By Phil Hecken
I love throwbacks. Well, I love uniforms, but I especially love throwbacks. Over the past couple of years, however, watching “Turn Back The Clock” or throwback games has been more of an exercise in agita than enjoyment. So, when the 2012 season rolled around, I feared more screwups, anachronisms, players not caring and going out of their way (seemingly) to not get into the spirit of the throwback.
But, I have to say, I’ve been very pleasantly surprised with this years offerings. Much of the blame I’ve meted out over the past few seasons has been directly squarely at Majestic — now, I’m not sure if anyone from Majestic reads Uni Watch, or even if they do, whether they care about our opinions, but this year their offerings (they’ve done the lions share of the TBTC unis) have been stellar. How stellar? Lets take a look back at the throwbacks worn so far this year. I haven’t been able to watch as many games as I’d like (either because I haven’t had the time or I haven’t gotten them on my cable provider), so if I miss a game or two, fill me in down in the comments.
The season got started on a very auspicious note with one of the most eagerly awaited throwbacks, the Houston Colt .45s:
Astros vs. Braves (April 10): This throwback almost didn’t happen, as the “political correct” powers-that-be wanted to remove the revolver from the uni. (Some dude wrote about this on ESPN.) Fortunately, saner heads prevailed and the gun survived extinction. What the team trotted out that evening was beautiful in its execution (more game photos here). They really did a smash-up job with the repros. Only one complaint (and this will become a recurring one): most players opted to wear their pants pajama-style — why oh why when the could have sported these beauties. Fortunately, not everyone felt the need to hide their hose. The Astros reprised this look again on April 20th.
Grade: A
The next “throwback” wasn’t quite a throwback — when on Jack Roosevelt Robinson day (April 15), the Dodgers became “Dem Bums” for a day:
Dodgers vs. Padres (April 15): The Dodgers haven’t really changed their uniform much since their days in Ebbets Field, so their breaking out a “B”rooklyn helmet and cap technically constituted a throwback. They really couldn’t screw this one up, and it looked great. More photos of the game here.
Grade: A-
The next two teams (and both played along) to crank up the way back machine were the Red Sawks and the Yankees:
Yankees vs. Red Sox (April 20): This was a great looking game (as both teams participated in the 100th Anniversary of Fenway) — here’s how the 100 year old game was described. Much like they did 100 years ago, the Yankees ruined this one too. But it was a joy to look at. And while I covered this game in only a small part of a larger weekend post, our fearless leader gave the game the proper scribe’s treatment. All you need to know about the game is right there. My favorite part (and much to the chagrin of one James Q. Vilk) was the fact that both teams not only went NNOB, they also went N#OB (like they should have, historically). Also fantastic were the lower leg stylings which both teams dutifully displayed. Tons of gorgeous photos here.
Grade: A+
April wasn’t even the best month, as the BoSox continued their 100 year celebration against the Athletics:
Red Sox vs. Athletics (May 2): It wasn’t that this game wasn’t a joy to look at — it was — it’s just that the throwbacks chosen (1936) weren’t all that great. Sure, the A’s looked quite a bit different, and even went the extra mile creating period-appropriate helmets, but they wore white shoes. Ugh. The only “real” noticeable difference for the Sawks was their caps, (plus very subtle differences in the uni) — different font, double piping on the sleeve and placket — but they ended up wearing their normal helmets (not that there was that much difference) at bat. The Sox had great socks, but their uniform was pretty much what they wear today. The A’s did wear some nice stirrups (yes, those are stirrups with a white sani), but oh, those awful shoes (with giant makers’ marks too). Just didn’t quite have the aesthetic appeal for which we would have hoped. More photos here.
