nuordr Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 ====> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nash61 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 ====> <By comparison, this is actually an upgrade On September 20, 2012 at 0:50 AM, 'CS85 said: It's like watching the hellish undead creakily shuffling their way out of the flames of a liposuction clinic dumpster fire. On February 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM, 'pianoknight said: Story B: Red Wings go undefeated and score 100 goals in every game. They also beat a team comprised of Godzilla, the ghost of Abraham Lincoln, 2 Power Rangers and Betty White. Oh, and they played in the middle of Iraq on a military base. In the sand. With no ice. Santa gave them special sand-skates that allowed them to play in shorts and t-shirts in 115 degree weather. Jesus, Zeus and Buddha watched from the sidelines and ate cotton candy. POTD 5/24/12, POTD 2/26/17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I think the new centurion is a clear upgrade on all previous logos. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnySeoul Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 ====> Gotta agree on this one. The original looks like an actual team logo while the version on the right looks like a logo from Match.com (or something like that). It just seems "off" for a sports logo. JohnnySeoul's WikipageIF ONE IS CONSIDERED RACIST, THEN BOTH MUST BE CONSIDERED RACIST.BOTTOM LINE: NEITHER ONE IS RACIST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 How can anyone think the Lightning logo is an upgrade?The logo looks like a clip art piece of . There is no depth, and it's a failed attempt and making the team be classic all of the sudden.While I agree that the new Lightning uniforms are an attempt to glom onto a classic look that they don't really have the credentials to use, I disagree with the bolded part. With the angled circle surrounding the bolt giving it the effect that we're looking at a three dimensional graphic, it actually has more depth than either of their first two logos, which were both flat.Well maybe I'm misusing the word depth. I liked the bolt having various colors or at least a color on the edge to give it a look of, what I consider, depth. Maybe there is a better word for what I'm trying to say.But I feel the old Bolts are stronger in having various colors to give it some pop, the new one with just the one color just sits there and doesn't pop out at all.Not sure if that makes more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJHillis Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Does anyone agree that if you cannot draw the logo rather easily than it should not be used? Like the Senators logo.. I cannot draw that. I am sure there are some exceptions but I think that should be used as a rule of thumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan33 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 A different opinion? *gasp* To be honest I just wanted to hear your reasoning for liking the new identity. I enjoy reading your posts even if we do not agree on a lot because they are always informative and concise.The Capitals and Stars seem to manage just fine. And yes, as long as the primary design element of the Stars' logo is the top of the star forming the A in a "STARS" script it counts as a wordmark. Disagree. The Stars are currently sporting the worst jerseys in their near 20 year history. Here is a very depressing downgrade...First we get the Green darkened to the point of being almost black and an unnecessary wordmark added. Then we get a really generic collegiate script that makes the Ducks wordmark look like a stellar design. And yes I do consider the wordmark the primary because it's worn on their jerseys while the classic logo is practically downgraded to secondary status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 A different opinion? *gasp* To be honest I just wanted to hear your reasoning for liking the new identity. I enjoy reading your posts even if we do not agree on a lot because they are always informative and concise.Hehe, I got there was no malice intent, hence the smilie. Which is code for "just kidding." Anyway thanks for the compliment. Likewise to you. The Capitals and Stars seem to manage just fine. And yes, as long as the primary design element of the Stars' logo is the top of the star forming the A in a "STARS" script it counts as a wordmark. Disagree. The Stars are currently sporting the worst jerseys in their near 20 year history. Here is a very depressing downgrade...First we get the Green darkened to the point of being almost black and an unnecessary wordmark added. Then we get a really generic collegiate script that makes the Ducks wordmark look like a stellar design. And yes I do consider the wordmark the primary because it's worn on their jerseys while the classic logo is practically downgraded to secondary status.Well when I said the Stars managed just fine with a wordmark logo I was referring to their (rarely used) primary. The focal point of the design, the top of the star forming the A in STARS, makes it very wordmark-like, in my opinion. Other then that, I agree, the Stars started their stay in Dallas with near perfect uniforms. Just take the uniforms from the start of the Dallas era, with the kelly green, and thicken the stripes to match the 1994-1999 length, and you have a perfect Dallas Stars uniform. