Defining "upgrade" and "downgrade" is easy.  "Lateral move" is a bit trickier. 

 

12 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Jesus Christ. By definition, there isn’t a “most lateral”. 

It's a subtle point, but the title is not "most lateral" but "biggest move that is lateral."

 

I tend to think big moves are not lateral.  I loved the creamsicle Bucs but appreciated their first change. Both good.  But that move was not "lateral" to me.  So to me, I guess it's "what's a big overhaul that didn't radically shift where you'd rank the team among others."  Maybe that's the current Jags.  It was crap before and it's crap now.  

 

I could say that about the Canucks I guess.  The black is my favorite, but the last two eras are both hovering around that 20-rank for me.  I think I like the current look better, but some of the execution is poorer than the past look, so maybe the end result is a push...but the change is so significant, I still have a hard time calling it "lateral."  

[BBTV]

Ok, So most dramatic move that ended up being lateral. 

 

So like the original blue/gold sabres to the black/silver/red goat head look. I’d put that as a lateral, since both looks were good and unique, but the designs and colors couldn’t be any further apart. 

[MCM0313]

13 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

We argue about lots of things for 20 years.  Was dropping brown an upgrade for the Padres (probably 40% think so)?  Was changing from green to black an upgrade for the Devils? (probably 90% think so)? Is using black trim an improvement for the Reds? Flames? Lions? Mets? Not too many would call these lateral moves but they could be polarizing.

 

Defining "upgrade" and "downgrade" is easy.  "Lateral move" is a bit trickier. 

 

It's a subtle point, but the title is not "most lateral" but "biggest move that is lateral."

 

I tend to think big moves are not lateral.  I loved the creamsicle Bucs but appreciated their first change. Both good.  But that move was not "lateral" to me.  So to me, I guess it's "what's a big overhaul that didn't radically shift where you'd rank the team among others."  Maybe that's the current Jags.  It was crap before and it's crap now.  

 

I could say that about the Canucks I guess.  The black is my favorite, but the last two eras are both hovering around that 20-rank for me.  I think I like the current look better, but some of the execution is poorer than the past look, so maybe the end result is a push...but the change is so significant, I still have a hard time calling it "lateral."  

 

8 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Ok, So most dramatic move that ended up being lateral. 

 

So like the original blue/gold sabres to the black/silver/red goat head look. I’d put that as a lateral, since both looks were good and unique, but the designs and colors couldn’t be any further apart. 

Actually, no, I meant out of all the major changes, which one was closest to a complete wash? The Wycheck-to-Dyson analogy made by @whitedawg22 works well.

 

...but both your answers address that question too, so we're good.

[DeFrank]

2 hours ago, Brown1 said:

You’ve been talking 2010. When they wore the gold pants and striped socks, everything went together BUT the jerseys. 

 

Huh? In 2010 they added two non-matching events (gold pants, striped burgundy socks). They’ve still worn white, burgundy pants, white, burgundy jerseys, and white striped socks since then 

[Weapon X]

On 4/29/2018 at 10:14 AM, MCM0313 said:

Maybe a slight downgrade for Philly there. Their previous jerseys were too plain and just kind of meh for me.

Even if you’re not a fan of the Kelly Greens those 1996 changes result in a awful uniform.

[Brown1]

12 hours ago, DeFrank said:

 

It's both. On some jerseys, the striping pattern is still clearly shown as intended. 

 

Sock stripes and jersey stripes are flipped.

 

Also argue the helmet, yellow pants, and socks all have consistent to them. White never touches gold. So when they wear gold pants and the striped socks, everything goes together but the jersey. When they wear what you posted, everything matches, but the helmet. Their is no perfect combo for them with what they have to satisfiy everyone’s OCD here.

[DeFrank]

17 minutes ago, Brown1 said:

Sock stripes and jersey stripes are flipped.

 

 

Becsuse kirk cousins wore them wrong

[whitedawg22]

1 hour ago, DeFrank said:

 

Becsuse kirk cousins wore them wrong

I've never noticed this before, but doing a Google image search, it appears that Cousins always goes gold-over-maroon. Most players go maroon-over-gold, but not all - Bashaud Breeland also goes gold-over-maroon. And some players just go all white, and there's at least one game in which Trent Williams went all maroon.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

how does this happen?  Are they not actually socks and are instead shin sleeves?  Why not just make regular socks to avoid this potential issue 

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

1 hour ago, Brown1 said:

Sock stripes and jersey stripes are flipped.