Grade: B-
The best (IMHO) throwback to date, and one which I hope was a preview for 2013, followed shortly after that:
Astros vs. Cardinals (May 4): This is what the Astros should look like in 2013. They absolutely nailed the 1965 ‘Shooting Star’ TBTC uniforms. Really, there aren’t enough superlatives to heap upon how good these unis looked. They got everything right, right down to the Astrodome patch. Only complaint was the fact that a lot of the guys went pajama-pantsed, but I can even over look that. I covered this game pretty thoroughly, so you can read more about it there. Lots more beautiful shots here. The Astros would reprise the shooting star look on May 18th against the Rangers — photos of that game are here
Grade: A++
Speaking of the Rangers, they’d stage their own throwback bonanza — sporting one of four throwbacks they’ll wear this year — and today, they’ll wear their second:
Angels vs. Rangers (May 12): Even though the Angels weren’t supposed to be throwing back this year (the did so last year), they must have kept their 1972 throwbacks handy — and they sure did come in handy. They matched up against the host Rangers who were breaking out their first year of play uniforms. While Majestic did a great job with both sets of unis, once again, the attack of the pajama pants marred an otherwise superb looking game. I had a fairly in-depth writeup on that game as well. More photos here.
Grade: B+
That’s going to do it for Part I of this grading the throwbacks roundup. Coming next time — more nice throwbacks and a couple of Negro Leagues throwbacks that are just dee-vine. Stay tuned.
Today, for those of you keeping score at home, the Texas Rangers will break out their second throwback for 2012 — only it’s not the baby blues from the mid-1970s — it’s the 1986 white uniform, versus the Astros. It’s not a bad uni, but nothing to write home about either. But it was the uniform that was worn by the Express, and since he kinda calls the shots down in Arlington, that’s what they’ll wear today.
Benchies
by Rick Pearson
Art imitates life. Conversation overheard last week…
Click to enlarge
Uni Tweaks Concepts
We have another new set of tweaks, er…concepts today. After discussion with a number of readers, it’s probably more apropos to call most of the reader submissions “concepts” rather than tweaks. So that’s that.
So if you’ve concept for any sport, or just a tweak or wholesale revision, send them my way.
Please do try to keep your descriptions to ~50 words (give or take) per image — if you have three uniform concepts in one image, then obviously, you can go a little over, but no novels, OK? OK!. You guys have usually been good with keeping the descriptions pretty short, and I thank you for that.
Like the colorizations, I’m going to run these as inline pics — click on each one to enlarge.
The concepts have slowed to a trickle, probably because of all the uniform contests Paul & I have been running. So…just one concept today.
And so, lets begin:
We have Marc Gilbert today, with a redesign for the new Stanley Cup Champs…
Hey Phil,
The following are my concepts for a re-design for the Los Angeles Kings. I grew up a Kings fan in the pre-Gretzky era and have always had a soft spot for the 1967-88 “Forum Blue and Gold” color scheme. My Concepts throw back to the original colors, but with an updated styling–mainly involving keeping the current uniform piping–I think it adds a nice, subtle modern touch to a classic design. Pants would be “Forum-Blue” for both sets, and socks and stripes would match each jersey (white for road and blue for home).
Marc Gilbert
That’s it for today. You good folks & concepters need to start cranking up the tweak wagon again!
That will close down today’s offerings. I’m not real sure how much of a lede I’ll have tomorrow, it being Father’s Day (my first without my own pop), but there will be a Benchies, more concepts, and some gorgeous Colorizations. So be sure to check in then.
“I disagree with Redemske regarding Carolina’s uniforms. They are by far the best looking, as befits the back-to-back national champions. (And to the Asperger’s Syndrome contingent in the commentariat, South Carolina = Carolina. Not that school up north.)”
–J.R. Clark
A part of me wants to see the Astros wear the “Star Trek” unis. I realize that they were quite ridiculous,but it couldn’t be any worse than Tampa’s imaginary throwbacks.
I think they’re scheduled for later in the year.
“Star Trek” unis??
i think he’s talking about the blue/gold unis, which i’m guessing refers to the similarities in font
and yes, they’re actually scheduled to wear those three times — august 10, 17 & 31
Wrong Star Trek font, Phil. If anything, that Astros logo is close to this one: link not the original series.
