Cory McGee?
Cory McGee?
Lolo was ranked #1 in 2008 and except for thaot trip in the Olympics--she was thinking about the endorsements and glory rather than getting through those final 25 meters--she probably would have won that final and had a gold medal.
SFH fits the bill better. Consistent top 10 perfomer for many years but never the top.
Now to this. Complete nuts on this scale, but the poster is a very very odd one. So not surprised
5 = Completely average. Neither attracted to nor repulsed by.
6 = Fewer than 1/10 more attractive
7 = Fewer than 1/100 "" ""
8 = Fewer than 1/1000 "" ""
9 = Fewer than 1/10000 "" ""
10 = Fewer than 1/100000 "" ""
This is more realistic (age range 20 to 40)
5 = Average
6 = 1 out 3 more attractive
7 = 1 out 5
8 = 1 out of 10
9 = 1/100
10 = 1/1000
Lolo Jones. Granted, she once was talented, but she increasingly leaned on her good looks and become such an obnoxious fame whore who seemed to covet Olympic Gold to such an extent that she was wiling to do anything, even jump over to the Winter games, in order to get one.
Also: Morgan Uceny. For tripping not once, not twice, but thrice in a championship final, she's the Buffalo Bills of middle distance.
this thread is utterly pointless wrote:
Now to this. Complete nuts on this scale, but the poster is a very very odd one. So not surprised
5 = Completely average. Neither attracted to nor repulsed by.
6 = Fewer than 1/10 more attractive
7 = Fewer than 1/100 "" ""
8 = Fewer than 1/1000 "" ""
9 = Fewer than 1/10000 "" ""
10 = Fewer than 1/100000 "" ""
This is more realistic (age range 20 to 40)
5 = Average
6 = 1 out 3 more attractive
7 = 1 out 5
8 = 1 out of 10
9 = 1/100
10 = 1/1000
Interesting. So that posters "6" would be your "8" and his "8" would be a "10"
I might give her an 8.
this thread is utterly pointless wrote:
This is more realistic (age range 20 to 40)
5 = Average
6 = 1 out 3 more attractive
7 = 1 out 5
8 = 1 out of 10
9 = 1/100
10 = 1/1000
JERRY: Elaine, what percentage of people would you say are good looking?
ELAINE: Twenty-five percent.
JERRY: Twenty-five percent, you say? No way! It's like 4 to 6 percent. It's a twenty to one shot.
ELAINE: You're way off.
JERRY: Way off? Have you been to the motor vehicle bureau? It's like a leper colony down there.
ELAINE: So what you are saying is that 90 to 95 percent of the population is undateable?
JERRY: UNDATEABLE!
ELAINE: Then how are all these people getting together?
JERRY: Alcohol.
http://66.media.tumblr.com/0c10ddd5affdafe4d4339d2600603f75/tumblr_o54e4xGIzG1rn92z6o1_400.jpgyeah buddy wrote:
redux wrote:
Maggie Vessey. Got popped for a diuretic in her acne treatment and quickly faded away. NB has high hopes for her.
This is her grasping for relavence in the following years.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfJgAr6UIAA7EnG.jpgAnybody else frantically trying to scroll down? She's nowhere near as good looking as AK, and just looks retarded most of the time because of her clothing designs
Sara Palin wrote:
this thread is utterly pointless wrote:
Now to this. Complete nuts on this scale, but the poster is a very very odd one. So not surprised
5 = Completely average. Neither attracted to nor repulsed by.
6 = Fewer than 1/10 more attractive
7 = Fewer than 1/100 "" ""
8 = Fewer than 1/1000 "" ""
9 = Fewer than 1/10000 "" ""
10 = Fewer than 1/100000 "" ""
This is more realistic (age range 20 to 40)
5 = Average
6 = 1 out 3 more attractive
7 = 1 out 5
8 = 1 out of 10
9 = 1/100
10 = 1/1000
Interesting. So that posters "6" would be your "8" and his "8" would be a "10"
I might give her an 8.
Not really. His 10 might be my 8.:) There is always some personal perferences in judgements.
I think he is being sort of delusional about what the average woman looks like. This is what an slightly above average 20-40 year old woman looks like
http://breast-cancer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/jennys-birthday.jpg. Seriously I think the OP is really underestimating what the average woman looks like probably beause he ignores the bottom 30% that is 60+lbs overweight and pretty much have zero facial features.
I am guessing she is in the range of 1/500-1/1000 for face. And to some extent it is hard because there isn't a much of a difference between 1/100 and 1/10k. You are at the level where things are pretty symetrical, no horrible skin, odd shaped noses, bad teeth and so on. You are talking about small differenc
Kara Goucher?
Brianruns10 wrote:
Lolo Jones. Granted, she once was talented, but she increasingly leaned on her good looks and become such an obnoxious fame whore who seemed to covet Olympic Gold to such an extent that she was wiling to do anything, even jump over to the Winter games, in order to get one.
Few of the people compare to Anna looks wise. They are all very attractive but they tend to be the level right below. Few of them (or Anna for that matter) would make it purely on looks. They are 1/10k people no the 1/million that you need for a model.
As far as Lolo, if you had a chance at a medal would you try a different sport? I know I would have. Granted I don't think there was any evidence that she was going to be a better pusher than hurdler.
asdfdas wrote:
Not really. His 10 might be my 8.:) There is always some personal perferences in judgements.
I think he is being sort of delusional about what the average woman looks like. This is what an slightly above average 20-40 year old woman looks like
http://breast-cancer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/jennys-birthday.jpg. Seriously I think the OP is really underestimating what the average woman looks like probably beause he ignores the bottom 30% that is 60+lbs overweight and pretty much have zero facial features.
I am guessing she is in the range of 1/500-1/1000 for face. And to some extent it is hard because there isn't a much of a difference between 1/100 and 1/10k. You are at the level where things are pretty symetrical, no horrible skin, odd shaped noses, bad teeth and so on. You are talking about small differenc
I should clarify that my scale above or below 5 is for only women on the same side of the scale. For example, a 6 isn't 1 in 10 for ALL women, she's 1 in 10 for women above average. To me that puts 10 on a truly elite level, and as you say it becomes pretty subjective. There are only a few thousand in the entire US, and seeing one in person is extremely rare. But on my scale a 7 is much more common, and still an extremely good looking woman, and an 8 is a total knockout.
I'll agree with your slightly above average woman. It would be entertaining to post examples for 6-10, but I've had enough with objectifying women for one day. Please continue with posting hot non-talented athletes.
