Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 November 8

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 8

why do (American) football coaches dress so sloppily?

In the US sports universe, I approve of the tradition of professional basketball coaches dressing up for games in suits and ties. It lends a certain air of dignity to their role. In baseball, it seems resonable that the manager wears a uniform similar to that of his players. But why are football coaches (exemplified by Bill Belichick[1]) permitted to dress like such bums? They look sloppy and unprofessional, like guys off the street? Has anything ever been written about this phenomenon; when did it start? How did the legendary coaches of yesteryear (Lombardi, etc) dress? Don't most people believe that every member of a professional organization (especially those in management roles) should take some pride in his or her appearance?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still looking for a cite, but I'm pretty sure that coaches nowadays are required to wear "officially licensed merchandise" as they stand on the sidelines. So, that pretty much eliminates the possibility of wearing a suit. There are, I think, a number of college coaches that still dress up, but I think there's been a bit of a "trickle-down" effect there. 128.111.130.159 (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not the best cite, but this says something. It's e-how, so I can't give you the link. Anyway, here's the relevant part: Before 2007, coaches were required to wear official team gear supplied by Reebok, the official clothing sponsor of the NFL. As of July 2009, thanks to lobbying by coaches such as Mike Nolan and Jack Del Rio, coaches are allowed to wear suits, but only for games at home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.130.159 (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom Landry always wore a suit (according to my memory and this Google image search. And Ditka usually at least had a tie on under some sort of Bears paraphernalia. Dismas|^(talk) 04:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a suit and also a hat. Very old-fashioned or traditional. As did Bear Bryant, for example. In contrast, from decades ago, Woody Hayes wore short sleeves. As did John Madden, as I recall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not immediately clear to me why we should apply the standards of dress from a buttoned-down office environment to the 'management roles' of someone who supervises adults playing games. Is there a reason why those particular rules should be applied, as opposed to the dress code of other athletic coaches (track and field? swimming? aerobics? personal trainer?) or management in other occupations (steelworker? infantryman? coal miner? grocery clerk)? Even within the business world, the 'dress code' for public appearances varies rather widely. Compare Steve Jobs and Bill Gates in this photo. 'Why are [they] permitted to dress like such bums' is really more fodder for a plaintive letter to the editor of Sports Illustrated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A decade or two ago I read a book about work-based customs and how they differ in various countries. I forget the exact term they used for the USA, but it was equivalent to "informal formality" or perhaps "artificial informality". This consists of dressing-down and addressing everyone by their first names, even the company president, while retaining the power structure otherwise. Americans used to dress up and to refer to their upper-tier superiors as "Sir" or "Ma'am". Apparently that's still done in many countries, just not so much in the USA anymore, and this artificial informality can be confusing to foreigners. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Jim Tressel always looks sharp in a sweater vest. But I think all sports should follow baseball's lead and dress their coaches up in the same uniforms the players wear. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Baseball is kind of a special case. In the old-old days, managers generally wore uniforms only if they were going to venture onto the field, either as playing managers or as coaches, or if visiting the pitcher. John McGraw, Hughie Jennings and Lou Boudreau are good examples of that. Managers who always stayed in the dugout and who sent (uniformed) coaches to the mound or the coach's boxes, would typically dress in a suit. Connie Mack is the obvious example. Another is Burt Shotton. Coincidentally, Mack and Shotton are believed to be the last managers to wear street clothes in the dugout, both of them retiring in 1950. The point here being that the distinction is whether the team leader normally sets foot on the field or not. The other major sports (football, basketball, hockey) very seldom see their leaders set foot on the "in bounds" portion of the field, court or rink; and even then, only a little ways in bounds, except once the game has ended. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's an article from 5 years ago that discusses a coach (Mike Nolan) who wanted to wear a suit but was denied by the league because it wasn't NFL-sanctioned gear. I'm pretty sure the NFL put out a line of suit jackets the next season, but I don't know if they've continued to offer them. I'll see if I can find a newer article. (Side note: Belichick is an exceptional coach, but I don't think anyone would say he's an exemplary example of how coaches dress on the sideline. He's somewhat of a joke when it comes to those rough looking hoodies. I'd take the talented coaching ability over fashion sense any day.) --Onorem♠Dil 21:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a newer article that shows Mr. Nolan in his NFL-sanctioned suit on the sideline. I'm a bit surprised at the lack of information I'm finding that's current within the last couple years. --Onorem♠Dil 21:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember that until the 1960s, even the fans dressed up for sporting events. The idea of dressing "sloppily" when you're doing casual things is very much a recent phenomenon. Watch an old movie and see how many people are wearing what we call casual clothing -- hardly anyone. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, sigh. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed that nowadays U.S. senior citizens, when out and about, tend to wear the same outfits that little children wear (sneakers, "playsuits", etc.). When I was younger, "grannies in tennis shoes" were figures of derision, assumed to be not quite right in the head; now they're everywhere. Deor (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