Seriously, not even close to being the same font:
link (really, really Q&D)
Actually, I was wondering if Mirliton was referring to this, one of the concepts submitted for the recent Astros design contest: link
I was thinking of that concept, too, when I saw “Star Trek.”
Not crazy about the last letter being as big as the first, but otherwise I’m on board with that concept.
A part of me wants to see the Astros wear the “Star Trek” unis. I realize that they were quite ridiculous,but it couldn’t be any worse than Tampa’s imaginary throwbacks.
…couldn’t be any worse than Tampa Bay’s imaginary throwbacks.
Fixed.
There is no such city called “Tampa Bay”.
Tampa is correct.
There’s also no city called New England or Golden State.
/just saying
in what city do the rays play?
For the time being the Rays play in the city of St. Pete.
They should just switch to Florida Rays!
“Tampa Bay” has been recognized as the Tampa-St. Pete-Clearwater region for some time, as well as referring to the body of water.
Besides, another team just dropped “Florida” – too soon for another team to pick it up!
I think Tampa and Tampa Bay are interchangeable, unless there’s actually a team out there that *doesn’t* refer to themselves as Tampa Bay. The Buccaneers, Rays, Lightning and Storm all use Tampa Bay. Is there an Ultimate Frisbee or WNBA team or something that just goes by Tampa?
The fact that the minor league baseball teams in the area — The Clearwater Threshers (nee Phillies), The Tampa Yankees, and the defunct St. Petersburg Cardinals and later the Devil Rays — in the individual cities of the bay area go by merely the city names, indicate that the three cities of the area by themselves are only big enough to support minor league baseball. It takes the whole populous of Clearwater, St. Petersburg and Tampa — known colloquially as the “Tampa Bay Area” — to support top-level major league sports. No, the teams are not called the “Tampa Bay” Bucs, Rays and Lightning after the body of water, the area itself is the Tampa Bay Area. The Rays play in St. Petersburg, the Bucs and Lightning (and the Storm) in Tampa. And the Lightning and Storm once played in St. Petersburg and for a time in Brandon (a town on the other side of Tampa from St. Petersburg)
And no, Tampa and Tampa Bay are not interchangeable. Tampa only refers to the city of Tampa… You could argue that the Bucs or Lightning could be called the “Tampa Bucs” or “Tampa Lightning” but by that logic the Rays would have to be the St. Petersburg Rays. And you would be shunning the fans in either Pinellas (St. Pete & Clearwater) or Hillsborough (Tampa) counties who feel that it is as much their team as the others.
St. Petersburg and Clearwater are not suburbs of Tampa, all three of the cities (and various other suburbs of the area) make up the Tampa Bay area, an area that has a specific identify of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties that have a specific us vs. them mentality (perhaps because it is separated by three long bridges over the bay, and each side has separate transit systems and separate identities) Until recently the two major papers were the St. Petersburg Times and the Tampa Tribune…. the Times, the bigger of the two, recently changed it’s name to the Tampa Bay Times. But the one thing that brings both sides of the bay together is in supporting the Bucs, Rays and Lightning. Sure fans in Tampa complain about having to drive “way over there” to go to Rays games, and growing up in Clearwater, I probably would have gone to more Bucs games through the years had the team been in Pinellas County, but all in all, the three teams are collectively our teams, not St. Petersburg’s or Tampa’s, but the Tampa Bay teams.
If the Twins were told by MLB baseball that specifically state names couldn’t be used and they had to choose to be either the Minneapolis Twins, the St. Paul Twins or the Minneapolis-St. Paul Twins (or perhaps the Twin City Twins)… which name would they choose, do you think, that wouldn’t risk alienating a good chunk of their fans?
Tampa Yankees
…and there are people in the media (the most notable offender is Baseball Tonight’s Karl Ravech) who do use Tampa and Tampa Bay interchangebly, and people in Clearwater and St. Petersburg cringe every time they hear the “Tampa Rays”… (not that “Tampa Bucs” or “Tampa Lightning” is much better.)
It is okay to say the Atlanta Falcons are playing in Tampa, but not that they are “playing Tampa” — they are playing “Tampa Bay”.
