Worst Tattoo in the NBA belongs to our very own...

[dark_lord]

This one would look pretty stupid if Lebron had some career ending injury next season.

Ugh.  I swear I find a new reason to hate this man a little more everyday.

Hes like that spoiled rich kid who always seems to get his way and you just sit around hoping everything will come down in flames.

Can you say cocky?
Pride is the worst of the 7 deadliest sins.  Show some humility for once.

our own paul pierce has something similar:

[guava_wrench]

its his body...if he likes it, thats all that matters

Like with fashion, people can have no idea what looks good on them. Tattoos are fair game.

i guess i just dont see the point in it.  a tattoo is for the individual, if they like it, its all that matters. 

I don't like mustard.  Lots of people do.  But I don't.  Doesn't make it a bad condiment.

So if I go out with white briefs over my jeans, you wouldn't comment?

Just like haircuts and clothes, tattoos are part of how you choose to present yourself.

It is weird that this discussion even came up since no one said he looks stupid or he made a mistake. They said it was an ugly tattoo and the reasons given were that the letters were done poorly. If tattoos have any art involved, then they are fair game for such criticism.

While I am not a fan of tattoos, I do respect the art involved. Some tattoos are poorly done.

for starters, my position has consistently been, as long as rajon likes it, thats all that matters. 

considering mocking, teasing, or simply talking about someone, based on their appearance is immature in my book.  but you consider it "fair game for such criticism".  i guess we can agree to disagree.

There is a big difference between making fun of someone because their face has unpleasant proportions, for example, and talking about a poorly done tattoo. There is nothing immature about critiquing a bad tattoo. Is it immature to critique a painting because it meant something to the painter?

Instead of generalizing your argument, is it okay if I point out where your argument makes sense? There are posts criticizing the use of Asian characters using argument like 'I would want a word in a language I understand'. This is a shallow argument since if we are discussing meaning, the meaning to the wearer is what is significant.

But we can also critique tattoos based on aesthetics, just as we critique art. If tattoo artists consider tattoos art, then they understand that they are open to critique. If you decide to decorate yourself in a particular way, same thing.

Another thing for the Asian character critics, fashion is prone to fads. Asian tattoos is a fad. It is in style. Time will tell how long this lasts, just like Kangols and swede Pumas. The problem with tattoo fads is that it is much easier to change your hat. Still, it is still fashionable, so spending a lot of time criticizing it just means you don't get the fashion. Nothing wrong with that, but criticisms from someone completely out of touch with the tattoo subculture are a bit hollow.

again, we can agree to disagree.  i disagree with asian characters being a "fad" for the simple fact it is a language and will forever be in existence.  i agree there are people out there that get asian tattoos bc they think it is "in", but i would not call it a fad at all.  suade pumas and kangols might be a fad (although it is still trendy in many circles today), but people also considered rap a fad over 30 yrs ago....now it is perhaps the most popular form of music, and certainly the most cashed in on in the corporate world, with regards to marketing.

tattooing is art, but unlike a piece of formal art, it is attached to a person.  therefore when you "critique" it, it is degrading to the person who has it on their body.  to me, that is rude and immature.  if someone has a poorly done work of art hanging on their living room wall, and i was in their home, i would not start talking poorly of it, bc of how it would make the owner feel. 

lastly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  that is all that matters.

I will never find your arbitrary art attached to body is off limits doctrine compelling, so not must else to say. There is nothing immature about critiquing poorly done art.

*Any* negative critique of art hurts someone's feelings.

So if I got a tattoo of a third eye on my forehead, you are saying that it would be immature to critique it because it might hurt my feelings and it is attached to my body?

You need to separate what is "rude and immature" from what you personally are not comfortable with. There is nothing rude and immature about art criticism, especially if we are dealing with individuals who want to be photographed showing their art. They are trying to evoke a particular image whether it is whimsical (like the great Miller tattoo) or something more dramatic. These showing off shots make the tattoo no longer a private matter.

[dark_lord]

its his body...if he likes it, thats all that matters

Like with fashion, people can have no idea what looks good on them. Tattoos are fair game.

i guess i just dont see the point in it.  a tattoo is for the individual, if they like it, its all that matters. 

