HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Creating our own Hall of Fame?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-14-2010, 10:03 AM
  #226
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The gap between proposal and final result is the issue. Mechanisms have to be in place to safeguard the process.

My biggest concern is the possibility that almost from the start there will be the usual comparisons across multiple generations. This is not how the game of hockey evolved or how HOF merit was determined.

When the initial HHOF inductees were named , the question of how they would fare against players generations down the road was not an issue.Regardless of the method this factor has to be respected at all times..
My concern is that we don't replicate the same mistakes that the current Hall did and elect for example 15 % of players (in terms of games played) from one era and 4% from another.

I'm not dead set on a % but their has to be a level of greatness attached to the hall and if we follow the current hall and get all nostalgic my fear is that we might replicate some, or too many, of their mistakes.

Put more simply someone needs to make a strong case as to why we would have the cap at 4 guys the same in the 1930's and the 1990s with the population differences and the number of elite players playing in many more countries as well just as an example.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2010, 10:27 AM
  #227
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,930
vCash: 500
So it seems like the two biggest criticisms of method 1 (the chronological approach) are:

1) Time consuming

2) It could give early-era players the shaft

I'll focus on 3 proposed methods to ensure that Method 1 gives early players their dues:

a) Start in the 1940s like the real Hall of Fame, but with an Old-Timer's category

Pros:
-Assessing the careers of pre-merger players requires more work and specialized expertise that not that many posters on this board has. An Old-Timer's category could draw heavily on a subcommittee whose purpose is to research and present findings on pre-merger players.
-Brings in one of the benefits of VI's Method 3 - allowing research to be done simultaneously on the very earliest era (the one that is most difficult to research) with the post-consolidation eras - without the negative of requiring a strict ratio of players per era.
-Allows the committee as a whole to learn about early era players gradually.

Cons:
-All HOFers should be considered equal, and there might be a stigma attached to being inducted by an old-timer's category.
-No period of time dedicated to discussing the earliest era.

b) Mass induction of early era players, then start up in the 1940s

Pros:
-Efficiency: The most efficient way of jump-starting what will be a time-consuming process
-Starting point for comparison: If we know the type of early-era players who will get into the Hall, it makes it easier to decide if a later player is Hall-worthy.

Cons:
-Lack of discussion period for the older-players: this method has the danger of becoming "let's get these early guys out of the way to get to the good stuff."
-Lack of expertise/interest at the start of the project - many of the committee members will lack the expertise to really take part in the mass induction at the beginning.
-The number of early era players is essentially "fixed" for the duration of the HHOF.

c) Start the HHOF at a really early date - the 1920s at the latest.

Pros:
-Really gives early-era players their due - they are discussed as equals with the NHL-era players.
-Education - allows the committee to really trace hockey's history back to its earliest roots

Cons:
-Lack of expertise/interest in the earliest eras will be magnified at the beginning of the project. The pre-NHL era is much more difficult to research, and this method could leave a large part of the committee in the dark for quite a long time. In effect, this would be like the "early era subcommittee" from option a above doing work without work being done on later eras at the same time.
-Would be the most time-consuming option, by far.

______________________________________________

My preferences:

-Even though option b was my idea, the more I look at it, the less I like it, especially the fact that it would have the effect in practice of fixing the number of early era players.
-I have no personal preference between options A and C, but option A is probably more feasible for anyone worried about members of the project remaining committed.

Note that the above options are only applicable if we end up doing the chronological method, something that hasn't been decided yet.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2010, 11:00 AM
  #228
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,120
vCash: 500
Thank You

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
My concern is that we don't replicate the same mistakes that the current Hall did and elect for example 15 % of players (in terms of games played) from one era and 4% from another.

I'm not dead set on a % but their has to be a level of greatness attached to the hall and if we follow the current hall and get all nostalgic my fear is that we might replicate some, or too many, of their mistakes.