Also the Boston Red Sox may be playing Tampa Bay, but they are playing the Rays in “St. Petersburg”, and they are most definitely not playing them in Tampa.
It is permissible to say that all of these teams are playing “in Tampa Bay”, however that phrasing may perhaps be best left to underwater sports.
I think it is best to refer to the Tampa Bay Rays playing in St. Petersburg and the Tampa Bay Bucs in Tampa, much like we refer to the New York Giants and Jets as playing in E. Rutherford, NJ, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, the Texas Rangers who play in Arlington, TX, etc.
Basketball has the Golden State Warriors…how about the Sunshine State Rays?
The Twins would probably go with the Twin Cities Twins. That what the name was going to originally be in 1961, hence the TC hat. But Calvin Griffith had the great idea of making the team more regional, becoming the first team named for a state, not a city.
“They really couldn’t screw this one up…”
Yeah, they could. And they did. I’m talking about that unnecessary LA patch on the sleeve.
That game gets an A- but Red Sox/A’s only gets a B-?
Yeah, I think the Dodgers lose serious points for not springing for period-appropriate unis on the day all of baseball celebrates one of the Dodgers’ greats.
And having NOB.
That “LA” patch bugs the hell out of me. The fact that it’s redundant, most likely put on there just to sell more jerseys & is unbalanced and asymmetrical.
An NL patch would be much better.
Agreed.
Astros will be wearing 1986 throwbacks today vs the Rangers!
Here is the Tweet about it from yesterday afternoon:
” Here’s the sleeve of jersey Astros will wear tomorrow link — Brian McTaggart (@brianmctaggart)”
Wonder if they’ll wear white cleats.
Cuz black never were worn with that uni.
Bet they’ll be half-black & half-white like most current shoes.
Hope the pants aren’t belted. And everything not seven sizes too big.
I’m actually sick of this whole thing. Just pick out the cleanest-looking unique designs and wear them EVERY game. Ditch all the throwpresent days.
“Hope the pants aren’t belted.”
~~~
can’t say for sure, but when they’ve thrown back to this era in previous seasons, it’s been belted…and the shoes were black
You missed Cubs vs Giants very good looking throwbacks from the cubs glory days… it was on fox i think game of the week
No doubt that will part of Part 2.
link.
link.
The Cubs and Tigers just completed a 3-game series in Wrigley, and not once did they wear throwbacks to their match-ups in ’35 or ’45. Very disappointed…this could turn into a great rivalry.
A rivalry between teams in different leagues who don’t even share the same city? Um, that’s NEVER going to be a rivalry…
“this could turn into a great rivalry.”
Bud Selig, is that you?
fuck this so-called *rivalry* shit
the mets and yankees are NOT rivals, but yet they had a rivalry forced upon them by MLB…they play different teams (until interplague, anyway) in different leagues with different rules … did mets fans always want the mets to meet the yankees in the world series? hell yes…
but this forced crap is ridiculous…as a fan, i don’t want to see them play the yanks 6 times every season (hell, the mets only play the NL central almost that many times) and 18 or 19 (forget) games against the marlins/phillies/nats/braves — two of those teams are in the deep south and one of them is below the mason/dixon line — how are those regional rivalries?
go back to the balanced sked and skip interplague entirely OR… if you must have interplague, then have one series per season against each team in the *other* league, make it concurrent with a trip to the nearest city, and schedule an off-day in-between series (double headers? preposterous) in case one of those interplague games is rained out
goddammit selig is such a fuck up
The 2011 MLB schedule broken down by total series, Phil:
link
I wanted to see how truly unbalanced the schedule was. It was more horrifying than I imagined.
The old league-only balanced schedule was the way to go: 14 teams – 12 or 13 games each against other league teams. It was the most fair for everybody & allowed plenty of rain/snow makeup dates. 1998 expansion should had never happened & should have left the Phoenix market open & damn MLB’s determination to put a team in Miami 1993.
