ACCBiggz

**Update** It fixed itself. How? I don't know. This can be closed.

I just put this on my new computer (Windows 10) and went through the install process. Everything is fine on that end. However, I downloaded a mod and went to replace the files. Nothing happened. I'm the admin. When I drag & drop, cut & paste, etc. it will give me the option to overwrite. I chose yes. It goes through 100%, dialogue box disappears... nothing happens. Clearly this is a Windows issue, but I couldn't find a resolution anywhere and it only happens with the BBCF folder. I can still drag & drop, move files, replace files everywhere else on the hard drive but not in the BBCF folder. I even had to uninstall and reinstall the game because I tried deleting the files and dropping in the new ones. Not only did that not work, pstats and psetup would not restore from the recycle bin. It's a very curious problem and I don't understand why it's happening. Any suggestions?

I appreciate the notes.

<p>It's been awhile since I've been around this community, and I know the new TEW has many changes. Before buying the game and committing to playing (I bought TEW 2013 and never played it) I wanted to know a few things if you could be so kind to help:</p><p> </p><p> Primarily, my concern has been with female workers. Obviously, in the past 1-2 years we have seen women become a significant part of the show. How difficult is it to book them like their male counterparts and get them over, and which mod (although this may be personal opinion) has the best female stats.</p><p> </p><p> I ask because something like Banks vs. Bayley from Brooklyn would have never happened on older mods. Women's stats were almost criminally low across the board. Now with popularity shifts and workrate improvements we are seeing more and more fantastic matches stateside (joshi has put out quality work constantly).</p><p> </p><p> I'd hate to embark on booking a women's division only to have the roster be unable to provide excellent matches which they are proving to be able to do. Especially the top tier of the division currently. And I don't have the time to individually edit each and every woman in a particular database.</p><p> </p><p> Thanks! Appreciate the time.</p>

While I do enjoy Tough Enough a couple of things seemed odd to me from the outset of the show. Matt Cross seemed like a plant. Someone with moderate experience and exposure to cut early on to "show they're serious". And that's just something minor. A lot of the interaction between the contestants seems fake to me. And the way they promote Luke almost makes me think he is/was a pre-determined winner and this is to put him over. Knowing how reality television and wrestling are I think it's a 50/50 shot I'm right and wrong. Regardless, most if not all of the talent will be signed to developmental deals. The woman who was eliminated the first week has already signed. It's part of the reason I enjoyed the very first season of Tough Enough. It came off as genuine. The open casting calls and evaluations and then selections to the show. This cast seems hand selected for a variety of entertainment purposes and that really sticks out to me and makes me question the validity of the "competition". But hey, I still enjoy the product so why am I complaining?

Those promos were the best thing he ever did, but outside of those I never once saw him as a viable top tier talent. I never enjoyed him personally.

But there is a striking difference in comparing these shows. Expectations are everything. IX, XI, etc. were during the time when the WWF (and wrestling in general) was suffering a lull and then came WCW was on the rise. The expectation for those shows were not high whereas in today's WWF you have anyone you could possibly want. A plethora of talented workers both in ring and on the stick, the expectations for these shows are always high - as they should be with the wealth of talent they have including bringing back The Rock and Steve Austin - and yet they put out a product like last night (from what I've read and is being discussed.)

I did not watch Wrestlemania XXVII. After viewing The True Story of Wrestlemania and reading about the 1987 TEW2010 mod I got the wrestling itch again and watched Raw to get a sense of the storylines/card and so forth and could not have been more let down with the product I seen. That immediately let me know I would not be ordering and then seeing the price tag of $64.95 for HD astonished me beyond belief. It's unfortunate for a number of reasons I won't get in to. However, I was, as in years past, interested in the streak of The Undertaker and wanted to hear how the show was. One of the major detractions from the show was Taker vs. HHH. I LOVED it at WM17, but again... I saw it at WM17 and knew it couldn't surpass it so why bother? The booking really hurt my interest in the show. I scanned a couple forums (this included) and social networking sites and the consensus is this was one of the worst Wrestlemania's in quite some time. So, I guess I feel good about not ordering the show. Long-term the WWE would be stupid to NOT end the streak if it's to the right person. I've always been a proponent of this IF they have someone young and talented enough to benefit for years to come. I think this or last year would have been a great time for someone like CM Punk to be put in an appropriate program with The Undertaker and defeat him. Excellent worker, fantastic on the mic and young enough to benefit for years to come. However, that time has passed in my opinion. One of the next logical choices, in my opinion, would be someone like Ted DiBiase Jr. (especially if they bring back Sr. to build it up from Survivor Series [Takers' debut on Million Dollar Man's team] all the way to XXVIII). Having him end undefeated is fine with me if he is only going to wrestle the older/bigger names in the company. However, a great retirement match would work out for everyone if he lost to a younger guy like that as it creates a new star and sends off The Undertaker. The WWE has always spent large sums of money to make Wrestlemania feel special (early years booking large stadiums and more recent times with the set-ups). They spent MILLIONS just sprucing up the old Orange Bowl a few years ago for the event. It's one thing I do applaud the WWE for in that they are never concerned with the bottom line for the one-off Wrestlemania dollar figure. And their reasoning is exactly the reason they started Wrestlemania to begin with... it's a huge boost for a longer period of time. It's the equivalent of saying spend $1 today for $100 the rest of the year. If that makes sense to anyone. I've seen much more hate from wrestling fans on the forums than casual fans on Twitter. But to answer the latter part... it's Wrestlemania. It's like casual fans watching the Super Bowl. They'll watch it regardless of the card because it's an event. It has surpassed wrestling itself and has become a pop culture event. Wow. There is really no other way of saying this: that statement is ignorance personified.

