Look man, I seriously mistook your post as an insult. It's based on how you worded it, and if you can't see that it was a simple mistake based on something you did, then you simply are in denial. I don't go around reading your every post, and of course I don't know you, how am I too, your just some name on a message board, nothing more, nothing less. I wouldn't be any more qualified to assertain whether you were not insulting Michael then I would be to assume you were. It was the way you worded it, that's where it comes from. I accept your deinal as the truth, and that's all there is to it.
You don't seem to grasp a word I what I was saying regarding Michael being able to still outdance any of the above mentioned names. Michael, in comparison to himself, isn't what he used to be in terms of dance, but he still is a superior dancer to any of the above mentioned and always will be. Based on this fact alone, he can still outdance them because he simply is better. Better control, better speed, even still, I'm willing to bet any amount of money on that, more grace and fluidity. The ONLY things Michael has lost in terms of physical capability is some speed, some endurance and some strength. But that doesn't mean he's lost his seamless connection of steps, his grace or his control. And basing this on the evidence we do have, which is all anything is based on, if you actually think about it, then yes, Michael is still capable of all those things, at the same level. How long you can keep it up for is of no concern to me. That doesn't determine how good you are in any particular field of the performing arts. It's simply based on execution. None of the above mentioned names can move with the kind of control, ease or accuracy of Michael, and those factors alone make Michael better. And I can bet, as I said before, that his speed is still superior, because last I checked it was and he was so blindingly fast before that any trickle down is still supeiror, I'm sure. Not to mention, the emphasis you put in to each step is based on something called coordination, how much energy you can put in to a single motion. Michael hasn't lost that coordination. Maybe he's lost some of the strength he once had, but he still can put whatever strength he has left all in to a single movement, and that makes for a more pronounced appearance then even a young man with less coordination, like Omarion, could ever do.
Anyway, like I said, you have taken great issue with anyone here stating that the performance was bad, and it confuses me as to why. You seem to not be able to grasp the concept that one can appreciate the effort while still not being impressed by it. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your mind around, exactly?
Oh, and again, about the "erratic" thing, Omarion is simply a dancer who lacks any kind of good control, and so, in general, he is sloppy and unkept looking when he dances. This performance was just another instance of such. I don't care how many songs he performed in how many minutes. Again, it was rehearsed, it was planned, it was staged, and still, Omarion specifically looked decidedly average, as he always does. His dancing is what looked erratic and sloppy, not the staging or the choreography, just the execution.
And about his singing, I probably could outsing Omarion, it's not as though in todays industry it's actually a requirnement that you have a good voice.