But of course, Selig is greedy & instead of giving up on Interleague Play, he just made things worse by moving the Astros to the A.L.
“fuck this so-called *rivalry* shit”
I am sooooo sick of the Reds vs Indians every year….year in and year out.
Just because there are two teams in Ohio, DOES NOT mean they are “rivals”.
It would be a much better series of the Reds vs. the Tigers and the Indians vs. the Pirates than what is played out (as it did 15 years ago) every year.
The only time the White Sox should ever play the Cubs, is in Spring Training when it means nothing, and in the World Series when it matters the most. I don’t ever want to see it anywhere else. Basically it’s like two completely separate foreign worlds & that’s the way it should have stayed. They have their rivals and league rules & we have ours. I would say Interleague Play did more damage to the sport as a whole than all the PEDs, expansion & bandbox stadiums combined.
Marketing & the local media had a field day with this series in the past; basically painting it as a civil war & trying to perk up interest for no good reason. The reality was it was just two crummy teams with no real history in the past century playing each other.
When Jackie came up in 1947 the Dodger unis did not have the red numbers on the lower left front of their jerseys.
If the Los Angeles team really wanted to pay homage to Jackie on his day they should have sprung for jerseys like the one he wore in his rookie season.
Putting on caps with the Brooklyn “B” on the crown and calling it a throwback uni in memory of the man seems cheap and cheesy.
indeed — the dodgers didn’t put front uni numbers on until 1952 — the first major league team to do so in fact
like i said, though — this wasn’t really a throwback (since they kept their current jerseys) — just a “tip o’ the cap [pun intended] to the brooklyn squad
wouldn’t mind seeing them break out a full 1947 tribute, but this wasn’t it
The weird thing is they went NNOB, which is correct for the entirety of Robinson’s career, but they left the “LA” on the sleeve.
All teams went NNOB on Jackie Robinson Day, not just the Dodgers.
What about the white sox wearing the 1972 throwbacks every Sunday home game. They even wear red cleats and catchers gear.
i love that and yes it is a throwback — and i considered including it — but since they’re wearing it (i think) 13 times this season, it’s more of an “alternate”
i was thinking of keeping this review more to unis that are worn once (or twice, in the case of the rasros)
but maybe i’ll add it to the next part
The White Sox did that a few years ago, wearing a 1917 (?)-style jersey for Sunday home games. Those are the best type of alternate uniforms.
It was in 2006 of 1906 unis twice: link & link
Also link, 1917 World Series unis with a link (ugh) S with o-x in it with a thin white outline. As for the socks, all I can see is they wore their standard black solid socks, unlike in 1997. link
If I’m not mistaken, The White Sox were the first team in the four major sports to try the throwback concept. Fitting since they were first with NOB, Batting Practice Jerseys, shorts and collars as well. The thing that frustrates me the most is their settling on the same basic Uni for over 20 years after being so innovative and experimental. I hope the Sunday ’72 throwbacks are a sign of things to come
July 11th, 1990 at old Comiskey Park against the Brewers.
Count me as a White Sox fan who’s sick of the boring black & silver set. The black socks bug the hell out of me. Would love to see them go to the 1971-75 set again.
Problem is management just loves the current set to death and won’t update the road & alternate black gift shop rag that both badly needs it. Figures because they were the first MLB team to hop on the BFBS bandwagon. I think the Sox should go full-retro full-time and go back to the link set with gray roads & pinstripes on the road, and S-o-x on the cap. Tho I can tell you many around here would prefer the monochrome navy set for the road. Perhaps a compromise could be found.
A nice compromise? How about keep the current set exactly as it is except replace the black with navy.
I’d rather see kelly green (my first choice by far) or red. Royal blue is obviously not an option; orange or gold wouldn’t work; neither would crimson, brown or purple.
The double trim on the alternate, the fat stripes on that & the roads and the cursive script doesn’t work for me. Something about the homes bugs me too – the silver around the logo muddies up the wordmark. It would look a lot cleaner if it was white instead.
