Good reads here from both. I'mma have to come back to this one. Posted on: 2015-11-14 05:26:43

For me, one persons wp killed a lot of his bars. They just didn't work and or where a serious stretch on the syllables. Other's readability was smoother which made his bars stronger though could of done with connecting set ups to punches more. The fairs in, i'm out. Posted on: 2015-11-16 09:40:57

Xpo- used to be named bleu, tried deleting accounts then came back a week later, put former crew members on blast in forums after writing bars for em. I(ndica)'ll trade hands, tribal shit on the real estate, Indian Exchange (indians sold manhattan for almost nothing), Denard Robinson went pro as a running back after playing QB in college. Comment Only
Posted on: 2015-11-13 21:31:58

Indica: I enjoyed this, and your verse steadily improved throughout. Your flow was excellent. Your punches were strong; though some concepts were played, all were effectively delivered. I didn't like your no-air wordplay, but I stress that phrase's w-sound, and most readers won't. My main issue with this verse was your setup-punchline disconnection, although there were less of those near the end as well. "Sees-I-Yawn" is grammatically wrong, "Murda "Oversea's Every Letter of Yours"" is grammatically and logically wrong, and "this shits an "AIDS Awareness Marathon" & you "RUNNIN THE RISK OF DEATH!"" is logically disconnected; an AIDS awareness marathon =/= the risk of death. I understood those punches, but disliked them. Overall, I felt like you lazily wrote this. I believe you didn't write enough strong material for this and resorted to using played and/or technically flawed concepts, while retaining your usual excellent delivery. Esso: Your concepts and execution weren't on Indica's level. You had disconnected punchlines, but fewer, and you effectively masked that or made it irrelevant. Most of your punches were played or obvious, and some rhymes were slanted weirdly. You also had a broken multi in the bus bar... I'll let you find it. Overall, this verse wasn't bad, but its already lackluster content was marred horribly by varied, major, and repeated flaws in your execution. Final verdict: I enjoyed both verses, but one was better in every way. Fair's in. Low-Low. Voted: Esso /
Posted on: 2015-11-14 17:07:45

Solid weeds . Felt the winner had nuff materialistic punches & had on point aggressive jabs and most multies executed perfect which of course went very along with the phrase plays . the L'er was real good but felt like he had less material against his opponent and felt like he was all over the space. Fairs in . good battle filos. Voted: Esso /
Posted on: 2015-11-15 08:59:06

This was a dope battle here. IMO I thought one was slightly more creative and had better execution...the other had some awkward multis at times but had better angles and some nice bars I was really feeling. WP was dope from one and the personals were nice from the other. Overall I have to go w/ the verse I felt was slightly feeling more. Came down to preference here. Fairs dropped Voted: Esso /
Posted on: 2015-11-15 15:06:44

I'll be back on my lunch brake to vote This dope tho Voted: Esso /
Posted on: 2015-11-16 11:23:56

Good battle. Both brought properly structured bars with only a few stretches and errors. This is very close, and could go either way. My chosen winner was risky with a few disconnected setups and forced wordplay, but also had some decent concepts and at least one very mentionable line. My loser was a bit more lackluster conceptually with the exception of the "light lines" bar that I thought was fairly well executed and notable. My losers multi structure was solid, and could win him this battle, but I am leaning towards the verse I found a bit more interesting. Toss up. RESPECT 2 both. FV in. Voted: Esso /
Posted on: 2015-11-16 14:54:18

It was all good some personals . I threw them out the way and went bar for bar . One was better to me . Had the punches n flow that it took to take the W 100 from me Fv in Voted: Esso /
Posted on: 2015-11-16 19:25:05