Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by dennistrane, Oct 4, 2016.
Do you guys think it's true?
It's all about the swoosh tho
The swoosh is just aesthetically more pleasing
Even the jumpman.
We take those logos for granted but remember, a designer actually put alot of thought in to make them simple yet stylistic.
There are alot of ua and champion shoes that eem with a swoosh would be trash
Nike dont eem need da swoosh. Foamposite. Various jordans. Huarache. Various flyknits. Eem the newest kobes.
Without ANY logo theyre still great
Nike just gets it.
Now WHO wears the shoe is a different story.
Well first off I think those shoes look ugly regardless of the branding
But also the under armor, champion, jumpman( jumpman is only ok on the tongue or maybe the ankle) logo is pretty garbage and the Nike logo is simple yet perfect, so of course it'll look better. It fills out the blank space on the show without looking cluttered
I keep telling people UA needs a name and logo change asap.
I understand they started as an underwear company hints the name but they will never flourish with that name logo.
Thanks, could not think of the word until you posted it. @sckid20
The logo sometimes intentionally or not is actually PART of the shoe.
Adidas crazy 8 black white obviously.
Or take this for example
The swoosh just works better with the sillouete of the sneaker.
It looks fast....streamlined.
U put a champion or ua logo on em the shoe automatically looks "heavier"
Nah this is a reach. What looks better is subjective. It's mostly about the history and reputation these brands represent
good design doesn't need branding.
Right, but the history was partially shaped by how these logos are perceived by the public.
The jumpman is your typical mercedes-esque triquetra and the swoosh is the saturn ring in motion, both very powerful symbols for the human psyche.
Yeah to an extent but I think, for example, if Nike and Underarmour switched logos but Nike kept the history of having Jordan etc then they would still be the most popular sneaker brand
OP you gotta remember you're posting this on NIKEtalk. But I agree. A lot of the shoes do look alike and it matters mostly on the brand. Especially when most of the shoes are made with very similar material.
Other brands need better branding. I mean, Nike then came Jordan then came yezzy, then came...? There's always something up and coming. Under armor just ain't it
Or even adidas reebok Nike
That UA logo would make anything look uglier than it is.
The pair with the swoosh looks like the first KDs.
The UA logo is clunky and an eye sore and doesn't flow well.
the swoosh flows well and can pretty much placed on any silloute and will flow with the lines.
I ain't gonna lie, I been like Adidas more and more now.
Like the NMDs R1, XR1, Ultra Boost line... ect.
They just have that "grown" look for me that I find more appealing.
Everytime I see the swoosh, I automatically think middle school or high school.
Short sighted, people are too quick to jump on random memes as truth. The top sneaker companies have been around for decades and were the innovators of today's designs. Yes some look alike, that's because they had a template that Nike or Adidas created to follow. The line of models is incredibly deep as well yet they pick a basic model to illustrate this. I don't even rock sneakers like that anymore, but stop being so easy as soon as y'all see a meme.
What a precious little tweet!
Reading it is like watching a 3rd grader show off their multiplication skills for the first time.
Still garbage. Nikes designs fell off looooong time ago. Look at Kyrie or Darrelle Revis' shoes . Joints are HORRENDOUS. Nike has not broken ground with any new shoes. Nike is making its bank off retros, ironically