One thing about looking like a bum is that you're less likely to be targeted by "real" bums (i.e. panhandlers). Indeed, people used to dress better in public, whether at work or otherwise. I recall Joe DiMaggio once commented on seeing film footage from his playing days and noticing that all the fans were dressed up, and that, "We weren't even aware of it." Probably because it was the standard. It used to be that baseball fans could sit in seats in center field that would be part of the "batter's eye" area. If they were all wearing dark suits, it probably wasn't an issue. Once everyone started wearing white shirtsleeves and such, those seating areas had to be closed off for the safety of the batters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Because they're American. 92.28.248.229 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Love

My friend said that it is not possible to "steal" someone away another person romantically, because they have free will. Is this true? AdbMonkey (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC) ACTUALLY, I was wondering other stuff about love too, but I am not sure I can ask here, because it might not be educationally sounging enough. But, I would want to know if love makes a person duller/number and if any scientific evidence can support this. Also, is love real? AdbMonkey (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

lol - yikes!

1. Define steal. it's not legal to actually steal someone in most places in the world. People are given to emotional fluctuations, however, and it's entirely possible (even common in some age groups) for someone's affections to shift from one person to another. This can be viewed as 'stealing', and usually is from the perspective of the one who gets left behind, but it's always a mutual thing. one can 'try' to steal someone from someone else, but people who try that usually over-estimate their competence: If they end up with the other person they think they've 'done something' to 'steal' that person, when in fact they didn't have any particular control over it; If they fail, they tend to forget about it. see selection bias.
2. Love doesn't make people dumber, but it does tend to make rationality a much lower priority. Love is an emotional bond, and not the kind of thing people are interested in being reasonable about. That's what makes it so wonderful and such a royal pain in the ykw.
3. Of course love is real. No one really has a good idea of what it is or how it works, of course, but it's an unmistakable experience. We are designed as a species to develop emotional bonds with others of varying degrees and intensities. There is nothing more fundamental than that to our experience of reality as individuals.

and the answer to the bonus question you didn't ask - yes, love goes well beyond sex. I'd dare to say that sex is to love the way that onions are to stew: a necessary ingredient that makes the stew good, but not what makes the stew hearty. --Ludwigs2 06:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sex Ludwigs, What's Love Got to Do With It? Love hurts, love scars, love wounds, and mars, any heart, not tough, or strong, enough, to take a lot of pain, take a lot of pain, love is like a cloud, holds a lot of rain, love hurts, ooh ooh love hurts. - by Bryant & Boudleux Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As a side note 'stealing' a lover (or at least a spouse can incur the wrath of the law in certain places. Like North Carolina. See alienation of affections.124.148.50.78 (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I like your answer, Ludwig. Very optimisitic. But how does one know one's in love? AdbMonkey (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You say to yourself, "so that's what Love is." schyler (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

exactly. it's pretty much the same way you know that you're eating chocolate ice cream. try them together! --Ludwigs2 15:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

