View Single Post
Old
02-15-2014, 02:05 AM
  #24
Hoser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane One View Post
According to this website, it seems like the Kings copied the Lakers:

http://www.lakerstats.com/lakers-uniforms/
That website is wrong. Very easily proven wrong too.



Those are the 1966-67 Los Angeles Lakers. You can tell it's the '66-'67 Lakers because #40 in the back there is Jerry Chambers and #34 is John Block, both of whom only played the one season for the Lakers.

(And these are the '67-'68 Lakers, in their first (half-)year at The Forum.)

Quote:
The only way it's possible the Kings didn't copy the Lakers is if the Lakers knew the Kings were going to use those colors and they wanted to match, but just wore them first. The Lakers and Kings both had the same owner at the time, Jack Kent Cooke.
That is PRECISELY what happened!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
.... yet according to my search engines, the precedent was set with the Lakers & earlier than you suggest Hoser. That Cooke selected the purple & gold prior to the date you cite, the Kings as part of his newly founded empire at the Fabulous Forum following suit.

...

Bought the Lakers (and why he didnt change the name, as theyd moved from Minnesota to LA I dont know, fresh moniker required IMO) before he was approved by the NHL & yes, changed the primary colors of the Lakers before the Kings arrival. Wanted unity.
There is an old adage, Killion: if you repeat a lie enough times it eventually becomes the truth.

As I said, it's

Quote:
A commonly held erroneous belief
and

Quote:
The colour scheme certainly became synonymous with the Lakers because of the success they had, whereas the Kings never did much in their "Forum blue and gold" uniforms.
The Kings won diddly squat in their original sweaters while the Lakers won 12 conference championships and six NBA championships in the time both teams wore the same colours. The Kings have changed colour schemes three times since 1967; the Lakers still wear purple and yellow. Like I said the colour scheme is synonymous with the Lakers and not the Kings but only a revisionist historian would say "the Kings copied the colours from the Lakers".

I'll ask you this: why purple and yellow? Why would Jack Kent Cooke change the colours of his basketball team's uniforms from blue and white to purple and yellow in 1967? (And let's not forget I just provided you with photographic proof that the change happened in 1967, NOT 1966 as Kane One's fan blog source suggests.) What in the hell do purple and yellow have to do with lakes?

Nothing. Precisely nothing.

On the other hand those colours do have a lot to do with royalty. Purple has been a regal colour since the Roman Empire. (Do a Google search for "Tyrian purple".) Gold has been associated with royalty for a long time for obvious reasons. Jack Kent Cooke was awarded the Los Angeles expansion NHL franchise in February, 1966 (he bought the Lakers only five months earlier, FYI) and the team was named 'Kings' in May of '66. Harry J. Mullen of Pasadena was the man who suggested the name (his was the earliest postmarked envelope among about 30 that suggested 'Kings') and he was rewarded with a colour TV, portable AM-FM transistor radio and two season tickets and a parking pass for the 1967-68 season. See here for a copy of the article in the LA Herald-Examiner from 1966.

Cooke chose purple and yellow for the Kings because they were traditional regal colours, and the Lakers colours were changed to match.

And that's another thing: the Kings'/Lakers' colours were not just "purple and yellow". The latter was "Gold" and the former, according to Jack Kent Cooke himself, was "Forum Blue". Why Forum Blue? Named after the arena of course. Why did Cooke build The Forum? The KINGS!

The Lakers played at the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena, adjacent to the massive Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum which was then home of the Los Angeles Rams of the NFL. Remember that in 1966 the city of Los Angeles was already home to a pro hockey team: the WHL's Los Angeles Blades. The Blades were owned by Dan Reeves, who also happened to own the Rams and was one of the competing groups seeking the expansion franchise in LA. The Blades shared the Sports Arena with the Lakers. The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission, managers of the Memorial Coliseum and the Sports Arena, backed Reeves's bid for the NHL team.

It was almost assured that whoever held the hockey lease at the Sports Arena would get the NHL team since the NHL had said they were looking for ownership groups who held firm lease agreements or had plans already in motion to build their own arena. So the Coliseum Commission backed Reeves and Cooke was left with no other choice than to tell the NHL he'd build his own arena instead. And so he did.

The Kings took to the ice on October 14, 1967 at Long Beach Arena, and the Lakers took to the court in Forum Blue and Gold for the first time on October 17, 1967 at Chicago Stadium against the Bulls. The Forum opened December 30, 1967 for a game between the Kings and the Flyers. The Lakers played their first home game at The Forum the next night, Dec. 31, against the San Diego Rockets.

The Lakers' move to The Forum wouldn't have happened if not for the Kings' existence. They (probably) wouldn't have changed colours (or at least not to the colours they have now) if not for the Kings. Cooke bought the Lakers before he was awarded the NHL franchise but he didn't change their colours until 1967; NOT before the Kings' arrival. The colour change was precipitated BY the Kings' arrival.

Hoser is offline   Reply With Quote