Giants Super Bowl Bling Continues Tradition of Absurdity
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Labels:
New York Giants Super Bowl Ring
Three Views of RidiculousnessLet me start by saying that what follows is the opinion of an admittedly bitter New York Jets fan. In my 30 years on this Earth, my green-and-white has failed to sniff a Super Bowl ring and has generally caused its fan base much agony and frustration.
Now, with that out of the way, Super Bowl rings are by definition absurd. They look like a softball that's had a hole drilled down the middle to allow one to slip the jewelry on a dwarfed finger. No major issues with that. Tons of diamonds? Sure. A pound and a half in total weight? Why not? But aside from sheer ostentatiousness, teams and their ring consultant teams have started to get a little out-of-control. Case in point: the New York Giants new Super Bowl bling.
Here are the issues I have with this...this...thing.
1. The three trophies on the front representing the Super Bowls won in the franchise's history. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't these Giants only win Super Bowl XLII? What did Lawrence Tynes contribute to the 1990 Super Bowl G-Men? Did Kavika Mitchell play alongside Harry Carson and Leonard Marshall in '86? What gives? I know other teams have done this, but I just don't like it.
2. The "11 straight on the road" demarcation on one of the side "shanks," coincidentally a new term I've never had to learn until today. Was the Giants streak impressive? Sure. Historic? The record books say it is so. But doesn't it seem a little bit weird to call it out on your Super Bowl ring? Remember us! We went 3-5 at home, but we were road warriors!
Personally, I like the classic look of some of the older-school champs. Is this simply the childish whining of a bitter fan? Uhhh...yes.
I still cannot believe the Giants won the Super Bowl. Jets fans can now tune back to their regularly scheduled programming of the "Great Quarterback Debate" starring Kellen Clemens and Chad Pennington, with a potential guest appearance from Matt Ryan? It takes a special (read: masochistic) breed to root for this team...
Now, with that out of the way, Super Bowl rings are by definition absurd. They look like a softball that's had a hole drilled down the middle to allow one to slip the jewelry on a dwarfed finger. No major issues with that. Tons of diamonds? Sure. A pound and a half in total weight? Why not? But aside from sheer ostentatiousness, teams and their ring consultant teams have started to get a little out-of-control. Case in point: the New York Giants new Super Bowl bling.
Here are the issues I have with this...this...thing.
1. The three trophies on the front representing the Super Bowls won in the franchise's history. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't these Giants only win Super Bowl XLII? What did Lawrence Tynes contribute to the 1990 Super Bowl G-Men? Did Kavika Mitchell play alongside Harry Carson and Leonard Marshall in '86? What gives? I know other teams have done this, but I just don't like it.
2. The "11 straight on the road" demarcation on one of the side "shanks," coincidentally a new term I've never had to learn until today. Was the Giants streak impressive? Sure. Historic? The record books say it is so. But doesn't it seem a little bit weird to call it out on your Super Bowl ring? Remember us! We went 3-5 at home, but we were road warriors!
Personally, I like the classic look of some of the older-school champs. Is this simply the childish whining of a bitter fan? Uhhh...yes.
I still cannot believe the Giants won the Super Bowl. Jets fans can now tune back to their regularly scheduled programming of the "Great Quarterback Debate" starring Kellen Clemens and Chad Pennington, with a potential guest appearance from Matt Ryan? It takes a special (read: masochistic) breed to root for this team...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
The Bitterness pours from the Scribe's pen. The ring is classy, just like the Giants organization.
tis true...about the bitterness
Post a Comment