Put more simply someone needs to make a strong case as to why we would have the cap at 4 guys the same in the 1930's and the 1990s with the population differences and the number of elite players playing in many more countries as well just as an example.
Thank you for clearly making my point.

Essentially you are prepared to throw out the meritocracy that is a HOF for a cap or a percentage.Also based on today's numbers you disparage the achievements of the past.

Meritocracy and greatness are not one and the same.Evidenced by the growing perception of compilers at various positions generating numbers that impress but bring little merit or results.

The population argument is a non-starter. The converse of the population argument is that today with a thirty team NHL and hockey being played outside a limited 6 team NHL in North America is that simply more players have a chance at greatness and showing their merit. Yet the numbers that actually succeed in this regard is still rather limited and does not surpass the numbers when there was a six team NHL. Simply the stragglers were filtered out much earlier pre 1967 expansion than post 1967. Linking induction to the hockey playing population is creating a mediocracy to replace a meritocracy which is not the way to go.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2010, 12:44 PM
  #229
andreydali19
They're relentless
 
andreydali19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Liv. of Mich.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,933
vCash: 500
Looking at method 1, starting perhaps in '27-29 sounds interesting with the chance to contemplate between the amateurs that were prominent and because that would fall in line with being fifty years after the rules were established; because as the years pass, then consideration can put in for the pioneer players and off-ice figures who were crucial to evolution beyond Canada, like Loicq, Le Mat & Viberg for example.

andreydali19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 04:41 AM
  #230
Peter9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 412
vCash: 500
Have read this longish thread in snippets as posted and am not sure I get the drift of the way things are going. But want to make my views clear on a couple of things.

First, I would be opposed to any criteria of selection that allow a player to be selected as a player on the basis of anything but on-ice performance and contribution as a hockey player. There are certain players who are great guys, who have made notable off-ice contributions to the game and/or who have had great single-game or single-series performances BUT who do not merit selection on the basis of skill or contribution qua hockey player, although they may merit selection to another section of the Hall--builders, for example.

Second, the harder it is to get into our Hall of Fame, the more respected it will be. There are limits to this, of course--a Hall with only 50 members in it after more than 100 years of hockey history would be regarded as too restrictive-- but I would prefer that our Hall of Fame resemble the Baseball Hall of Fame more than the current Hockey Hall of Fame in the rigor of selection qualifications.

Is anyone familiar with how the other sports select their hall of fame members, the good and the bad? They might be worth looking at.

Peter9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 06:22 AM
  #231
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
With the amount of work you guys look like you're going to be putting into this, I think you all deserve to be in this Hall of Fame.

Derick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 10:31 AM
  #232
Weztex
Registered User
 
Weztex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
So it seems like the two biggest criticisms of method 1 (the chronological approach) are:

a) Start in the 1940s like the real Hall of Fame, but with an Old-Timer's category


c) Start the HHOF at a really early date - the 1920s at the latest.
I'd go with one of those two. Personally, option C would be my #1 choice. Starting around the folding of the PCHA and WCHL would give a good representation to old-timers. The first class could also allow a greater number of players (like the HHOF did), which would build a base for successive years.

Weztex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 01:55 PM
  #233
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 53,250
vCash: 1020
The more I read the arguments here, the more strongly I feel that the subcommittee route is the best way to go. If pre-40s candidates are already being discussed as a "special" group that needs to be eliminated as early as possible, that doesn't engender much confidence in our ability to evaluate them.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 02:11 PM
  #234
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
The more I read the arguments here, the more strongly I feel that the subcommittee route is the best way to go. If pre-40s candidates are already being discussed as a "special" group that needs to be eliminated as early as possible, that doesn't engender much confidence in our ability to evaluate them.
I think that regardless of whether we do the chronological approach or not, there should be a subcommittee for the earlier era players (related to the Old Timers category for induction if we use one).

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 03:46 PM
  #235
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think that regardless of whether we do the chronological approach or not, there should be a subcommittee for the earlier era players (related to the Old Timers category for induction if we use one).
Actually, there should be some committees for every era... If only to determine the real year of eligibility (and to make sure nobody is forgotten).