I don't like mustard.  Lots of people do.  But I don't.  Doesn't make it a bad condiment.

So if I go out with white briefs over my jeans, you wouldn't comment?

Just like haircuts and clothes, tattoos are part of how you choose to present yourself.

It is weird that this discussion even came up since no one said he looks stupid or he made a mistake. They said it was an ugly tattoo and the reasons given were that the letters were done poorly. If tattoos have any art involved, then they are fair game for such criticism.

While I am not a fan of tattoos, I do respect the art involved. Some tattoos are poorly done.

for starters, my position has consistently been, as long as rajon likes it, thats all that matters. 

considering mocking, teasing, or simply talking about someone, based on their appearance is immature in my book.  but you consider it "fair game for such criticism".  i guess we can agree to disagree.

There is a big difference between making fun of someone because their face has unpleasant proportions, for example, and talking about a poorly done tattoo. There is nothing immature about critiquing a bad tattoo. Is it immature to critique a painting because it meant something to the painter?

Instead of generalizing your argument, is it okay if I point out where your argument makes sense? There are posts criticizing the use of Asian characters using argument like 'I would want a word in a language I understand'. This is a shallow argument since if we are discussing meaning, the meaning to the wearer is what is significant.

But we can also critique tattoos based on aesthetics, just as we critique art. If tattoo artists consider tattoos art, then they understand that they are open to critique. If you decide to decorate yourself in a particular way, same thing.

Another thing for the Asian character critics, fashion is prone to fads. Asian tattoos is a fad. It is in style. Time will tell how long this lasts, just like Kangols and swede Pumas. The problem with tattoo fads is that it is much easier to change your hat. Still, it is still fashionable, so spending a lot of time criticizing it just means you don't get the fashion. Nothing wrong with that, but criticisms from someone completely out of touch with the tattoo subculture are a bit hollow.

again, we can agree to disagree.  i disagree with asian characters being a "fad" for the simple fact it is a language and will forever be in existence.  i agree there are people out there that get asian tattoos bc they think it is "in", but i would not call it a fad at all.  suade pumas and kangols might be a fad (although it is still trendy in many circles today), but people also considered rap a fad over 30 yrs ago....now it is perhaps the most popular form of music, and certainly the most cashed in on in the corporate world, with regards to marketing.

tattooing is art, but unlike a piece of formal art, it is attached to a person.  therefore when you "critique" it, it is degrading to the person who has it on their body.  to me, that is rude and immature.  if someone has a poorly done work of art hanging on their living room wall, and i was in their home, i would not start talking poorly of it, bc of how it would make the owner feel. 

lastly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  that is all that matters.

I will never find your arbitrary art attached to body is off limits doctrine compelling, so not must else to say. There is nothing immature about critiquing poorly done art.

*Any* negative critique of art hurts someone's feelings.

So if I got a tattoo of a third eye on my forehead, you are saying that it would be immature to critique it because it might hurt my feelings and it is attached to my body?

You need to separate what is "rude and immature" from what you personally are not comfortable with. There is nothing rude and immature about art criticism, especially if we are dealing with individuals who want to be photographed showing their art. They are trying to evoke a particular image whether it is whimsical (like the great Miller tattoo) or something more dramatic. These showing off shots make the tattoo no longer a private matter.

so it is ok to "critque" the canvas, not the artist?  that is what is done when "critiquing" a tattoo.  your being rude to the person with that tattoo, rather than the artist.

again, agree to disagree.  i dont see this going anywhere, lol.  i admire and respect your stance, and i hope you feel likewise about mine.  but i dont think you will change my mind and i wont change urs.

[GroverTheClover]

I want to get Three Wolf Moon tattooed on my chest.

For the ladies.

This.

[Eja117]

Any player (like Camby I think) that has an asian tatoo they can't read, which is pretty much any NBA player, except possibly Yi, and Yao.

I am telling you every single one of those tatoos say "ignorance"

Do you think kids in China go out and get tatoos written in English like "love" or "joy"?  Do you think they are misspelled?

i disagree wholeheartedly.  for starters there are a ton of resources to validate what the symbol's translation is so that you get the appropriate tattoo.  having an asian character representing a word, meaning, or phrase important in one's life can be a beautiful work of art.  asian characters have a beauty about them to alot of people.