THIS TOO! Does a person every really love someone because of the other person, or is it just left over sort of niceness that they had for themselves being expressed over another person? Or is it what the person brings out in you and makes you want to do? Is it uncontrollable? Can you find yourself wanting a person, liking them, being happy around them, even though they do things that you don't mind at the time? How do measure love by feeling? Are there many types of loves? When a love goes cold, was there ever really "love" there or just companionship? I mean, I guess I've never been in love, if I'm asking. I don't need any questions answered about sex. That aspect I know all about, but I am very confused about love. Is it always happiness when you love someone? Is it very hard? It seems almost maddening to love someone all the time? Is that why it fades? The brain gets used to it and grows new nuerons? I am just wondering... thanks for answering. I really need to know though. AdbMonkey (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Love is a relationship, and it's constantly growing and changing, so it can have all sorts of flavors. About the worst thing you can do is always expect it to be the same, because that will surely lead to disappointment, as well as to the buying of red sports cars in your 50s. we cannot define love or analyze it rationally or scientifically (currently, and it will be a sad day indeed if we ever can), so stop with the questions and relax. It is what it is, you know it when you know it, it will always surprise you, and there's not a darned thing that worrying about it will do to help you. --Ludwigs2 15:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Love doesn't really exist. It's just a trick to get you to reproduce. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... bad breakup, or sour grapes over a failed love affair? Either way, it will pass... --Ludwigs2 02:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not. I just thought the question could use a cynical answer to balance out the lovey-doveyness. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

{redacted} WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Man! I sure do give away a lot of personal info in here, don't I. And no one ever forgets anything! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

lol, congrats, man, seriously... that's great. :D not another word though... ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be enlightening to know some synonyms of Love: tenderness, devotion, fondness, desire. schyler (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Short of kidnapping/abduction, which is obviously a serious crime, you can't really "steal" someone else unless they are willing to be "stolen". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Which I think is exactly what the OP's friend was saying - namely that a person's partner has their own free will and aren't "stolen" as such but go to somebody else of their own free will. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And "stolen" goes back to the days when women were often treated as "property". Some of the laws still seem to make that assumption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If my neighbour owns a dog and I feed it and form some form of attachment (can a dog "love"?), then I move house and it follows me, have I stolen the dog? Dbfirs 23:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you kept it, probably so, but of course you'd want to consult a lawyer, to be sure, were that to ever happen. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Defib, thanks for the hypothet input, but I'm not talking about falling in love with a dog. I want to know if love is really like the one balancing cynic might have said. Is it really just a mind ploy to make human kind reproduce? OR... are you supposed to just love phase throughout your life, relationship to relationship, to get what you need? I can not bear that thought. I need a... but I guess I'm not going to get the answers, but Ludwigs seems to possibly be on the upside of the love equation, and therfore biased (no offense) so I just wanted to know, why do you think it is not an oxytocin fueled, offspring seeking, sort of mating high. I really apologize if I sound testy. AdbMonkey (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The chemical reaction and gene reproduction thing, while it may be an accurate description of one part of what love is, is also a terribly cynical way of looking at it if you exclude everything else from the equation. If, as you say, you've never been in love, you should really avoid getting cynical about it at this stage. Really, go out and experience love a couple of times and then decide if you want to get cynical about it. Losing love hurts like a bitch, but Tennyson might have been on to something when he said that it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But doesn't that sort of cheapen the experience of love? If you "go experience love a bunch of times", what have you really experienced? What if it can only really happen once? In that case every time you think you've found it, and then lose it, all you've done is deluded yourself into thinking it was love. This is partly what I meant by my more cynical answer; usually, I think, people want to justify what is actually lust without feeling like a sociopath. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Mating section of the Evolutionary psychology article is worth reading, and see also Parental investment. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Love a bunch of times..." Thanks Wikidao. AdbMonkey (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Buying a French prepaid debit card in the USA

Is it possible for me, in the USA, to get a prepaid debit card that is associated with an address in France? I'm trying to buy a music download that is restricted to residents of France, and does not appear to be available elsewhere. I should be able to figure out the web proxy part of this, but I still need a payment method that makes me look French. Thanks! ReverendWayne (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