As I said earlier, I'd gladly take the Depression Era.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 04:05 PM
  #236
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Actually, there should be some committees for every era... If only to determine the real year of eligibility (and to make sure nobody is forgotten).

As I said earlier, I'd gladly take the Depression Era.
If we're signing up for subcommittees, I'd take any/all post-expansion era(s), including players overseas (I don't think we decided yet whether that would be a separate committee or included with the era).

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 04:34 PM
  #237
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If we're signing up for subcommittees, I'd take any/all post-expansion era(s), including players overseas (I don't think we decided yet whether that would be a separate committee or included with the era).
Same here.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 05:23 PM
  #238
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 25,265
vCash: 500
I'd gladly be on a pre-consolidation epoch subcommittee (pre-consolidation NHL, WHL, PCHA, NHA and earlier cup challenge era). There was a quarter century of professional hockey before the NHL was the only game in town in terms of top level play, not to mention the amateurs of the Stanley Cup challenge era.

The epoch of earlies eras (notice plural) is most naturally defined as 1893-1925, beginning with AHAC competition for the Stanley Cup in 1893 and ending with the disbandment of the WHL and founding of Detroit and Chicago of the NHL in 1926.

Of course, one could try and go earlier, to the 1880s, but I suggest there is no obvious reason to do so, no so natural beginning point as the Stanley Cup challenge era, and way less info. We could also have the epoch end in 1929 instead of 1925 as the forward pass began three years after the consolidation of talent into the NHL. Regardless whether the period of time is extended or not, the years 1893-1926 are significant in hockey history and there's quite a bit of information available, and fascinating reading. The more I read, the more I want to read about those times.

There are at least 5 or 6 of us who have expressed interest in the earliest eras and so a subcommittee could generate good discussion and info.

If we have subcommittees submitting shortlists to the whole for each voting round, the shortlist need NOT be a list per se, but a PROFILE of each shortlisted candidate, an accummulation of info, data, awards, quotes and descriptions compiled by the subcommittee and presented to the whole.

I. Early Eras subcommittee 1893-1925 (32 years)
II. Early NHL Era subcommittee 1926-1947 (22 years)
III. Original Six Era subcommittee 1948-1967 (20 years)
IV. Expansion Era, WHA, Soviet Summits subcommittee 1968-1979 (11 years)
V. High Flyin' Era and Canada Cups subcommittee 1980-1991 (11 years)
VI. Dead Puck Era subcommittee 1992-2004 (12 years)

Somthing like that. SIX (6) subcommittees, ongoing, each with its own thread that ANYBODY can contribute to but subcommittee members would be committed to adding to and to keeping track of it, organizing and collecting info, summarizing debates, etc.

6 subcommittees, each bringing 2 or 3 candidates to the induction round of voting with profiles for each shortlist guy, alltogether 12-18 players, of which 6 are voted in by the whole (with NO GUARANTEE that each era would be elected, but each era would have finalists for consideration!!!). Plus, every voter in the final round could/should ADD a name of someone from any/each era they think should have been on that era's shortlist and the most popular write-in added name would be an automatic shortlist candidate for the next final round of voting. This is what method 3 is all about.

This procedure could work well for a very long time. At some point down the road we could reduce the number of subcommittees, combine them, if talent pool or interest dictates its necessity.


Last edited by VanIslander: 11-15-2010 at 08:05 PM.
VanIslander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 07:03 PM
  #239
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
II. Early NHL Era subcommittee 1926-1945 (20 years)
III. Original Six Era subcommittee 1946-1966 (22 years)
IV. Expansion Era, WHA, Soviet Summits subcommittee 1967-1979 (12 years)
What about instead of 1945, 1947? it was still a pretty watered down postwar product so it could still be lumped in with the earlier years and not the later years.

And the 06 ended un 1967, so bump that up a year. Then those two periods are at least 22 and 21 years, which looks to be better-defined.