The White Sox DID render the current uniforms in navy with white trim in 67 and 68. Here’s a little link Of course the numbers are different – it’s the Varsity font that they use on the Sunday reds. But it gives you an idea of what they’d look like.
In 64, when the Sox came up with the idea for powder blue roads – another first if you ignore the Cubs – they switched the team colors from black/red to navy/white. Probably because navy went better with their new powder blue road uni’s gimmick.
Personally, I think navy/blue is overdone. Stick with black and just change the trim to red.
Love the LA Kings redesigned road jersey!
Bring ’em on!
I like those Kings redesigns too, and as a fauxback the white one would be sweet. I also like what they wear now (though the Gretzky-era ones were the best, IMO). Since they won the first Stanley Cup in their history this season (YES! Finally!), I think we’ll see their current set for many years to come.
Wouldn’t the Athletic Gold get lost in the off white/cream/fauxwhite?
It would stand out fine. The white would be pure, not off-white. Same white and gold as Boston’s: link
I’d lose the apron strings, though. Like Jeremiah said, the Gretzky era ones were the best, the Kings will forever be associated with purple and gold. Just don’t bring back the gold pants!!
“Love the LA Kings redesigned [white]
roadhome jersey!(as it should be) Fixed.
Also love the LA white jersey redesign. Ditch the ‘modern’ piping along the sleeves and it would be even better. This set would work well and be 10x than the current one.
Gretzky era ones were as dull as dishwater, and the current black and white are almost as bad – unfortunately they chose these ones to win the cup in and we will be stuck with them for many years. Bring back the purple and gold.
Agreed. Modern piping (and random color cutouts in general) basically adds nothing to a design but clutter. Just because you can add piping doesn’t mean you should.
The current Kings set are an upgrade to the awful black & purple but the originals are still the best.
Mad love for the Kings. Success at last, after 40+ years in the wilderness. Can’t make up my mind about the uniforms, though. The Gretzky-era uniforms are the classiest and most timeless. The Butch Goring-era uniforms are the giddiest and most fun.
I think the Red Sox and A’s deserve a little extra credit for having EVERY play show their stirrups. Pajama pants would have ruined the Red Sox unis, which were notable for the tremendous stirrups.
Yeah, but the Red Sox lose points for wearing red undershirts, which certainly weren’t period appropriate. In fact, until the Henry regime, did the Red Sox ever wear red undershirts?
Looking at “Baseball Uniforms of the 20th Century” they had them for a time in the forties (and briefly in 1974 with the “peanut vendor” red front panel cap). The Henry regime deemed that everything should be red, but I say bring back the blue sleeves and striped socks. At least they didn’t mess with the cap!
When they changed to the current road uniform they briefly wore them (along with blue socks, if I’m not mistaken), but it didn’t last.
Ugh yeah, IIRC it was because Papelbon was complaining that they’re the Red Sox and they were wearing too much blue.
The Red Sox should have as little navy as possible, and that should be the cap – the red ones in the past just don’t work or look right; even if it makes more sense.
Now a navy road cap on the Cardinals, that still just doesn’t look right to me.
In re: the navy road cap on the Cardinals, you think that’s a generational thing? My dad, who grew up in the Stan Musial Cardinals era, always hated the powder blues and the red cap roads, and welcomed the return to the navy caps.
Maybe. When I started watching, the Cardinals were in that brief period of gray roads (albeit pullovers) & red caps. Tho it bugs me more when a team wears a completely different solid crown color at home than on the road.
I guess that’s a preference thing. For me, I always tend toward the darker caps. When I have to watch the Reds/Cards or Angels/Rangers when they both wear red, it annoys me, but for some reason navy/navy (Yankees/Red Sox/Tigers) doesn’t bother me.
That’s one of the main reasons I want the Astros to get rid of the red. It’s bad enough the Diamondbacks decided to copy their color scheme, now that they’re moving to the AL West, 3 out of the 5 teams potentially could be wearing red caps.