Had absolutely zero to do with Goldberg. That's just nonsense. Had to do with this being one of the least attended weigh-ins in QUITE some time. It filled out some, and Munoz and Jones both got sizable pops from the live crowd. Goldberg probably had the third biggest autograph line that day behind Dana and... Fabricio Werdum.

Rogan has done PBP before and it wasn't good. He's also been on record numerous times stating how great Goldberg is as it and that he never, ever, wants to be in that chair again. He talks about how it's a totally different world than being just the color commentator. Which it is.

Reply if you will, but this will be my last post on the matter. I'm sorry, but I can't sit here and have an intelligent debate on judging the fight and so forth when you have these inherit fallacious filled arguments. It's an entirely backwards viewpoint that totally misses the point of the rules of judging a fight and makes up an entirely different rulebook on how to judge a fight. Because, according to how you have stated it here numerous times in numerous posts, the only effective strikes are those that leave marks. Which is so far beyond the truth it's amazing. I don't even know how to respond to the first part of arguing against the majority... I mean... what? The majority of people drank the kool-aid as well. At the very least I urge you to pick up some boxing dvd's, perhaps a judging DVD (Doc Hamilton's are fine, but maybe you could find one on just boxing or striking in general) and use that to enhance your acumen. As mentioned above, I'm done with this so a reply will fall upon deaf ears but do so at your own discretion. So, the most definitive round in the entire fight you scored for the other guy? I don't have an issue with rounds 3-5 but did feel the third went to Penn, but go back and at least watch Round Two. It's the single most definitive round in the fight for either fighter.

FightMetric is a good way to back up reasoning to a point. For instance, I've seen countless Round Two's for Edgar when Penn lands 110 to 28. Scoring simply on the basis of FightMetric will have flaws. So we should not score rounds if a fighter thinks he lost? That's a very fallacious argument. You should score rounds based on just the fight per round, nothing else. As I said, you could see it in Penn's eyes from late 3rd on that he quit, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't score the fight on what had been done. Because those should have ABSOLUTELY ZERO barring on judging. That's exactly what the fight is judged on... if it lands, it's effective, hence effective striking. The last two aren't weighted the same as the first two. Striking and grappling are MMA and are thus weighted much higher. If Penn lands more clean, effective strikes than Frankie he shouldn't lose the round because Frankie seemed more aggressive. I find that asinine. And Octagon Control could be debated actually. Penn took control of the center of the Octagon and Frankie was using movement to evade and find ways to attack Penn who established himself. I mean, that's just one counter argument for that particular stat. But as I mentioned above it should not be weighted evenly with Effective Striking or Grappling. It wouldn't. Because my opinion is correct in my eyes. Penn had clean, effective boxing while Edgar had... nothing really, early on. Again, I believe the perception of his movement and energy really swayed the fight. And you can't judge on that. But, as I said on Twitter, if you are scoring on a PRIDE based system of a total fight then I agree Frankie won the fight, but you can't do that with a 10-point must system. And those early rounds were fairly definitive for Penn with the third round being closer.