But then you have an 11-year period followed by 13, and maybe that's worse.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 07:40 PM
  #240
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cognition View Post
With the amount of work you guys look like you're going to be putting into this, I think you all deserve to be in this Hall of Fame.
I know that I'd vote myself in.

Sincerely,

Gil Stein

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 07:57 PM
  #241
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 25,265
vCash: 500
+/1 or 2 years can be tweaked... new era with San Jose joining NHL instead of lockout, perhaps... really where to draw the line is a minor issue...

players whose careers bridge eras could be considered for the later of the two eras, when their career finished


Last edited by VanIslander: 11-15-2010 at 08:25 PM.
VanIslander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 09:01 PM
  #242
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,136
vCash: 500
I think we need to have a mix of the chronological approach (method #1) and the committee approach (method #3). There are drawbacks to both methods, but I think a combination of the two will minimize most of the weaknesses.

I propose that we have chronological inductions starting around 1945. We would go year by year, spending perhaps ten days discussing and voting each time. We could fine-tune the voting procedure later, but I’d imagine they’d be relatively straightforward (i.e. player must be retired for three years to be eligible; 75% or 80% of the votes needed; each voter has X number of votes; player not voted in after X number of years is permanently removed from the ballot).

At the same time, an “Early Era Committee” would cover all pre-NHL leagues. We’d need to figure out whether some players (i.e. Lalonde, Malone) go into the EEC or the main draft, but this should be a minor detail. The EEC can have say 10 voting rounds (after all, they should be covered 30-50 of history), after which point it will disband. (It might also make sense to have a second Committee for European players pre-integration with the NHL).

Overall I think this approach makes a lot of sense. The main criticisms of the purely chronological method are answered. First, by setting a start date as late in 1945, and letting the Early Era Committee operate at the same time as the yearly inductions, the project won’t drag on forever. Second, by having a separate Committee, people who don’t have the expertise to vote on hockey’s earliest era won’t be discouraged from joining. Similarly, by still having year by year inductions, we avoid the main weaknesses of the committee-only approach (the potential for a project with no clear logical structure or forward movement).

What does everyone think?

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 09:50 PM
  #243
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,120
vCash: 500
Overlap

Do not see any problem with the overlap between eras. If anything the overlap between eras where players had to adapt to rule changes - forward pass, red line, expansion etc, will tend to offer arguments as to their strengths or weaknesses.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2010, 10:40 PM
  #244
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post

We could fine-tune the voting procedure later, but I’d imagine they’d be relatively straightforward (i.e. player must be retired for three years to be eligible; 75% or 80% of the votes needed; each voter has X number of votes; player not voted in after X number of years is permanently removed from the ballot).
I think 80% should be what we aim for, if only because that's a rather easy number to work with, and because it's slightly more harsh than 75%.

Still, I don't exactly understand why we would really have to keep the 3 year waiting time. I understand the point for the HHOF to have it, but for us? I'm not totally against it, I just don't think it's absolutely necessary.

And what do we do with comebacks? I suggest that a player being out of the game for two years (after turning 30) is considered retired by the year he quits (for the first time). Just because we would then be avoiding really absurd results (e.g.: having "locks" inducted tooor "maybes" up for voting earlier than they should)

Quote:
At the same time, an “Early Era Committee” would cover all pre-NHL leagues. We’d need to figure out whether some players (i.e. Lalonde, Malone) go into the EEC or the main draft, but this should be a minor detail. The EEC can have say 10 voting rounds (after all, they should be covered 30-50 of history), after which point it will disband. (It might also make sense to have a second Committee for European players pre-integration with the NHL).
Not against this, but I'm afraid of two things

- Early era overrepresented, if we have the same number of votes than for the post 1945 (in your example) HHOF.
- Some guys get the shaft. Not the "early" ones, but the ones that peaked in the NHL, but pre-merger. It won't cause a problem with, say, Frank Boucher. But it will be inherently harder for Buck (Boucher) to make it than it will be for, let's say, Moose Johnson, because Moose won't be stuck in a competitive process to get in. Suppose an EEC with an equal number of "YES" votes" (let's say 4) : I can see Moose getting in as soon as the 2nd round, likely the 3rd. But the fact is --- he just cannot miss it. Basically because he was born 10 years earlier than Buck, meaning his prime was roughly 10 years earlier. Both were (roughly) in the same environment for most of their careers (Boucher's prime being pre-merger, pre forward pass....).