This is the difference. Yesterday I saw a tatoo of a female samurai on an arm. Cool tatoo.

An asian symbol can be translated for you, but unless you read Chinese you are not really reading it at all. You have a tatoo in a language you are illiterate in. You don't really know why the symbol means what it means or why it makes the symbol different from any other symbol, and for all you know it has multiple meanings. It is essentially the equivalent of tatooing a complicated calculus equation on your back, where someone told you the answer, but you have no idea how it arrived at that answer. It's a fraud and fundamentally dishonest amounting to plaigerism.
I agree you can't own language, but the owner is trying to take something that people spend a long time trying to learn and then tatooing it on themselves for their life in 35 minutes.
I disagree with your point that people do it because it is an asthetic or beautiful symbol, because nobody ever uses the symbol for "crud" or "puke" even though they may be the most asthetic of all.
And lastly I doubt the wearer has looked at all the symbols of the world for that word. Arabic and Hindi symbols are very asthetic but you don't see those. Australian aborigine symbols never get used. Asian symbols get used because of stereotypical (positive) associations with Asia as a wise culture. If a person wants to learn to read, write, and speak an Asian language, and then goes there and truely understands and respects the culture then that's one thing, but just paying $49.95 for one thier words that you can't read is rather shallow.
Another thing about Asian cultures is that they have a reputation for ethnocentrism, making it even more odd to want an Asian tatoo.  That makes it the eqivalent of Custer's kid trying to get a Native American tatoo.
American kids with Asian symbol tatoos is no different than Mike Tyson getting a Maori warrior tatoo on his face. He's not Maori. He's not a warrior. Although he is intimidating, so it's actually more appropriate.

I'd rather tatoo a Jackson Pollack on my back.

[davemonsterband]

I see no reason to be a hippie about it. If something sucks it sucks, regardless of perspective, and lots of these tattoos suck.

[celticinorlando]

I want to get Three Wolf Moon tattooed on my chest.

For the ladies.

This.

i will be a part of your wolfpack

[Eja117]

I see no reason to be a hippie about it. If something sucks it sucks, regardless of perspective, and lots of these tattoos suck.

Just like lots of music, tv, movies, comedy, poetry, bumperstickers, political speech, and architecture.

In the immortal words of Jay Sherman (voiced by Jon Lovitz)..."It stinks!"

[bdm860]

Ok so what do you guys think about Jason Williams tattoo?

The thing about tattoos is they're permanent (for the most part).
Think about yourself.  Do you still think things that you thought were cool 10 years ago still look cool now?  I don't.  A lot of things I thought were cool 5 years ago even I don't think are cool now.  Sometimes you come across some older clothes in your closest or dresser, and it's like what was I thinking when I bought this, how did I ever think this looked good.    At least an ugly shirt I can throw away.

[dark_lord]

Any player (like Camby I think) that has an asian tatoo they can't read, which is pretty much any NBA player, except possibly Yi, and Yao.

I am telling you every single one of those tatoos say "ignorance"

Do you think kids in China go out and get tatoos written in English like "love" or "joy"?  Do you think they are misspelled?

i disagree wholeheartedly.  for starters there are a ton of resources to validate what the symbol's translation is so that you get the appropriate tattoo.  having an asian character representing a word, meaning, or phrase important in one's life can be a beautiful work of art.  asian characters have a beauty about them to alot of people.

This is the difference. Yesterday I saw a tatoo of a female samurai on an arm. Cool tatoo.