 

Also argue the helmet, yellow pants, and socks all have consistent to them. White never touches gold. So when they wear gold pants and the striped socks, everything goes together but the jersey. When they wear what you posted, everything matches, but the helmet. Their is no perfect combo for them with what they have to satisfiy everyone’s OCD here.

 

Yeah Ive never understood the obsession with the Redskins' mismatching stripes.  

 

Do these pants stripes match:

 

[DeFrank]

2 minutes ago, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

 

Yeah Ive never understood the obsession with the Redskins' mismatching stripes.  

 

Do these pants stripes match:

 

 

I think the difference is that with Washington we know what the uniform looks like when it all matches up, and its what they wore for decades. I just think it looks better. It's also unique to the team. That striping pattern has always struck me as wonderfully different and traditional at once.

 

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

Yeah that Riggo picture is nice.  The burgundy/white/burgundy/white look is my favorite, to me that should always be the standard Redskins look.  

 

And i see what you're going for in the Devin Thomas concept pic, it doesn't look bad.  But my opinion is what they have now is a better look, especially with the striped burgundy socks.  Yes, its a less matchy final product, but to me it looks better. Maybe its just what I'm used to.

 

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

I like to think of the current home uniform as a nice mix of the era below and the familiar current Redskins identity.  I agree that the gold pants and burgundy socks shouldn't be paired with the white jersey.

 

[MilSox]

On 4/29/2018 at 7:22 AM, SCalderwood said:

As a random example off of the top my head, I feel that the Milwaukee Bucks would fall into this category.  They've sported a variety of very different color combos and looks throughout their history, but no look has seemed incredibly great or incredibly horrible.  A lot of their changes have seemed like change for the sake of change, and none of their changes have really left me thinking "huge upgrade" or "huge downgrade."

 

My reaction to pretty much every change they ever have made has been kind of like, "Oh, they changed their logo, color scheme, and font again. Okay, I guess this new one looks fine too.  Whatever."

I would say the move to the green rainbows was a huge upgrade, as it gave them a distinctive identity for the first time in their history, and the move away from them to those purple power rangers unis was a massive downgrade.

For the most part, you're right though.  The current design is clearly inspired by the green rainbows, yet devoid of everything that made them unique.  They're not terrible, but I really think they dropped the ball in not fully committing to reviving the green rainbows.

[WavePunter]

6 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

 

Actually, no, I meant out of all the major changes, which one was closest to a complete wash? The Wycheck-to-Dyson analogy made by @whitedawg22 works well.

 

...but both your answers address that question too, so we're good.

I get it now....

LATERALEST!

[The_Admiral]

2 hours ago, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

I like to think of the current home uniform as a nice mix of the era below and the familiar current Redskins identity.  I agree that the gold pants and burgundy socks shouldn't be paired with the white jersey.

 

 

Love the spear helmet, prefer the two stripes.

[Dynasty]

The Dolphins first three logos were pretty lateral IMO. The several uniform tweaks were as well.

[MCM0313]

Here's how I should have put it: name some uniform changes that weren't forward or backward, but sideways.

[SCalderwood]

2 hours ago, NicDB said:

I would say the move to the green rainbows was a huge upgrade, as it gave them a distinctive identity for the first time in their history, and the move away from them to those purple power rangers unis was a massive downgrade.

For the most part, you're right though.  The current design is clearly inspired by the green rainbows, yet devoid of everything that made them unique.  They're not terrible, but I really think they dropped the ball in not fully committing to reviving the green rainbows.

 

The green rainbows looked fine in the 80s but did not age well into the 90s.  And actually, on that note, I will give the Bucks credit for something - they don't tend to hold onto looks for longer than they should.  They almost seem to anticipate when fans are starting to get a little tired of their look, and then they give themselves a makeover.  And it's never really a huge upgrade or downgrade, it's usually a change that makes them look a little different, and then we get used to it (you usually don't hear people strongly applaud it or condemn it), and then 10 years later they come up with something new so that we don't forget that they exist.

 

I thought their purple look was fine.  It was appropriate for the time it came out, purple was a popular sports color around that time.  Would it have looked right in the 80s?  No.  Would it look right today?  No.  Did it look right when it came out?  Yes.  Not sure I understand the Power Rangers reference, I might be missing something there.  I also think the change to the head-on Bucks logo was fine, I don't really see how it's so much worse than the 80s Bucks logo.  NBA logos in the 90s got fiercer and more "in-your-face," I don't think that necessarily makes them better or worse but that's just the direction logos were headed in.  A smiling Buck spinning a basketball was not going to make it to today anyway, it might as well have died peacefully in the 90s like it did.