Help Settle Dispute: PLEASE RATE THIS GIRL OOT!

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

FTR, Davenport is definitely a 7. Athleticism = hot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, have you started smoking your crack already?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol - I mean, Davenport is basically a dude, amirite? I get the whole being attracted to athletic chicks thing... but this is over the line, imo.

-Al

[sethypooh21]

I'm with El D, Davenport is in the 5-7 range. (Possible bonus point(s) for the fact that she is quite good at tennis, and reasonably smart from the interviews of her which I've seen.

She's no Sue Bird, but she's no Rebbecca Lobo either...

[Aloysius]

Davenport's *listed* at 6'2", 175, which probably means she's >200. Also, her face looks like it is melting.

But to each his own.

-Al

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
< 1

I don't believe in the bell curve for rating women, by the way. I'm easily repulsed by nasty ladies.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's another big issue with these polls. people get worked up because they think someone is a 2 (meaning 80% are better looking) while others think she's a 4 (using the normal distribution, meaning 1 sd below average) and really they mean about the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true. pirateboy sees no difference between the two in the mcdonald's pic and the 3 1's in the OPs pic #3 and he's FOS.

If he was forced to choose to bang one of them on the threat of death, he'd certainly mentally rank them quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im with him, there is no difference between a chick that is 250, and a chick that is 200, Im not banging either one of them, they are both ones. Pirateboy is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

guids,

did you miss the part about "threat of death"?

[/ QUOTE ]

ya I did, its retarded to bring crap like that up. in real life when does that happen? why put retarded conditions on it? IRL, if I am unwiling to sleep with a chick she is going to be a 1. There is no "degrees" of ugliness. there are ugly chicks, and then there si the rest fo the population that you can catagorize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I disagree, but I cant argue with your response.

[pirateboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
< 1

I don't believe in the bell curve for rating women, by the way. I'm easily repulsed by nasty ladies.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's another big issue with these polls. people get worked up because they think someone is a 2 (meaning 80% are better looking) while others think she's a 4 (using the normal distribution, meaning 1 sd below average) and really they mean about the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true. pirateboy sees no difference between the two in the mcdonald's pic and the 3 1's in the OPs pic #3 and he's FOS.

If he was forced to choose to bang one of them on the threat of death, he'd certainly mentally rank them quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im with him, there is no difference between a chick that is 250, and a chick that is 200, Im not banging either one of them, they are both ones. Pirateboy is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

guids,

did you miss the part about "threat of death"?

[/ QUOTE ]

ya I did, its retarded to bring crap like that up. in real life when does that happen? why put retarded conditions on it? IRL, if I am unwiling to sleep with a chick she is going to be a 1. There is no "degrees" of ugliness. there are ugly chicks, and then there si the rest fo the population that you can catagorize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicely put, and my sentiments exactly.

There can be a girl who I wouldn't bang who could be a 3 or 4, because she has redeeming qualities, but is overall an ugoh.

However, the 3 girls I ranked 1s are fat AND ugly. When a girl is fat, there's a breaking point where it all meshes together in terms of nastiness. The girl in the OP is overweight and can obviously look somewhat attractive if she lost it. Thus, a 3.

[El Diablo]

pj,

The third one sure, but you think the first two shots from matches were airbrushed?

[guids]

The only reason I rank chicks below 5s is because I dont want to debate a million people on how she isnt a one, but rather a 4.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
pj,

The third one sure, but you think the first two shots from matches were airbrushed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not airbrushed, but certainly one of her PR reps/managers decided pics like that showed her at her absolute best. I think if you found 50 pics of her online, 47 of them would look worse than the 3 you posted.

Let me amend my formula. The lower THR is, the greater X is going to be. That is to say, really hot chicks won't look that much different in publicity shots, but nasty ones clean up a lot better in magazines.

[Aloysius]

So she's a 7, and some of you are saying Alison Stokke is just another pretty girl (which I assume puts her at a 7 or 8)? WTF @ wildly varying opinions.

-Al

[Vyse]

Sue Bird is insanely hot.