An asian symbol can be translated for you, but unless you read Chinese you are not really reading it at all. You have a tatoo in a language you are illiterate in. You don't really know why the symbol means what it means or why it makes the symbol different from any other symbol, and for all you know it has multiple meanings. It is essentially the equivalent of tatooing a complicated calculus equation on your back, where someone told you the answer, but you have no idea how it arrived at that answer. It's a fraud and fundamentally dishonest amounting to plaigerism.
I agree you can't own language, but the owner is trying to take something that people spend a long time trying to learn and then tatooing it on themselves for their life in 35 minutes.
I disagree with your point that people do it because it is an asthetic or beautiful symbol, because nobody ever uses the symbol for "crud" or "puke" even though they may be the most asthetic of all.
And lastly I doubt the wearer has looked at all the symbols of the world for that word. Arabic and Hindi symbols are very asthetic but you don't see those. Australian aborigine symbols never get used. Asian symbols get used because of stereotypical (positive) associations with Asia as a wise culture. If a person wants to learn to read, write, and speak an Asian language, and then goes there and truely understands and respects the culture then that's one thing, but just paying $49.95 for one thier words that you can't read is rather shallow.
Another thing about Asian cultures is that they have a reputation for ethnocentrism, making it even more odd to want an Asian tatoo.  That makes it the eqivalent of Custer's kid trying to get a Native American tatoo.
American kids with Asian symbol tatoos is no different than Mike Tyson getting a Maori warrior tatoo on his face. He's not Maori. He's not a warrior. Although he is intimidating, so it's actually more appropriate.

I'd rather tatoo a Jackson Pollack on my back.

i disagree again. a calculus equation, even if you know the answer, wouldnt have significant meaning to the individual (unless they're are mathematicians or something that has meaning to the individual). language is universal, regardless of what language it is.  therefore it is possible to have a word, such as love or family, that has a great meaning to a person.  rather than write it in english, whynot have is in another language which the individual thinks it looks beautiful.  some people love love asian culture because there is a lot of beauty in it.  just bc u dont speak a language does not mean u cant embrace, appreciate, or pay homage to it thru tattooing.  again, it is up to the individual....just bc you dont like it, the person should not be looked down upon, chastised, or stereotyped.

with regards to tattooing within the asian culture, for the most part it is a generational thing.  using samoa as an example to dispute it is generational, tattooing is very much part of their culture, regardless of age or generation.  full body suits are very symbolic, religious, and a right of passage in their culture.

again, i cant say this enough......tattooing is all about the individual.  most people get something with meaning behind it....although there are plenty of people who get things bc they think it is "cool".  even those who think it looks cool, should not be looked upon negatively.  getting tattooed is a strong commitment for the individual and in the end, if they like it, thats all that matters.  people looking down upon, teasing, stereotyping, etc...at an individual bc of their appearance is ignorant and rude in my book. 

like i said to guava.....i respect and appreciate your stance, and hope you can do the same towards me, but i think we just have to agree to disagree.

[wil]

6 pages and no mention of the two that immediately came to my head...

Richard Jefferson's RJ tattoo is just childish.  It really looks like his little kid drew it, but he's had it since college, i believe.  I think he tried to make it look 'tougher' by putting barbed wire around it, but that didn't work.

also, let's not forget about Chauncey's leprechaun tattoo he got after he signed with us.  Now if one of us on this board got one, it wouldn't be as bad b/c we're not going to change our allegiances anytime soon.  but for a professional sports rookie to get a tattoo of the team that drafted him is a big mistake.   

[guava_wrench]

its his body...if he likes it, thats all that matters

Like with fashion, people can have no idea what looks good on them. Tattoos are fair game.

i guess i just dont see the point in it.  a tattoo is for the individual, if they like it, its all that matters. 

I don't like mustard.  Lots of people do.  But I don't.  Doesn't make it a bad condiment.

So if I go out with white briefs over my jeans, you wouldn't comment?

Just like haircuts and clothes, tattoos are part of how you choose to present yourself.

It is weird that this discussion even came up since no one said he looks stupid or he made a mistake. They said it was an ugly tattoo and the reasons given were that the letters were done poorly. If tattoos have any art involved, then they are fair game for such criticism.

While I am not a fan of tattoos, I do respect the art involved. Some tattoos are poorly done.

for starters, my position has consistently been, as long as rajon likes it, thats all that matters. 

considering mocking, teasing, or simply talking about someone, based on their appearance is immature in my book.  but you consider it "fair game for such criticism".  i guess we can agree to disagree.

There is a big difference between making fun of someone because their face has unpleasant proportions, for example, and talking about a poorly done tattoo. There is nothing immature about critiquing a bad tattoo. Is it immature to critique a painting because it meant something to the painter?