marbles

How many people die a year from marbles? Ie eating them, choking on them, having them fall on ones head from a great height, etc. I've taken a gander at the marbles article but there is no relevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.93.111 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My best guess is that the number falls somewhere between the number of people killed by lightning and the number of people killed by flying monkeys. Googlemeister (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an unhelpful response and lowers the quality of the reference desk. --Sean 17:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an unhelpful confirmation of that. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If the below estimate of 18 marble related deaths in the US holds up, then my first statement is accurate since lighting averages 60 US deaths a year and flying monkeys obviously 0 deaths a year. Googlemeister (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this will be an unanswerable question unless someone can find a source of causes of death in such detail that it lists the specific article and not refer to 'foreign object'. Most general "Cause of Death" lists, including our own WP, come nowhere close to digging down to such detail. I hope this is not unhelpful, I'm expressing my take on the difficulty of the task. Richard Avery (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thisarticle states that the EU estimates 2000 cases per year of injury (not death) caused by small objects, of which 52 were hospitalizations due to marbles. Of the 2000, only eight resulted in death. Assuming (just an estimation) that one case in four results in hospital treatment, we might have perhaps 200 marble "injuries" in the EU. Multiplying by 8(deaths) and dividing by 2000(injuries) gives an estimate of perhaps just 1 (average 0.8) marble death per year in the EU. Multiplying by the world population of 6880.1 million and dividing by the EU population of 501 million gives an estimate of about 11 child deaths per year world-wide. Obviously, these calculations involve some wild estimates. I can find no numerical connection between hospitalization and injury; marbles are more dangerous than some small objects, but less dangerous than other such as balloons and pen-tops; marbles are the most common small objects played with by children in some parts of the world, but rare in other parts; ... etc. Please don't take this as an accurate figure. Dbfirs 22:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"But the machine was frustratingly vague in its predictions: dark, and seemingly delighting in the ambiguities of language. OLD AGE, it had already turned out, could mean either dying of natural causes, or shot by a bedridden man in a botched home invasion." I contend that there's no well-defined answer to your question, but you should read Machine of Death. Paul (Stansifer) 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This [2] link to a 1995 press release by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission mentions "between January 1980, and July 1991, nearly 200 children choked to death on balloons, marbles, small balls and other children's products. About two-thirds of these deaths involved children under three years." There doesn't seem to be any differentiation between the types of toys; however, one hopes that the total mortality rate has not gone up very much since then.--Romantic Mollusk (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

An average of 18 per year out of a population of 310.7 million with an estimate of one in ten small-object deaths being caused by marbles (based on EU injury rate) extrapolates to nearly forty deaths per year world-wide, considerably more than my EU-based estimate of 11. Of course these are only guesses because of the lack of data to support the assumptions. Dbfirs 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The figures are much higher for those who lose their marbles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Is falling into a stranger's arms just a movie/television cliché?

It is almost a constant in television and in movies. A person learns some devastating news of some sort and then falls into a strangers arms and cries. For example, on Law & Order, CSI, NCIS etc. people (usually women) are constantly learning of a loved one's death and then falling into the arms of the CSI investigator/cop/DA and sobbing on their shoulder. I find this very odd and unlikely. I cannot imagine ever doing this, nor does it comport with my [admittedly unstudied] ideas of human psychology. My life experiences tell me that people often close up in such situations and don't want to be touched by anyone, and when they would act in this manner, it would only be with a loved one and never with a stranger. Is this just a cliché? Oh, I don't mean it doesn't ever happen or would never happen, but from watching shows, you would think it was ubiquitous, rather than a rarity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(OR alert) - I've had it happen to me (I was the "fell upon" rather than the, er, "fellee") with someone who was a work acquaintance. Not a stranger, but someone I'd had virtually no physical contact with before. Had that not happened, I would have been as skeptical as you; it wouldn't occur to me to sob onto someone else like that. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(OR too) It happened to me at a friend's funeral, where I was the faller and most embarrassed about it I was too. I remember walking up to pass the coffin, and then I remember being outside in the arms of two of my former students and surrounded by friends. Most embarrassing. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind those are fictional stories. Awhile back someone asked about similar shows, where some stranger walks freely into a police station with vital information, apparently with no one even noticing him. That's not very likely either. Every adult I know wouldn't go hugging a stranger, they would pull the wagons into a circle and protect themselves. In fact, if some stranger approached me that way, my first instinct would be to make sure my wallet is still on my person. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In short, the answer to the question posed in the section header is, "Yes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it can be both a cliché and true at the same time. There is little to a traditional sitcom that isn't a cliché of some kind, but I somehow doubt Tammy and I are the only ones to experience it in real-life (and mine didn't take place at a funeral, so it wasn't Tammy sobbing on me - more's the pity). I guess it comes down to how you want to use the word "just"; does it "just" happen in TV? Nah, it happens in real life. Not often, but it's probably more frequent than real life cases of people getting amnesia from a book bonking them on the head. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The two cited examples here are individuals that were known to the "faller". Even if you're not physically affectionate with co-workers, they are still someone you might know and trust. With actual strangers, you never know what you've got, and the typical adult would be very wary of strangers, especially if they're feeling vulnerable. It's possible someone in that scenario might feel a little safer with an identifiable public official, but I expect it's rare. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In short, the answer to the question posed in the section header is, "No". Falling into a stranger's arms is a movie/television cliché but not just a movie/television cliché. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Damn. I was hoping someone would say it's actually really common so I could stop getting disgusted at shows every time I see this. Takes me right out of my suspension of disbelief, which is very fragile. I can suspend disbelief so long as a show is internally consistent; follows the logic of the universe it's setting up, but the analytic part of my brain is always running. If a story's about magic, I'm fine with magical things happening, if internally consistent. When shows about real life do things that don't ring true, I'm immediately taken 'out of the show' and fed up. Example: there's this new show, Chase. I started watching the pilot, which opens with a cop chasing a bad guy.; So they're sprinting for a few blocks while wearing heavy clothing. When they caught up with each other, neither was breathing hard or sweating. Immediately soured me on the series forever and I just turned it off.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never been the faller or fallee, but I've seen it happen in real life; the fallee was a priest (unknown, I think, to the faller) announcing a death to a relative of the deceased. I think that such figures—priests, cops, doctors, military personnel—are viewed by many people (rightly or wrongly) as generally commiserate; and that, combined with many people's tendency to seek solace from others when sorrowful, would make this a not-uncommon occurrence, especially if there's no loved one handy at the time. I think you're overestimating people's tendency to "close up" when faced with bad news (even though that's how I, like you, tend to react). Deor (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: This act isn't necessarily a cliché; I would consider it a trope. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

