In the world of art, there is a concept known as “so bad that it is good”. Some examples include Ed Wood’s Plan Nine From Outer Space; Swayze’s Road House; Schwarzenegger's Commando; the occasional entrant in The Eurovision Song Contest; McGonagall’s The Tay Bridge Disaster. I will be honest with you and say that don’t feel that any of today’s logos qualify. In fact, I feel that more likely they belong in the far broader category of “so bad that it is horrible” class.
So, lest my rambling on gets in the way of my rambling on, I offer to you this week’s category!
EPISODE THREE: DUD LOGOS
These two featured just two weeks ago, but I really could not pass them over. If we are talking bad art, it just isn't possible to overlook the Hamilton Tigers 1921 effort that fused the tiger and the Elephant Man (on the left). Rendering what is arguably the most majestic and fine-looking creature in the world as a malformed and miserable mutant takes some beating, and really must be displayed in any list of ghastly logos. The 1902 Detroit Tigers primary logo (on the right) is not as bad, but the infant-style puppy should be a black mark on the name of tracing paper enthusiasts the world over! As I said in the earlier post, I defy most people to identify either of these things a tiger right off the bat.
But enough of badly drawn tigers, we’ve already seen a more than adequate amount of them! The Internet community is crying out for other poorly composed animals! Right you are then. I shall direct your attention to the simply marvellous (read: atrocious) 1920 logo for the long-departed Philadelphia Athletics major league baseball team. The ‘elephants’ (as I like to call them) lasted a full 53 seasons in the big leagues, and some speculate that it was terrible logos that eventually killed them off. I disagree with that, and shall point you in the direction of the Cincinnati Reds as my evidence. Anyway, have a good look at this thing. Seriously, were they aiming for the thing to be so bumpy and rough? I know that elephants have thick skin, but surely this would be enough to drive one to drink. And one other question, what's that between his front and back legs? It seems to be in the wrong spot. Just sayin’...
Staying within the same sport and timeframe, the Chicago Cubs logo in 1916 is equally baffling. Now, I know that the world was a different place, and there was no Google image or Animal Planet, but come on there are bears in North America. SOMEONE in Chicago must have seen a bear at some point! Don’t you guys have a zoo? I reckon that it’s a coin toss as to which looks less like the animal, this or the ’02 tiger/puppy. I shouldn’t be too harsh, as by the looks of that letter ‘c’, there is every chance that the designer was retarded [ahem] differently-abled.
Speaking of differently-abled, we have the Boston Bruins logo from 1926. My dictionary tells me that ‘bruin’ is a poetic or archaic name for a brown bear (Ursus arctos). I’ve seen pictures of a brown bear. I’ve even seen a brown bear in real life at the Melbourne Zoo. This does not look like a brown bear. Maybe it looks like a brown bear in utero, but that’s probably not the angle you want for a vicious ice hockey outfit. Combine that with a brown and gold colour scheme, and you’ve got yourself a dud logo.
Ahh, but dud logos are the theme of the day, and they don’t come much dudder than the Michigan Wolverines logo from the late-1970s. It’s funny, because I was of the understanding that the Wolverines have been quite a unit over the years. You wouldn’t know that from this amateur effort. I have been working very hard to locate an adequate phrase to capture the essence of this one. The best that I can manage is “supremely pissy". Yes, I am indeed a poet. I will be honest with you though, I have developed something of a fondness for this one. Perhaps this is because in the state of Tasmania, roadkill is a daily fact of life. Don’t you think that the wolverine resembles the sort of unfortunate creature that has been run over by a car and is left to die in a pool of its own blood?
Last, but certainly not least, I think we have a logo that without doubt vies for the title of the worst logo EVER of a major league team. Now, we have already seen how poor artists can transform a beautiful, majestic mascot into an abomination unto man. Then there are those different categories, where skilled artisans are presented with a dud mascot that can only inevitably lead to a dud logo. I fear that this is the only real explanation for the quite dire Boston Red Sox logo that was used through the 1950s. First I must state plainly the subject, as I see it: a red sock in a batting stance against a dark background. Yes, a baseball playing sock. With arms, eyes, ears, nose, legs and feet. Immediately, one is confronted with a number of challenging philosophical questions: does a sock where socks? What does a sock eat? Feet? If a sock falls in a forest, how many does it take to change a light bulb? Of course these questions are ridiculous! But they are no more ridiculous than the notion of a SOCK as a MASCOT.
