Jeffrey Veen

I'd have to go with the London Olympics Logo just for the color shock value alone.

As bad as the London 2012 logo is, I'd have to say the FIFA. At small sizes and reduced colors, it will morph into strangeness and illegibility.

The FIFA one, worst by far.

The London 2012 one is actually growing on me, esp. after seeing this amazing video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSYFj4iQ2AU

Basically, I think they're getting just slightly ahead of the retro curve, making a goofy 80's/early 90's throwback logo for an event scheduled to coincide with the corresponding wave of nostalgia.

Number 1, the FIFA logo, definitely gets my vote. I think it says "OMG We are BURSTING AT THE SEAMS with SOCCER AWESOMENESS!!!"

It seems to me that an effective World Cup logo should do a much better job of communicating tradition and sportsmanship.

Well, even though the tour de france rider is bending over and taking it from a deformed pac man, the london olympics logo is by far the worst. a long shot. not even close.

World Cup's is bad, but that London one just has to get my vote. At least the World Cup logo has some sense to it: it's pretty clearly balls + fun + '06. Too bad about that dropshadow though.

But the London one is bad in all new ways of badness. Color, shape, and the sheer randomness of it are just amazing. Plus, once someone said "it's Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob" I couldn't stop seeing that.

FIFA is horrible, but my vote goes to the London 2012... Thomas' Lisa Simpson description takes the cake, and alas I now can see nothing else in the trying-too-hard-to-be-abstract-and-hip mess of shapes...

Another entry, forwarded by Erika from Mule:

http://www.pdga.com/worlds04/images/NewSpeciesofCorn.jpg

Please try this one!
http://www.rio2007.org.br/

I also have to go with the London one. Someone asked me why they had a map of Australia in there if it is to be held in England.

What's astounding is that someone -- or, more likely, a whole committee of people -- approved these things.

My personal favorite(?), however, is the "old school" San Diego Padres logo. [http://www.logoserver.com/baseball/SDPadres6985.GIF]

Someone had to have been watching the Flintstones when they came up with that one...

Unless tagging is now an olympic event (which isn't a bad idea), there is no relationship between the 2012 mark and the event it stands for. "London" gets a shabby type treatment.

At least the other two have some element of joy and humanity. And it's kind of charming that the logo for La Tour makes it seem like a breezy ride through sunny France.

I'd vote for the 2012 Olympics. It took me quite a bit of staring just to figure out that the shapes were supposed to be a stylized 2012.

London Olympics for sure. It looks like someone dropped a tile, traced the fragments and called it a logo. It does look vaguely like something which would have been patched onto a denim jacket in the 80s, which hardly says "progressive and dynamic" more than 20 years later.

FIFA just looked like they mashed together every idea they had; and the tour logo looks pretty good in that lineup :) Although the details of it are dodgy, at least it actually relates pretty clearly to guys riding bikes.

I think the London logo is great. Its fun and different. I like that its stirring up a little controversy -- when was the last time the public had anything to say about logo design? Perhaps some of the backlash is coming from people who wanted another uninspired, innocuous athlete-figure logo.

Furthermore, that FIFA logo makes me cringe: the sloppy drop shadow, typography, etc. Looks like something my middle school teacher made when she first got her hands on Photoshop.

I'm confused. Are these the hipster Olympics we're talking about here? Longest fixed wheel track stand? PBR speed chugging? Best dance floor routine with apathetic slouch?

The logo of Tour de France sucks, while Germany 2006 is still much better than South Africa 2010: http://www.lastkick.com/wp-content/P_South_Africa_2010.jpg

The London one is brilliant in its awfulness. It says nothing, looks like a dog's dinner and quite amazingly causes epileptic fits... £400k well spent!

The logo of Olympics London is the worste then the others sport logos.
Another normal and logo without creativity is the logo of www.italia.it

FIFA is the worst for me..

London for sure. It hurts my eyes.

The FIFA one and the London one resemble "logo by committee" where any good idea gets watered down and mutated into something worthless. The Tour de France logo looks like they forgot that they needed a logo and did one at the last minute. Like I used to do with school homework.

London

Jeff, definitely the London Olympics. We're so accustomed to TDF and FIFA that it's embedded and brings to certain athletes.

Have a safe and wonderful riding year.

have we all forgotten the great olympic logo/mascot of the 1996 games? i haven't

http://www.sportslogos.net/logo.php?lo=6957

nothing says international sportsmanship like an electrified cross-eyed sperm.

My vote goes to #23, the olympic logo/mascot of the 1996 games. The 1959 Major League Baseball All Star Game logo is so vile it is good.

FIFA for me, by far.

Every Super Bowl logo is far worse than any of these three. I like the London 2012 logo, partly because every designer seems to have their panties in such a twist about it. Anything getting that violent a reaction has got to be at least a little bit great.

Wow. These are all remarkable in their assault on aesthetics. The FIFA log inspires me to get my videogame gun and shoot the faces until they pop. The Tour de France logo looks like the bicyclist has lost some portion of his ass while riding. But my vote for worst is the London Olympics. It shows a complete absence of imagination and graphic art. How much did this one cost?