They have articles on the "Fainting" and "Falling into His Arms" tropes at tvtropes.org, which aren't precisely what are being asked about but are sort of interesting. WikiDao ☯ (talk)

An atractive young lady once fainted into my arms on the London Underground. Sadly, only first-aid followed. Alansplodge (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Chest massage? Mouth-to-mouth? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Two pages should be one??

Sorry if this isn't really the right place but.... Shouldn't these two pages be one page... Iguazú National Park Iguaçu National Park They both appear to be about the same place. If this is the wrong place for this, please tell me where I should have put a question like this for the future.91.109.230.13 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup. I'll add a {{merge}} tag. Thanks for pointing it out. The advice on how to do it yourself is at WP:MM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

They are technically separate national parks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

They are separate national parks in separate nations. Iguazú National Park is in Argentina, while Iguaçu is in Brazil, according to the 2008 UNESCO mission report. They're adjacent to each other and are both on the World Heritage List. I've edited the Iguaçu article accordingly. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The spelling difference is due to one being in Spanish-speaking Argentina and the other in Portuguese-speaking Brazil. Pfly (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What brand logo is this?

300

This logo was found on the bottom of a pair of tall black english field boots (used for horseback riding). There are no other brand marks on the boot...does anyone recognize the logo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.84.113 (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Took me several minutes to even understand the image. For anyone else who might be having trouble: it's a horse and rider jumping between two poles. They are moving from right to left and the object being jumped over is not depicted. Sorry I can't help find the brand. Good luck! The Masked Booby (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The horse is jumping between obstacles like here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it could be a logo for a show jumping organization. Where did you find it? At first glance i thought it was the Thundercats symbol... Adam Bishop (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The logo is on the sole of an english field boot (the tall black kind used for horseback riding). It was purchased off Craiglist in Seattle, WA.

The selling party might (might, not necessarily will) know something... --Ouro (blah blah) 15:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortuntely the selling party inherited the boots from a riding instructor who passed away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazymmranch (talk • contribs) 17:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC) We may have solved the mystery...a tack shop suggested that it may be Devon-Aire brand, so I have contacted the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazymmranch (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Devon Aire website.[3] If you look in the top left corner you will see almost the same logo, Sorted!! Caesar's Daddy (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

By George, I think you've got it. The heel will, of course, stamp out the logo in the proper orientation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A slightly clearer picture here[4]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you download them, and flip and resize the boot one, it's obvious they are the same logo. Good investigative work! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)