Pants: Sansabelt vs. Smitty

[biggravy]

I have always worn Sansabelt flat front, size 40. They are always a little tight on the thighs and loose on the waist so I order 40 and have the live in tailor take the waist in about two inches. They look sharp that way.

My question for those who have worn both: Smittys are cheaper and I have been thinking of trying them. How do the compare in size to Sansabelts? Do they run smaller, bigger, same at the waist? Thigh? Is the quality comparable?

[JRutledge]

I own both. I think Sansabelt all the way. But it appears the the Smitty kind are made by the same company as there is a Sanabelt waist band inside of the Smitty brand. Both are almost the same (at least they were when I bought them).

Peace

[BktBallRef]

If you ever officiate in a pair of pleated slacks, you'll never go back to the flat front.

[constable]

Why do you say that? I have both and prefer the flat front.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by constable

Why do you say that? I have both and prefer the flat front.

There's always the one odd bird.

[Freddy]

Just got a new pair of flat-front Smitty's in last week. Went to a larger waist size, 36, and was surprised how baggy the legs were. A few bucks to the local tailor lady, and overnight she brought the legs in so that they're just right now. She also let out my Sansibelt to give them a little more room, so my back up pants are even better than before.
First experience with Smitty's, but I like 'em. Though I alternate between them and my Sansibelt every other game now.
Thanx for the tip for officialschoice.com's sale last week. Nice shirt for 10.00. Postage was 8.61, but still a good deal for the price.

[kgeorge0263]

I guess I should do the same as Freddy...I don't like how baggy the Smitty's are. They are also lighter in weight than Sansabelts. I feel when I run that the bottom of the pants come up above my socks, so I need the legs taken in, which I really don't want to pay for. I may just spend the $40-$50 for Sansabelt pleated and get them hemmed.

[tjones1]

I wear Sansabelts.

However, I've seen the Smitty's up close and they look very close to the Sansabelts.

[constable]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

There's always the one odd bird.

Pleats are goofy looking. all of my dress pants are flat front.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by constable

Pleats are goofy looking. all of my dress pants are flat front.

My pants have a very obvious, large, bulge in the front. It's to attract hot, single moms. For some reason, the pants don't seem to be workng. Must be my tailor's fault?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by constable

Pleats are goofy looking. all of my dress pants are flat front.

Flat front pants scream out (to me) the same way that a belt does. Other regions and viewpoints may vary.

[fullor30]

Saw a crew in Chicago area last week for a girls tourney, all had belted pants.

First thought was they were from Wisconsin (sorry Rich) or central Illinois. It was the latter. The dads I was sitting with caught it right away. It just sticks out. To make it worse one official had a fifties do wop haircut along with a shirt one size too large with no black shirt underneath to cover up his cashmere sweater chest hair..........not a good look.



A wide belt(along with a blue work shirt) was great for Hootenannys in the sixties, not for trying to look professional.

[VaTerp]

On the beltless vs belt thing I have to say I'm surprised that people are actually making a case for wearing belts. Ever since I started officiating as an undergrad student in the late 90s I was taught that belts were a a no-go.

I don't think it's arbitrary either. And I don't think it's likely to change any time soon or really at all. There is a reason all higher level officials go beltless. It's a cleaner, more athletic look.

I have worked in 3 different states and the only guys who wear belts have been some older officials working sub varsity games or a rookie official working sub-varsity games. And after watching them work a game you see why they are lower level officials and, as far as the older guys, will never do anything above JV.

The story about a beltless official not knowing a rule is irrelevant. Wearing the "right" pants does not make you a good official. And when a decision about assigning a high level game or moving up is being made you would think that the choice is being made amongst good officials. If one of those good officials wears a belt, you can be assured he will be passed up for another official who wears the right pants.

I would be curious to know where beltless pants arent the norm. I have friends who officiate in just about every region of the country and they have the same experience with belted officials. As soon as you see the belt, it's a huge red flag for other officials, coaches, players, and fans. It just looks amateurish.

[amusedofficial]

I think the reason the unbelted look is preferred, encouraged or demanded.it is not because there is no belt or it meets the hot moms' definition of good-looking, but because among those wearing belts there is a wide variety of styles, colors, widths and buckles that make them non-uniform; it is virtually impossile to achieve a uniform appearance with a variety of belts and pant styles in play

If you have a crew of two or three all wearing belted pants, each belt will be different. There is relatively little style difference among the major suppliers of non-belted pants, save the issue of pleated vs. non pleated which is no more different than baseball players choosing to wear pants to the ankles or knicker-style.

Shoes and lanyards are another matter; all of sports gives leeway for personal preference in shoes as long as basic parameters (i.e. all black, no logos) are met. And you'll never get me to use a lasso-style lanyard while working a game of overgrown adolescents who have flying arms and legs and varyign degrees or coordination. Let them break my clasp, not my neck.

Unbelted pants are, by default as much as style, the uniform and irrespective of how it got that way, its adoption by those working the higher ranks is really the only way to have officials who are uniform and thus professional in appearance. It's not about looking sharp (how "sharp" can one look in stripes) as much as it is about looking like a corps of officials, presumably one held to a set of standards, rather than a bunch of Janes and Joes off the street.

It matters because the evaluation of what we do is so subjective. MickeyMantle could make fun of the K.C. A's kelly green and fort knox gold colors ("they should be holding hands and singing") but three world championships put that issue to bed. We, on the other hand, are judged almost entirely by perception, if we dress in a predictible and unifrom style, our image improves and we are respected as what we are, trained people who take what they do seriously and who have standards that are enforced within the cadre of officials

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

Shoes and lanyards are another matter; all of sports gives leeway for personal preference in shoes as long as basic parameters (i.e. all black, no logos) are met. And you'll never get me to use a lasso-style lanyard while working a game of overgrown adolescents who have flying arms and legs and varyign degrees or coordination. Let them break my clasp, not my neck.

Not everyone agrees that what should be or what should not be on the shoes. I have worn shoes with little logos for some years now and no one seems to care. But shoes are always going to be a personal thing as we all do not have the same needs or comfort level. And considering that you can hardly find a pair of shoes that are all black or leather this is not a universal issue.

Peace