Instead of generalizing your argument, is it okay if I point out where your argument makes sense? There are posts criticizing the use of Asian characters using argument like 'I would want a word in a language I understand'. This is a shallow argument since if we are discussing meaning, the meaning to the wearer is what is significant.

But we can also critique tattoos based on aesthetics, just as we critique art. If tattoo artists consider tattoos art, then they understand that they are open to critique. If you decide to decorate yourself in a particular way, same thing.

Another thing for the Asian character critics, fashion is prone to fads. Asian tattoos is a fad. It is in style. Time will tell how long this lasts, just like Kangols and swede Pumas. The problem with tattoo fads is that it is much easier to change your hat. Still, it is still fashionable, so spending a lot of time criticizing it just means you don't get the fashion. Nothing wrong with that, but criticisms from someone completely out of touch with the tattoo subculture are a bit hollow.

again, we can agree to disagree.  i disagree with asian characters being a "fad" for the simple fact it is a language and will forever be in existence.  i agree there are people out there that get asian tattoos bc they think it is "in", but i would not call it a fad at all.  suade pumas and kangols might be a fad (although it is still trendy in many circles today), but people also considered rap a fad over 30 yrs ago....now it is perhaps the most popular form of music, and certainly the most cashed in on in the corporate world, with regards to marketing.

tattooing is art, but unlike a piece of formal art, it is attached to a person.  therefore when you "critique" it, it is degrading to the person who has it on their body.  to me, that is rude and immature.  if someone has a poorly done work of art hanging on their living room wall, and i was in their home, i would not start talking poorly of it, bc of how it would make the owner feel. 

lastly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  that is all that matters.

I will never find your arbitrary art attached to body is off limits doctrine compelling, so not must else to say. There is nothing immature about critiquing poorly done art.

*Any* negative critique of art hurts someone's feelings.

So if I got a tattoo of a third eye on my forehead, you are saying that it would be immature to critique it because it might hurt my feelings and it is attached to my body?

You need to separate what is "rude and immature" from what you personally are not comfortable with. There is nothing rude and immature about art criticism, especially if we are dealing with individuals who want to be photographed showing their art. They are trying to evoke a particular image whether it is whimsical (like the great Miller tattoo) or something more dramatic. These showing off shots make the tattoo no longer a private matter.

so it is ok to "critque" the canvas, not the artist?  that is what is done when "critiquing" a tattoo.  your being rude to the person with that tattoo, rather than the artist.

again, agree to disagree.  i dont see this going anywhere, lol.  i admire and respect your stance, and i hope you feel likewise about mine.  but i dont think you will change my mind and i wont change urs.

Art criticism always delves into motivations and what the artist was thinking. For tattoos, this could be a combination of the tattoo artist and the person who requested the art. Usually, the person with the tattoo requested a particular image. The person is not just a canvas.

In the end. tattoos are stupid and all people who get them are idiots. 

An attempt at irony.

[dark_lord]

In the end. tattoos are stupid and all people who get them are idiots. 

An attempt at irony.

out of curiosity....do u have any?

[greg683x]

Ok so what do you guys think about Jason Williams tattoo?

The thing about tattoos is they're permanent (for the most part).
Think about yourself.  Do you still think things that you thought were cool 10 years ago still look cool now?  I don't.  A lot of things I thought were cool 5 years ago even I don't think are cool now.  Sometimes you come across some older clothes in your closest or dresser, and it's like what was I thinking when I bought this, how did I ever think this looked good.    At least an ugly shirt I can throw away.

It's hard to make a judgement of that tattoo because Ive always thought Jason Williams was a joke.  So, since it's so stupid, it kind of fits.

[vagrantwade]

I think the discussion of tattoos should be banned to those who are middle-aged or older, and extremely nerdy. Because we all know they hate tattoos, and have no real grasp on what is "in" and what isn't.

And the argument of "do they realize they will have this tattoo when they are old?" is seriously weak. Believe it or not, not everyone lives their life planning up to when they are old and decrepit. Some people like to live in the now.  I for example, ride motorcycles, base jump, and skydive. I could honestly care less how anything I do today, is going to affect me when I am 70. I would actually prefer not to reach that age.