I think the first road game when the Sox wore the new uni’s, Brad Penny was pitching, and he was the high socks. At the time, navy blue was the color of the undershirts and socks, so the Red Sox only source of red on the entire jersey was the B on the hat and the sox logo on the sleeve. Plus they looked like the Yankees. So they ditched the navy undershirts and socks and wore the usual red.
yes…only the white sox shouldn’t wear white socks
the red sox?
only red socks … or, they could actually wear their, ya know, gorgeous and proper stirrups
Prevailing trend in baseball is to go “bright” at home- white with the teams’ warm color, and “dull” on the road- grey with their cool color. I suppose it’s helpful when trying to tell the teams apart on the field, but I wish they wouldn’t copy each other.
If a team were to wear solid red socks instead of stirrups with white socks, I would be okay with that for the Red Sox. If your name is Red Sox, well, you might as well wear red socks. It wouldn’t be the worst stirrup exception IMO.
If your name is Red Sox, well, you
might as wellMUST wear red socks.(fixed)
Jim, I worded it carefully since suggesting solid socks on this site over stirrups would get me kicked out/banned for life.
Stirrups are the core agenda on this site & I’m not about to get my thumbs & legs broken over a harebrained idea that popped into head.
re: Benchies
:O
I actually really dug the ’36 Red Sox throwbacks. Aside from the hats, the font on the front of the jersey is different, and the piping’s changed.
Kinda wish they’d keep the double piping around for today’s uniforms.
oh yes, you’re correct — there are subtle but distinct differences, as you point out…
different font & sleeve double-piping, plus the headspoon has full piping
just not that different compared to today…i figure if you’re going to throwback, you should pick something that’s considerably different (even if historically the current uni is similar)
will add that comparison photo to the text
re benchies:
Funny how a blog so focused on banning Native American imagery has a comic with Chinese stereotypes. Seems a little off to me.
I take it Phil wasn’t going to play “Doonesbury editor” on Ricko & tell him to submit another Saturday strip on such short notice.
But yeah, you can’t do Chinese stereotypes and jokes in 2012; hence my initial reaction a few posts up. I had abandoned my much more dignified Cleveland Indians & Atlanta Braves concepts because of Paul & Phil’s relentless fracas on the subject.
Best never watch shows like “Big Bang Theory” or “The Simpsons” then.
I hope the PC Police never stop me from telling the story of my Swede grandfather who, when he was hospitalized in the 1930s, asked for the “yournal”…and the nurse brought him a pan to pee in.
He was looking for the newspaper, which then was known as the Minneapolis Star Journal.
Or am I now to forget it because it’s “offensive”?
I don’t recall any racial stereotypes on the Big Bang Theory other than the sparse Howard’s Jewish mother reference. The Simpsons? I recall Jessica Lovejoy calling Bart “You’re just yellow trash” which was just more odd & out of regular context than anything & they vastly toned down Apu’s exaggerated accent from the earlier episodes. I stopped watching that show a decade ago when it stopped being funny so I can’t further elaborate.
Ricko, you know if Benchies was in the newspaper, that strip would never fly today. Just saying.
a) Awful lot of jokes about Raj’s ethnic/cultural background on “Big Bang”. Or Raj doing an American accent. Some cultures apparently ARE okay to poke a little fun at, though (“Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle”, the Pindar character on “Franklin & Bash”). How come no one raises holy hell about them?
b) The garbling of syntax, accents or messing up the idiom just sound funny sometimes, and are still accepted in entertainment to create a character or define the position that character holds in the world around them (“Fa-ra-ra-ra” at end of “A Christmas Story” still makes us laugh annually). It doesn’t mean the people are less intelligent, just that language/translation gets a little “iffy” sometimes, and results often make us giggle. Or should we deny that out of political correctness?
c) Of COURSE today’s strip wouldn’t work in a newspaper. I know that. Neither would the strips where the guys notice good-looking women. But for now, this is the Internet. And I kind of like that the strip can be a little honest about such things. That bar talk can be bar talk.