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aykay Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Orioles hat logos.1989 - 1997>1998 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildwing64 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 The wordmark is simply not primary logo material.The Capitals and Stars seem to manage just fine. And yes, as long as the primary design element of the Stars' logo is the top of the star forming the A in a "STARS" script it counts as a wordmark.Thing is with the Stars it doubles as a full size logo too, and looks/ed great on the front of a jersey. The Caps wordmark is a much needed modernisation of their original look and that combined with the Weagle makes for a very nice identity package. The Ducks up until recently just had a wordmark. And a variation of the same wordmark. And another wordmark. And another variation of said other wordmark. THEN they started seeing potential in the heavily neglected standalone webfoot D.When your favourite sports team in the world has an identity like the Ducks had - up until they started working with "true" logos again for the third jersey - not only is it dull, it's downright depressing.Naming a team after a Disney movie, with uniforms to match?Technically the NHL team's uniform came along well before it was introduced into the film series But since the films effectively served as lengthy commercials for the NHL Mighty Ducks their inclusion in the series was inevitable.The jerseys accompanying this change looked dated the second they hit the ice with their swooping hem stripes and inexplicable fondness of black.Again I have a love-hate thing going on with the Ducks' regular set. Sometimes I look at it in photos and think "Hey, that's actually quite nice", but when watching games via a crappy online feed like I have the past few seasons the colours bleed into the black and white on the jersey and they literally look like a black and white team. Don't get me wrong, I've grown to love the current colours as much as I did the old, but I just don't think they've been used effectively enough. PotD: 24/08/2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUELANDbeliever Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Although I hate to admit it (however i do applaud TNSE for doing the right thing and making a new identity to make people distinguish between the old and the new) > BigMac's posts make me want to punch babies.Hockey is weird and I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMT Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 My main problem with the new "retro" logo is the completely uninspiring box around it.Then there's no real problem - that might be on the official sheets, but this is the NBA. The logo they use most often doesn't have the box.It's my main problem, not my only problem. I just don't find it to be a very dynamic looking logo.Dynamism is overrated when it comes to logos. The best-loved, longest-lived logos are fairly static, for the most part. Perhaps a slight suggestion of motion works well, too. However, when the logo's beating you over the head with it, then it becomes simply mundane and unmemorable.The fewer syllables it takes to describe a logo, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jhero34 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Does anyone agree that if you cannot draw the logo rather easily than it should not be used? Like the Senators logo.. I cannot draw that. I am sure there are some exceptions but I think that should be used as a rule of thumbno i have to disagree with that, the notebook test is alright but should never be the be all and end all of decisions. I like to have some logos that are so far beyond any artistic ability i have that they leave me in absolute awe. I would agree that the less complex the logo the better but there should be some element to it that stands out as a good identity for the team it represents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_ThenNowForever Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 As for downgrades, here are my choices, and the first two probably won't be popular.This change in 2000:Yes! I think the Giants looked their absolute best during the Lawrence Taylor era, and I was sad to see them go. Not to mention that a team named the "Giants" is clearly best represented by capital letters. 1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said: and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Nah, the G-Men don't need to flaunt it. Like the old Washington Capitals jerseys, the ones with the team name in all lower-case letters. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eethy Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Does anyone agree that if you cannot draw the logo rather easily than it should not be used? Like the Senators logo.. I cannot draw that. I am sure there are some exceptions but I think that should be used as a rule of thumbAround these parts we call that the "Notebook test", meaning if a 5th grader can't doodle it on the cover of his notebook then it's too complicated and should be simplified. I agree with that to an extent, but it doesn't mean everything. There are a lot of good logos that fail the notebook test and a lot of bad logos that pass the logo test. It's just one way to measure what is and isn't an effective logo, but it's not the one deciding factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxwell70 Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 to to Cant be wrong with that description right? Depends on how you look at it. Im a fan of the skating penguin, but I preferred the Athletic Gold rather than the Vegas Gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habsfan1 Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Nah, the G-Men don't need to flaunt it. Like the old Washington Capitals jerseys, the ones with the team name in all lower-case letters. As are their current jerseys. How ironic is it that one of the only team in pro sports to use all lower-case letters are called the Capitals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC in Da House w/o a Doubt Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Orioles hat logos.1989 - 1997>1998The current bird beats both of them... Although I will say going from this: to all the national geographic/textbook looking birds has been a HUGE downgrade in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.