MUMMRA Comment Only
Posted on: 2014-05-26 16:00:17

Deleted MUMMRA vote. Star explaining your votes Comment Only
Posted on: 2014-05-26 16:17:40

MURDER. Comment Only
Posted on: 2014-05-26 16:42:13

AC Comment Only
Posted on: 2014-05-26 20:43:53

Good battle Ac'S Comment Only
Posted on: 2014-05-27 09:23:02

All round, I saw one battler had a more solid array of scheme-work and a better rate of conversion. Caked, I liked a few of punches. I felt the opener was tarred by awkward cadence due to the choice of scheme. The scheme after which [SENSITIVE PERSON] was a lot better and flowed more effectively. The concept was simple but well executed. Wording was hard to convert. I couldn't help but noticed a lack of sharp, relevant set-ups in your verse: Although the one-line referencing allowed for jabs to have impact, I feel you could have utilised your set-up space to have better build-ups. Double entendres need to be implemented for your set-ups, that way you could have jabs as you lead up to the punch, making for more punch density and bigger impact. In my opinion, the last scheme was a non-rhyme [DUMB NOOB / SPONGE BOB] - so that took away from it, I also think letter plays are quite weak punch-wise. You had an alright verse, I liked the referencing but you need to have more hints dropped during your set-ups to create penultimate jabs or at least build-up your punch more effectively. Lock, I liked the opener. Solid scheme-work throughout. Although the wording was a little off perfect natural speech, it was still executed well. The next bar was a little forced conceptually as you had to make a "lounging around" reference which didn't provide a perfect imagery for the concept's content. Punch impact was comical but not powerful. Next bar was a nice jab, set-up hastily but still executed well. Last line had a nice personal element, although punch impact was minimal due to the hasty build-up. All in all, I feel, despite it being an 8, you had a good punch density but I feel you could still saturate your set-ups a little more and hold a scheme for a longer period of time for readability purposes. It was a good verse with good punch density and solid although segregated scheme-work. One got this with a more solid verse structurally and a better grasp of build-ups. Had the opponent worked more on their set-ups, it would have brought it to an even keel. Vitty's vote's in. Comment Only
Posted on: 2014-05-27 11:04:54

#SAVEMONEY Comment Only
Posted on: 2014-05-29 12:14:55

Deleted Tonys vote in favour of Lock at Locks request for the same reason above. Comment Only
Posted on: 2014-05-29 12:38:05

Decent battle..i feel one took this due to easier readability.. better grammar. And scheme usage.. conceptwise .both ezhibited some ok flips.. with that one went for the safe route wit simplistic analogies.. other slightly better... fairs in Comment Only
Posted on: 2014-05-29 17:41:42

CAKED and LOCKHART DID THEIR THING BUT CAKE WAS GASSIN FIRE FROM THE BEGINING :) GOOD ISH BRO KEEP DOING YOUR THING Comment Only
Posted on: 2014-05-29 21:16:55