SK: Concept wise you were pretty good. Execution of said concepts however, was poor. Putting it down to ring rust. all of the [ & { shit in the middle of your bars needs to go. It kills the readability/flow of your bars. If an expo IS needed (shouldn't need any) put them at the end of the bar(s) that they're need for... just some tips so you can improve. Like i said, concept wise you'd some good stuff, just need to work more on the delivery and execution of the concepts to garnish better & stronger punchlines. AG: Opening set was dope, concept wise. Execution was nice and hit well. Love the double meanings and mentioning of preseidents. Bing Rips lines was smooth and hit nicely. Ending bar was also nice. Overall: Not a bad spar here, gents. I've auto taking this with a smoother flowing/better readability and better executed concepts w/ harder hitting punchlines due to this. Fairs in, i'm out. 

Expo: an-drew. Jack-son. Lincoln=Presidents. Oswald- killed a president. 

Nice spar here gents. SK you have a very strange old school style. The format i havent seen for a while. Auto more standard in form and content. Overall i felt one said more "impressive" bars during the 8. Fairs in. 1/

This is a tough battle to judge, because both had some down sides, with some positive notes mixed in. SupremeKnowledge, you're a bit too direct, in my opinion. What I mean by that, is that you aren't flipping many of your ideas in a clever way to enforce a double meaning. E.G. the murking his dad bar. There's no real punch to speak of here, you're literally just saying... that you'll murk his dad. And to me, that comes off as ineffectual. I'd like to see the incorporation of some more thought out ideas/concepts, that you're delivering as punchlines. 

(Accidentally hit comment only before I was done.) 

This is a tough battle to judge, because both had some down sides, with some positive notes mixed in. SupremeKnowledge, you're a bit too direct, in my opinion. What I mean by that, is that you aren't flipping many of your ideas in a clever way to enforce a double meaning. E.G. the murking his dad bar. There's no real punch to speak of here, you're literally just saying... that you'll murk his dad. And to me, that comes off as ineffectual. I'd like to see the incorporation of some more thought out ideas/concepts, that you're delivering as punchlines. Pussy/vet concepts are also incredibly played, which cost you a lot here, as well. Focus on freshness, and punches. Autograph, I'd say you had the better concepts here, but, had some pretty poor execution of them. I liked the IDEA of the dead presidents line, but, what do things like, "Y'all gonna say Auto seen'em Andrew back the Tommy." mean? Because the wordplay doesn't work both ways, it seems nonsensical when you consider it in its second form. And that was the case for the Jackson wordplay as well(along with this particular oronym being VERY played.) which cost you big to me. Overall, though, I think that Auto took this because of a better understanding of these more technical aspects, and the brighter, more sound conceptual bases for his punches. 

Close one to call here. Auto, that DEAD PRESIDENTS multi was caught out on his own on an island out there homie. Gotta shorten that space between the multi up, or at the very least carry solid inner rhymes if the line's gotta be like that.

I still like Auto taking this because I think his punches hit harder and were set up in a more developed way. SK has that raw aggression and solid structure but I think he went a little light on the punches here and it cost him this battle by a hair.

Funny shit..... When i logges on and seen that people voted i already knew what it was. It is what it is. Good shit Auto

SupremeKnowlege nice verse some nice wordplay and punchlines.

Correct me if I am wrong, anyone. As I do try to understand metaphors as well, sometimes people’s bars are to intricate for me to fully understand, without being told.

I only understood Autograph’s bar, after I read his comment that explained that specific bar, the way it was structured. Also the Harvard bar/Metaphor to finish it was strong.

Well done to you both, good luck to you both.

Autograph I went with. I liked how his verse was structured and went. SupremKnowledge I also liked yours, but overall I prefered Autograph

This was a solid bout, although both textcees have a lot of room to improve from here.

SK, a lot of your verse seemed like filler without genuine punchline flips. The "pluckin whiskers" line was your closest to a conventional punch, but just in general I think you should focus on reading up on more of the punches being dropped nowadays.

Auto I think you had more genuine punchlines landing, which is what gave you the win here, but your structure wasn't great here. You had massive buildups between multis, which just isn't on, especially when your multis aren't that long and you have no internal rhyming. It's ok to sacrifice some of the extra detail to a punch in order to make it flow smoothly because otherwise it won't land heavily. But in this case you didn't even need to. Your "dead presidents" punch had 4 multis and you only began setting the punchline between the 3rd and 4th, if you have heaps of content spread it between all the multis so they're more evenly spaced and it flows better. Also don't be lazy with 2 syllable schemes like "draw grips/bong rips". I thought your closer was your best, decent rhyming and not too badly spaced. However, you could have cut it down to make your verse more fluid, for instance by cutting out "if he thinks he's top of the class then" from the final line, and making similar cuts throughout the verse.

Thanks for the feed back fellas. That's what we need to see on all battle votes. 

Supreme, the {} was definitely a cool nostalgic reminder of 2007. It's not a positive, as Cash One and CSK is the embarassment of my LB lifespan, but it was still funny to see. Rhyming wise you did pretty decent. You had some very light metaphor ideas, but you need to start looking at how to flip things and make punchlines to start taking battles.

Auto, the first line was pretty terrible. The main reason is from Said Evidence to Dead Preisdents you have a whopping 39 sylables of unrhymed content. You simply can't have this much and expect any sort of flow to exist. This "reference" style where you just name dead presidents and end with "like dead presidents" isn't my cup of tea. You need to work them into the line to work both ways, not say "That auto seen'em andrew back the tommy". Ending was okay but nothinbg great.

Overall, I did prefer reading SK's verse. I felt it flowed pretty well which made for an easy read. However, even with some technical flaws, Auto did have more firepower in punchlines and without the hits, you don't win battles, so I vote Auto.-

well one's style reminded me of the mid 2000s a little which needs to be tuned up as per the nature of disses today and should be fine coz everything else about it is pretty much legitimately tight while the other had a much better approach to this in terms of style and disses too which seemed fresher comparatively hence my vote for him.

Both pretty simplistic verses. Would like to see concepts flipped more cleverly. Nothing here that excited me. Seeing as this is text and readability is important I had to take some points away from TM for all the parenthesis and stuff in the verse. Was confusing and made his verse difficult to follow and understand.