[Much to my own chagrin, I must again note that most of the logos come from the tremendous Chris Creamer’s Sportslogos.net, the Internet’s greatest resource for all things sports logo!]
So, lest my rambling on gets in the way of my rambling on, I offer to you this week’s category!
EPISODE THREE: DUD LOGOS
These two featured just two weeks ago, but I really could not pass them over. If we are talking bad art, it just isn't possible to overlook the Hamilton Tigers 1921 effort that fused the tiger and the Elephant Man (on the left). Rendering what is arguably the most majestic and fine-looking creature in the world as a malformed and miserable mutant takes some beating, and really must be displayed in any list of ghastly logos. The 1902 Detroit Tigers primary logo (on the right) is not as bad, but the infant-style puppy should be a black mark on the name of tracing paper enthusiasts the world over! As I said in the earlier post, I defy most people to identify either of these things a tiger right off the bat.
But enough of badly drawn tigers, we’ve already seen a more than adequate amount of them! The Internet community is crying out for other poorly composed animals! Right you are then. I shall direct your attention to the simply marvellous (read: atrocious) 1920 logo for the long-departed Philadelphia Athletics major league baseball team. The ‘elephants’ (as I like to call them) lasted a full 53 seasons in the big leagues, and some speculate that it was terrible logos that eventually killed them off. I disagree with that, and shall point you in the direction of the Cincinnati Reds as my evidence. Anyway, have a good look at this thing. Seriously, were they aiming for the thing to be so bumpy and rough? I know that elephants have thick skin, but surely this would be enough to drive one to drink. And one other question, what's that between his front and back legs? It seems to be in the wrong spot. Just sayin’...
Staying within the same sport and timeframe, the Chicago Cubs logo in 1916 is equally baffling. Now, I know that the world was a different place, and there was no Google image or Animal Planet, but come on there are bears in North America. SOMEONE in Chicago must have seen a bear at some point! Don’t you guys have a zoo? I reckon that it’s a coin toss as to which looks less like the animal, this or the ’02 tiger/puppy. I shouldn’t be too harsh, as by the looks of that letter ‘c’, there is every chance that the designer was 
Speaking of differently-abled, we have the Boston Bruins logo from 1926. My dictionary tells me that ‘bruin’ is a poetic or archaic name for a brown bear (Ursus arctos). I’ve seen pictures of a brown bear. I’ve even seen a brown bear in real life at the Melbourne Zoo. This does not look like a brown bear. Maybe it looks like a brown bear in utero, but that’s probably not the angle you want for a vicious ice hockey outfit. Combine that with a brown and gold colour scheme, and you’ve got yourself a dud logo.
Ahh, but dud logos are the theme of the day, and they don’t come much dudder than the Michigan Wolverines logo from the late-1970s. It’s funny, because I was of the understanding that the Wolverines have been quite a unit over the years. You wouldn’t know that from this amateur effort. I have been working very hard to locate an adequate phrase to capture the essence of this one. The best that I can manage is “supremely pissy". Yes, I am indeed a poet. I will be honest with you though, I have developed something of a fondness for this one. Perhaps this is because in the state of Tasmania, roadkill is a daily fact of life. Don’t you think that the wolverine resembles the sort of unfortunate creature that has been run over by a car and is left to die in a pool of its own blood?
Last, but certainly not least, I think we have a logo that without doubt vies for the title of the worst logo EVER of a major league team. Now, we have already seen how poor artists can transform a beautiful, majestic mascot into an abomination unto man. Then there are those different categories, where skilled artisans are presented with a dud mascot that can only inevitably lead to a dud logo. I fear that this is the only real explanation for the quite dire Boston Red Sox logo that was used through the 1950s. First I must state plainly the subject, as I see it: a red sock in a batting stance against a dark background. Yes, a baseball playing sock. With arms, eyes, ears, nose, legs and feet. Immediately, one is confronted with a number of challenging philosophical questions: does a sock where socks? What does a sock eat? Feet? If a sock falls in a forest, how many does it take to change a light bulb? Of course these questions are ridiculous! But they are no more ridiculous than the notion of a SOCK as a MASCOT.[Much to my own chagrin, I must again note that most of the logos come from the tremendous Chris Creamer’s Sportslogos.net, the Internet’s greatest resource for all things sports logo!]
Comments