Arizona Ron
Footballguy
Thanks3 comes after 2. HTH
Thanks3 comes after 2. HTH
I do appreciate the effort of posting the full scale though. Those of us too lazy to post pictures need more of this in here.Seriously. With this scale I rerank myself to a 3/4.If this is the scale, I'll take 3 5's in Dodd's hypothetical. I'm not sure your choices fall off as they should.at 1.
So we get to judge all of these women without being judged ourselves but as soon as a women is commenting, she must allow us to judge her appearance. She doesn't have to justify her thoughts by proving her beauty to us.Ahhhhhh because the rest are men.She commenting about feeling pretty good about how she looks compared to some of these pics and we are looking for regular pics of women so since she claims she's better than some of the submissions back it up and send us a picture.No one else is being asked to submit a picture of themselves to be judged. Why her?Then why make comments and give opinions on a thread about ranking women?Yeah still not gonna happen. I don't need the FFA to validate myself. But thanks for the offer.Never implied you were tops but you said you are feeling pretty good about yourself so bring it and we can rank you.Not gonna happen. I'm ok with not being considered tops on the FBG scale.Post your pic since you want to get involved so we can see where you rank on TOSThe problem with this thread is that I can't unsee these things. It's like a car accident I don't want to click on the 1s but I can't help it, esp that wedding pic. Side note, I'm feeling pretty good about myself.
Dude, chill. Not necessary.I'd bet 3I'd say I hover around a 7, depending on what type of hair day I am having.I'd be classified more as cute, since that is how I am usually described.ETA, with FBG standards I maybe a 6.
I go by just the picture. Nothing else. That's my point, Jenn Sterger is a 8-10 but depending on the picture. I think we need to just have one image that becomes the mental picutre for 1-10Tough scorer.I'd say you'd be more on track if you moved all your pics up one ranking...so, both your 9 and 10 would be 10's. Your 8 would be a 9. 7 would be an 8, etc.
St. Louis Bob is easily a 2.
So we get to judge all of these women without being judged ourselves but as soon as a women is commenting, she must allow us to judge her appearance. She doesn't have to justify her thoughts by proving her beauty to us.
Thanks for defending me guys but it's Goggins, so he'll find some weird rationalization for it and insist that he's right. I'm not offended by it and I don't care what he says or thinks. Now, let's get back to the task at hand. Everyone please post more pics, I would google them but I am at work and I am already worried what the IT guys would think about all the bikini pics in my browser history. I'm a little more worried about them finding all the 1s, 2s, and 3s I've been clicking on.Dude, chill. Not necessary.
I agree, it's about the picture presented only. I don't care who the people are in your pics, but they are under-ranked IMO. No way that 5 is only a 5, no way that 7 is only a 7, etc. Move all up one ranking and I think it's pretty accurate.I go by just the picture. Nothing else. That's my point, Jenn Sterger is a 8-10 but depending on the picture. I think we need to just have one image that becomes the mental picutre for 1-10Tough scorer.I'd say you'd be more on track if you moved all your pics up one ranking...so, both your 9 and 10 would be 10's. Your 8 would be a 9. 7 would be an 8, etc.
St. Louis Bob is easily a 2.
This is where I think your pic to rankings are a bit flawed.EVERY pic gets a ranking between 1-10. There are no zeros and there are no negatives. If a 10 is the hottest of the hot, than a 1 is the ugliest of the ugly.Ask the guy that looked at those two and needed to decide exactly where they fit from 1-10. Seriously, who's giving this a ranking?
'Arizona Ron said:Ask the guy that looked at those two and needed to decide exactly where they fit from 1-10. Seriously, who's giving this a ranking?'Football Menace said:

Link 9 was my favorite of the bunch.
shes cutePrototype 5 right here.
oofLink 9 was my favorite of the bunch.shes cute
IT'S A TRICK!Are these the same girl, just different hair color/length? If so, brunette and long moves her up a point.
all my rankings or just 9?
I think all- I think a "5" has to be the definition of average- not cute, not ugly. Just plain.all my rankings or just 9?
Prototype 5 right here.