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2010, 09:37 AM
  #245
Gobias Industries
Registered User
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,423
vCash: 500
To all:

I wanted to just let you know that your work on this is, and will be appreciated by myself. While I don't have the knowledge to participate in any of this, keeping tabs and reading the history forum is my favourite part of HFBoards.

Can't wait to see a legitimate Hall of Fame!

Keep up the good work...

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2010, 10:01 AM
  #246
VMBM
Uncool & heavy
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,682
vCash: 500
Don't you know that you can count me out... (in).

I think I will/would just like to be a voter... and of course a pitbull-like commentator, if I'd see something that I think is wrong


Last edited by VMBM: 11-16-2010 at 01:05 PM.
VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2010, 10:06 PM
  #247
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
I think 80% should be what we aim for, if only because that's a rather easy number to work with, and because it's slightly more harsh than 75%.

Still, I don't exactly understand why we would really have to keep the 3 year waiting time. I understand the point for the HHOF to have it, but for us? I'm not totally against it, I just don't think it's absolutely necessary.

And what do we do with comebacks? I suggest that a player being out of the game for two years (after turning 30) is considered retired by the year he quits (for the first time). Just because we would then be avoiding really absurd results (e.g.: having "locks" inducted tooor "maybes" up for voting earlier than they should)



Not against this, but I'm afraid of two things

- Early era overrepresented, if we have the same number of votes than for the post 1945 (in your example) HHOF.
- Some guys get the shaft. Not the "early" ones, but the ones that peaked in the NHL, but pre-merger. It won't cause a problem with, say, Frank Boucher. But it will be inherently harder for Buck (Boucher) to make it than it will be for, let's say, Moose Johnson, because Moose won't be stuck in a competitive process to get in. Suppose an EEC with an equal number of "YES" votes" (let's say 4) : I can see Moose getting in as soon as the 2nd round, likely the 3rd. But the fact is --- he just cannot miss it. Basically because he was born 10 years earlier than Buck, meaning his prime was roughly 10 years earlier. Both were (roughly) in the same environment for most of their careers (Boucher's prime being pre-merger, pre forward pass....).

I like the methodology, but I agree with your concern. I do think it's probably fixed easily enough by just perhaps expanding the committee to include just the pre-merger and earlier time. Or at least they can elect pre-merger NHL guys who might get missed by the main induction board.

I'm a big fan of Buck Boucher these days, so I'd hate for a guy like him to get missed at least a glance.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2010, 10:23 PM
  #248
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
I like the methodology, but I agree with your concern. I do think it's probably fixed easily enough by just perhaps expanding the committee to include just the pre-merger and earlier time. Or at least they can elect pre-merger NHL guys who might get missed by the main induction board.

I'm a big fan of Buck Boucher these days, so I'd hate for a guy like him to get missed at least a glance.
It's not really the fact that Boucher might get missed. It's more than it would be inherently harder for him(and some other guys, but I think Boucher was the best example as his career was pretty much in the NHL, but retired quite a few years before 1945) to make it than any pre NHL guy, even if he played in somewhat similar conditions than them.

Boucher was the most glaring example - Eddie Gerard is another.

I'm really not against the EEC, but it might get unfair a some point for the non pre-NHL'ers.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2010, 10:36 PM
  #249
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,939
vCash: 500
Come to think of it...

The approch described by HO might work very well. I guess it's something we'll learn in 1950 or something like that

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2010, 07:03 PM
  #250
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Where are we on this?

Any updates?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:00 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.