So, by scoring the fight myself and offering why I scored a fight as such, AND asking someone else WHY they scored it their way is contesting a decision and showcasing the fact I know better than others? I simply asked him WHY he scored it as such, and a per round basis would be sufficient considering we are in a 10-point must scoring system. Saying, "Frankie worked more" as some has said doesn't offer sufficient answers because it seems as if you are judging the fight as a whole and not on a per round basis as fights are judged by. LoNdOn did offer his opinion because I asked, and yet you chime in with unecessary hostile posts. Do I disagree with his assessment? Yes, but I merely wanted to know why he scored it as such. The undeniable statistics even back me up on the fact for the first three rounds, with round three being close. I really have ZERO quams with Frankie winning, because as I have said elsewhere that you could see it in Penn's eyes from the late third that he simply had given up and I would rather have a bad decision go to someone who didn't give up on the fight. However, the textbook boxing and landing that Penn did prior to that won him the first three rounds. Also, I stated that a lot of the reason that it seems like Edgar was the winner of the fight, as a whole, is from the perception of what he was doing. He looked fresh, had a lot of energy and movement, and Penn had a few bumps and bruises. However, that is not a way to judge by any stretch of the word. A lot are likening this to Machida/Shogun in regards to scoring and controversey. My stance on that fight was that it simply wasn't a robbery and I backed up my argument. And I feel I've also provided enough proof for this fight as well. I think it's a mix of not scoring BJ's boxing correctly and the perception of how Edgar looked without regard to what he actually did.

Please, as you seem to join a lot of fans, tell me how you got to this conclusion? My basis for the score: Penn was on point early with crisp boxing. Frankie didn't land on Penn at all really, maybe a small shot here or there, but BJ tagged him REPEATEDLY with a nice jab and decent counters. I mean, it was textbook boxing. Yet, I think where the "Frankie won the fight" stuff comes from is perception. BJ had a very small cut, little bruising, was tired at the end, and Frankie remained very active with movement. And that's fine, but you don't get points for movement. I really want to send Boxing 101 DVD's to people and learn them something.

Penn/Edgar Scores from around the community: Myself - 48-47 Penn Sherdog - 49-47, 48-47, 49-46 all for Penn MMA Junkie - 48-47 Edgar MMA Weekly - 48-48 Draw Bloody Elbow - 48-47 Penn Fight Metric (statistics) - 49-47 Penn

There are two important pieces here in this quote: And I think what BJ wants to do is best. Test the waters while being Lightweight champion, if it goes well then he can vacate the belt. Which is why Penn/Hughes III would work excellent in that regard. Because if he vacates the belt and moves up then loses - meh.

It's my guess that if he wins the fight we would see Penn vs. Hughes III to determine the series. Penn has talked openly about possibly doing the same as Anderson Silva by remaining the Lightweight Champion and taking big Welterweight fights, and he isn't in title contention right now. I could see Penn vs. Hughes III, followed by a title defense against Florian/Maynard winner, and then potentially a Welterweight title shot. IF he continues to win. But, there really is no reason not to do the fight if both win. Penn has effectively cleared out the division, the series is split, and neither are in a position to challenge for the 170 belt.

It's HIGHLY annoying. Moreso because Anderson allows himself to be taken down because he's not concerned there at all. A lot of people still point to the Lutter fight... Lutter didn't connect on any punches from the mount, Anderson blocked them all and was never in any danger, ever. Henderson had his chance, but he did nothing from the top and wasn't so much that he got off his gameplan as much as it was that Silva caught him and that set off the series ending compliation. IF the fight does hit the ground, Maia is certainly capable of catching Anderson, don't get that twisted. But it's not as if Anderson is not able to stop him or defend himself. Anderson is skilled enough to determine where he wants to fight and chooses stand-up the majority of the time.

He's completely safe... they've been training together so they aren't going to fight even if he entered the UFC in the future. >_>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="brashleyholland" data-cite="brashleyholland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26660" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think everybody in the world picked Quarry for that one. Definitely an upset. Quarry looked stiff as anything.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Wrong. I picked Rivera by TKO in the 2nd... and I was correct. Why would I pick someone with borderline atrocious stand-up against someone else who is very proficient in that field? Because he has a little bit of power? What Rivera said pre-fight is exactly why it's not an upset (the quote about hitting him as much as Creduer).</p><p> </p><p> My only thought to the card was High/Brenneman fight. I scored it 29-28 for Jason, but figured they'd score it for Charlie. Taking nothing away from Charlie, but it came down to the third round and while he had a couple takedowns... he did nothing with the position, no sub attempts, and very little if any strikes landed. High on the other hand had two deep guillotines. It's one thing I think the "Unified" rules of judging need to take from Japan. Reward the fighter who is trying to actually finish the fight. Yes, he got taken down but when NOTHING is done with it and the guy on the bottom nearly finishes with guillotines on two separate occassions... I give the round to him for doing something.</p>

If you get a chance to see the WEC live, do it. Also, what prelims made the telecast? The only real "bad" fight of the night was LC Davis', but that was more of a stalemate than anything.

How is something highly predictable a twist?

Don't watch either TNA or WWE anymore but had to tune in tonight. My impressions: WWE had a fantastic opening, TNA is absolute trash. May be the worst hour of programming I've seen in a long time.