Check my quoted pic again...5: Average. starting to be unattractive, but certain qualities work in her favor. Nothing major, but minor problems are more commonno, she's at least a "6" This is a "5" PicPrototype 5 right here.
6 bid, 5 bid, now I have a 4.Do I hear a 3?thats a 4no, she's at least a "6" This is a "5" PicPrototype 5 right here.
Check my quoted pic again...5: Average. starting to be unattractive, but certain qualities work in her favor. Nothing major, but minor problems are more commonno, she's at least a "6" This is a "5" PicPrototype 5 right here.
- Average: Check...she's just there, nothing special about her but nothing overly terrible about her either. If you saw her walking down the street she'd just more or less be invisible.
- Starting to be unattractive: Check...pack on 15lbs and she's down a point. Hand her over to a stylist/salon to give her a makeover with hair and makeup and she's up a point.
- But, certain qualities work in her favor: Check...thin, decent hair, eyebrows manicured, decent complexion
- Nothing major, but minor problems are more common: Check...squarish jaw/chin, ears too large, thin lips
5 is average. By definition, not unattractive.Agree, a 5 is not unattractive...she's STARTING TO BE unattractive, BUT CERTAIN QUALITIES WORK IN HER FAVOR to keep her holding steady at meh.5 is average. By definition, not unattractive.
Starting at 3:406 bid, 5 bid, now I have a 4.Do I hear a 3?thats a 4no, she's at least a "6" This is a "5" PicPrototype 5 right here.
3? 3? 3?
C'mon FBGs one of you has to rate her a 3!
Agree, a 5 is not unattractive...she's STARTING TO BE unattractive, BUT CERTAIN QUALITIES WORK IN HER FAVOR to keep her holding steady at meh.5 is average. By definition, not unattractive.

Love that movieStarting at 3:406 bid, 5 bid, now I have a 4.Do I hear a 3?thats a 4no, she's at least a "6" This is a "5" PicPrototype 5 right here.
3? 3? 3?
C'mon FBGs one of you has to rate her a 3!
No way these two are in the same category.Need some Average/Cute submissions…http://afreeimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/cute-girl-wallpapers-3.jpghttp://www.kclegal.net/photos/3/37Cute%20Girl.JPG
Im pretty sure I have seen a pic of Smilin. It was a small pic but I would say between a 6.5 and 7'Walton Goggins said:Never implied you were tops but you said you are feeling pretty good about yourself so bring it and we can rank you.'iamsmilin said:Not gonna happen. I'm ok with not being considered tops on the FBG scale.'Walton Goggins said:Post your pic since you want to get involved so we can see where you rank on TOSThe problem with this thread is that I can't unsee these things. It's like a car accident I don't want to click on the 1s but I can't help it, esp that wedding pic. Side note, I'm feeling pretty good about myself.
not even close'Walton Goggins said:I'd bet 3'iamsmilin said:I'd say I hover around a 7, depending on what type of hair day I am having.'Gianni Verscotchie said:Tops locally?'iamsmilin said:Not gonna happen. I'm ok with not being considered tops on the FBG scale.'Walton Goggins said:Post your pic since you want to get involved so we can see where you rank on TOSThe problem with this thread is that I can't unsee these things. It's like a car accident I don't want to click on the 1s but I can't help it, esp that wedding pic. Side note, I'm feeling pretty good about myself.I'd be classified more as cute, since that is how I am usually described.ETA, with FBG standards I maybe a 6.
You are one strange dude. 
Did you just Google image search 'Ashley Smith'?
This is why your scale sucks balls. This chick is "average"? Do you know what the definition of average is? This chick has to be in the top 20 percent of all women. That is not average. Your scale is way too skewed for hot chicks. Basically, take the world's hottest 20% of all women and they would fall in your 4 to 10 range. This is why no one likes your scale and why this thread is an absolute trainwreck, because no one really comprehends what you are trying to do.Carry on, morons.

'Walton Goggins said:Then why make comments and give opinions on a thread about ranking women?'iamsmilin said:Yeah still not gonna happen. I don't need the FFA to validate myself. But thanks for the offer.'Walton Goggins said:Never implied you were tops but you said you are feeling pretty good about yourself so bring it and we can rank you.'iamsmilin said:Not gonna happen. I'm ok with not being considered tops on the FBG scale.'Walton Goggins said:Post your pic since you want to get involved so we can see where you rank on TOSThe problem with this thread is that I can't unsee these things. It's like a car accident I don't want to click on the 1s but I can't help it, esp that wedding pic. Side note, I'm feeling pretty good about myself.
You're something else.This is why your scale sucks balls. This chick is "average"? Do you know what the definition of average is? This chick has to be in the top 20 percent of all women. That is not average. Your scale is way too skewed for hot chicks. Basically, take the world's hottest 20% of all women and they would fall in your 4 to 10 range. This is why no one likes your scale and why this thread is an absolute trainwreck, because no one really comprehends what you are trying to do.Carry on, morons.![]()
The decimal system already exists. Thus the 1-10 scale. There's no point in redefining.What does "starting to be unattractive" mean? How do you know her look are regressing by looking at a single point in time?YOUR RANKINGS SUCKAgree, a 5 is not unattractive...she's STARTING TO BE unattractive, BUT CERTAIN QUALITIES WORK IN HER FAVOR to keep her holding steady at meh.5 is average. By definition, not unattractive.
Best post in here.This is why your scale sucks balls. This chick is "average"? Do you know what the definition of average is? This chick has to be in the top 20 percent of all women. That is not average. Your scale is way too skewed for hot chicks. Basically, take the world's hottest 20% of all women and they would fall in your 4 to 10 range. This is why no one likes your scale and why this thread is an absolute trainwreck, because no one really comprehends what you are trying to do.Carry on, morons.![]()