I actually LIKE the London 2012 logo. It totally challenges you. It breaks so many aesthetic concepts. Isn't Olympics about challenge and breaking marks after all? Anyway, the worst would be "Le de Tour France" ;-)

I think the FIFA World Cup logo is the worst.
The London logo is kinda growing on me, with the current New Rave hype as an inspiration.

BTw: i think this work by Anton Corbijn for the city of The Hague is a good contender:
http://www.corbijn.co.uk/images/agenda_den_haag.jpg

I absolutely vote for london 2012. It makes me think the Rio 2007 Pan-American Games logo is not so bad at all - and that's scary.

Logos should be simple and say something, like the Chicaco 2016 - http://www.chicago2016.org.

I've always hated the Mexico 68 logo:
http://www.mapsofworld.com/olympic-trivia/images/olympic-posters/mexico1968.jpg

London Olympics Logo hands down... Is there any meaning to this logo? Maybe, but I don't see it.

As much as I want to say London 2012 for nearly ripping off flickr colors, I have to applaud its courage to break barriers. It's so unlike any other Olympic logos that I suspect design students will be discussing this breakthrough 50 years from now.

So, FIFA 2006 it is and for many reasons. It's rather boring with everything you'd expect from a FIFA logo. You won't be able to see it in small sizes and reduced colors. And three smiley faces?!

While the FIFA logo has too many elements that are competing for attention, the London 2012 logo looks like a bad hairdo I gave myself back in the 1980s - pink and blue artichoke spikes.

Thus, I vote for London 2012.

The FIFA logo is way too cutesy to be taken seriously and would be my choice as worst. Putting faces inside the numbers is something elementary schoolkids would do. Maybe that was their target audience.

That said, the London 2012 logo is pretty awful. Is it supposed to represent the British Isles? Maybe it will grow on me over the next five years. Perhaps they could have used some of that extended period of time to consider a few other choices.

I actually like the logo for Tour de France. I like the "aha" moment the little man on the bike represents. Kind of like the hidden arrow you find inside the FedEx logo. Does this end up being some sort of personality test?

London of course.

If I were a pessimistic person, I'd decry the general decline in the art of making logos -- just like the general decline in engraving as seen by the poor quality of coins coming from the U.S. Mint.

But the truth is, there has been no decline -- at least for logos -- so it's strange the London organizers were able to do such a bad job.

London logo by far. But then again, maybe that's just b/c I've had the least amount of time to get used to it. Nah, it is ugly.

The Red Sox has had some awesome logos. One of my favorites: http://www.sportslogos.net/logo.php?lo=2909

London. What is it supposed to be anyway? Is there supposed to be a year in this thing? London Bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down.... My fair Lady!!

FIFA is bad. When it is scaled down it becomes illegible. Are those supposed to be kids having fun or football yahoos? I barely caught the '06 in the characters. There is the extra little guy at the top.

London. Olympic logos are supposed to be graceful and elegant. This one hurts the eye and damages the Olympic brand. Plus, it is just so meaningless. Wow...the year 2012! How did the Olympic organizers miss that for over 100 years?

400k for that London logo? What am I doing wrong? Is there a new category added to the 2012 Olympics? Did you say TETRIS? What is the world coming to? London gets the Shabb Award.

They're all beautiful. It's a beautiful world with lots of lines and colors and shapes--all wonderful things! A world where the people are still more varied than our designs. Embrace them all. Think positively. Explore their layers of complexity. Concentrate on your perceptions. Each is like a message in a bottle drifting along our neurotic and sensory systems searching for deep and personal connections.

They're all beautiful. It's a beautiful world with lots of lines and colors and shapes--all wonderful things! A world where the people are still more varied than the designs we create. Embrace them all. Think positively. Explore their layers of complexity. Concentrate on your perceptions. Each is like a message in a bottle drifting along our sensory systems searching for deep and personal connections.

The fifa logo has a gradient or two, so it fits right in with the new web 2.0 thing. The London logo takes the cake for me though. It looks like bad crotch rocket graphics. Is that a London ZR?

£400,000 ($800,000) - How it is remotely possible to spend that amount of tax-payer money on a horrid logo is beyond me. Surely every design agency on the planet would happily have submitted one free, purely for the prestige of winning.

Le Tour de France. While the London Olympics logo is pretty hard to look at, it has a concept that reminds me of Mtv in the 1980's - so it is obviously going for that retro feel. The Tour de France logo isn't effective, it took me a looooong look before I realized it was supposed to be a stick figure on a bike. Honestly, if I hadn't been comparing it to the other logos, I wouldn't have given it that much eye-time. A world renowned event like Tour de France deserves much better treatment.

All three are awful, but I'd have to say the London Olympics logo, because it looks like a last-minute thrown together slop picture. The other two look like there was actually time put into them, as bad as they are.

The London Olympic 2012 logo gets my vote for worst of the three.

This display of logos really puts things in perspective. The London logo doesn't look that bad next to the other ones. While it's not the most widely acceptable logo, at least the basics of design from a formalist point of view is covered. The micro qualities of spacing, weight and contrast were at least thought about. The typography and line quality among other things on the other ones are unprofessional.

The London Olympic 2012, I really don't know the representation of this one.

What? I love the Tour de France logo. Always brings back great memories from seeing the last leg in Paris. :)

And don't you see the cleverly placed cyclist? ;)