I’m not trying to be antagonizing here – maybe I’m old fashioned or it’s my lame generation or my region (or all three) but I never treated bars as a safe haven for off-color or ethnic jokes or a place to harass women. Despite it being a bar, I still always watched what I said & kept my voice down & especially my long boney arms & elbows. In fact it’s last place I would shoot my mouth off given all the booze, tempers & strangers.
I guess I never saw the jokes towards Raj as being truly hateful or assholic but more of a regional reference of quirks like Sheldon’s Texas or Penny’s Nebraska. I also think the show is going to shit with the change in storylines, running out of jokes & nearing its useful sitcom life but that’s another discussion for another time.
And what exactly was hateful about today’s strip?
It’s about a funny, even charming, mess up by someone making a sign. In a restaurant that, in real life, my fellow employees enjoyed because of the personalities of the people who ran it, whose “accented” version of English was endearing and part of the ambiance.
Hatefulness here, I fear, is in eye of the beholder.
Steve Hughes has an interesting take on offending people…
link
It’s a good thing this is a Saturday, or we’d be looking at 300 comments.
Amen.
i don’t censor the submitters (uni concepts) or ricko
but my disdain for the washington and cleveland teams has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with benchies or the concepts submitted to me
i don’t have a problem with tv shows, comics, the “book of mormon” etc., because that has NOTHING TO DO with the uniforms (which is what this blog focuses on) of two professional sports teams
whether or not i agree with ricko’s particular comic strip today has no bearing on whether or not i dislike the uniforms for clevo (i don’t mind them) or washington (i like them) — it’s the names (washington) and imagery (both) which i find offensive
there is a big difference between “politically correct” (removing the revolver from the colt .45s unis or the cigar from the tampa smokers throwbacks) and opposing the use of imagery/symbols/names which are both offensive (cleveland) and racist (washington)
does that mean i oppose the proposed washington throwback? hell no — it’s an historical recreation — i’m NOT seeking to erase the history of the team or the franchise — i’d just like them to consider changing it going forward
nothing more, nothing less
if today’s benchies seems “a little off” to you, that’s fine and that’s your opinion (and one with which i may or may not disagree) … but permitting ricko to run it here has nothing to do with my desire to spark public debate on the cleveland and washington teams’ names/iconography
Funny is funny. Period. I love a racist joke, if it’s clever.
Saw these on a Bills message board. Any idea where they’re from/who did them?
link
The watermark says “Project Phantom” link
Kent State (wearing some sweet throwback-themed jerseys at the CWS) has a CM on their cap today. It’s for backup catcher Jason Bagoly’s mother, Cheryl McHenry, who unexpectedly passed away Thursday.
Astros:
link
That Asperger’s comment wasn’t funny, J.R.
Too bad. Don’t be so sensitive.
for all those (like myself) who think two teams wearing softball tops shouldn’t play each other…
what about when both teams wear white?
It’s still better than two teams wearing softball tops. That’s the worst.
Astros look pretty cool: link I don’t have problem with both teams wearing white, just as long as it’s an occasional thing.
I don’t know why, but that uniform always looked dorky to me. Maybe it’s the pullover or the font or the lack of a belt, or not seeing the Tequila Sunrise shoulders on certain angles.
It needs orange trim around the wordmark & star or something.
I hear ya.
I never cared for those. It seemed they were a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of the rainbow guts. Admittedly, those splashy orange-striped torsos were a bit of a jagged pill to swallow, but I was a fan. If they had gone straight from the shooting-star uniform to the rainbow-shoulder jobs, I probably would have liked them.
Those Rangers unis were always ugly.
Apart from the script, which I always liked… but yes, Wheels; not especially Ranger-like. Too much like the Dodgers.
The cap reminded me too much of the Cubs.
I’m reminded of Nolan Ryan punching Robin Ventura in the head.
Two teams in white is bad, but nowhere near as bad as two teams with N#OB.
I was at the Rangers vs Astros tonight and it was odd seeing both teams in white but those were the first unis I remember so it brought back many memories.
Great job Marc Gilbert on your Los Angeles Kings concept. Perfection! GO KINGS GO!!!