HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

What least impressed you about Gretzky?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-27-2005, 01:08 PM
  #76
KariyaIsGod*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,140
vCash: 500
Wayne is as close to a perfect player I've ever seen.

Obviously the offense speaks for itself but was also a leader and the defensive aspects of his game, especially early on during his career when he played the PK are underrated.

As a person, he's great. He's a genuinely nice guy. WHoever said he's an egomaniac has obviously not followed the career of Mario Lemieux.

KariyaIsGod* is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 01:12 PM
  #77
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,986
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMoses
As a person, he's great. He's a genuinely nice guy. WHoever said he's an egomaniac has obviously not followed the career of Mario Lemieux.
What's that mean?

__________________
1995, 2000, 2003..........
Ronnie Bass is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 01:18 PM
  #78
(lone)Yashinfan#79
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 288
vCash: 500
after a 'fight' with Gretzky, Neal Broten's response when asked if any of Wayne's punches landed:


"...not that i know of..."

(lone)Yashinfan#79 is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 01:22 PM
  #79
Lowetide
Registered User
 
Lowetide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
I spit on you, traitor.
Well, I wouldn't have him at 3 either. If we're talking the best player of all time then the criteria must be severe. ANY weakness in the game has to be nicked a little.

As for the injury debate, I don't think I can buy that. If we split the debate and say who had the better peak value or who had the better career value I can agree, but this is best player, all time.

I honestly believe Bobby and Mario did more in terms of the entire game to help their teams win than 99. I'm not saying he wasn't a tremendous player he certainly was and belongs high on the list of the best of all time.

Behind Orr, and Mario and Gordie. And Mark Messier.

As an aside, there is a player who NEVER gets mentioned in these debates whose qualifications are somewhat similar to Gretzky's. Phil Esposito. His 76 goals in 70-71 were as breathtaking in there place and time as 99's stunning 92 goals in 81-82.

Esposito had nowhere near Gretzky's sustain, but his PEAK value was very similar imo.

Lowetide is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 01:43 PM
  #80
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowetide
As for the injury debate, I don't think I can buy that. If we split the debate and say who had the better peak value or who had the better career value I can agree, but this is best player, all time.
If thats the definition that we're working around, then is there any point even having this discussion? It's so abstract and ethereal-what's the point of having the best player, all time if it doesn't translate into value?

It's like saying that Brad Winchester plays like Joe Thornton, to use an example that I found insane.

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 01:56 PM
  #81
Lowetide
Registered User
 
Lowetide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
If thats the definition that we're working around, then is there any point even having this discussion?
imo it's just as unfair to nick Orr for playing 9 seasons. If the debate is who had the best Hank Aaron career then it's Gretzky, Howe or Messier. If the debate is who had the best Sandy Koufax career, then it's Orr. If the question is "who is the best player from the blueline in?" then it's either 99, Lafleur or Richard.

But the question is "who is the best player in NHL history?"

Orr.


EDIT: to add Lafleur.

Lowetide is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 03:04 PM
  #82
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowetide
imo it's just as unfair to nick Orr for playing 9 seasons. If the debate is who had the best Hank Aaron career then it's Gretzky, Howe or Messier. If the debate is who had the best Sandy Koufax career, then it's Orr. If the question is "who is the best player from the blueline in?" then it's either 99, Lafleur or Richard.

But the question is "who is the best player in NHL history?"

Orr.


EDIT: to add Lafleur.
I would add Mario somewhere in this paragraph above. Agreed about Lafleur and would add all over ice unstoppable in those 6-8 years. Against any team any time all the time. And beautiful to watch of course.

chooch* is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 03:12 PM
  #83
Cloned
Sexy Genesis
 
Cloned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowetide
imo it's just as unfair to nick Orr for playing 9 seasons. If the debate is who had the best Hank Aaron career then it's Gretzky, Howe or Messier. If the debate is who had the best Sandy Koufax career, then it's Orr. If the question is "who is the best player from the blueline in?" then it's either 99, Lafleur or Richard.

But the question is "who is the best player in NHL history?"

Orr.


EDIT: to add Lafleur.
I rarely ever disagree with your sentiments, LT, but in this case I think I have to go with mudcrutch. With Orr there is definitely an argument to be made. But to have Gretzky any lower than #3 (and IMO #2, but that's debatable too I guess) on the list of best players in NHL history IMO is disconcerting. Granted, this is all subjective anyways, and the definition of "best" is at best (very corny, I know) broad and vague. However, putting all of it together -- the performances, the accomplishments, the contributions to the game, the statistics, the attitude, the talent, the skill, the value to a team, the creativity, the respect, and so on and so forth -- to have Gretzky at #4 is a little bit of an injustice IMO.

Cloned is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 03:15 PM
  #84
Habsfan 32
Registered User
 
Habsfan 32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Way up north...
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,319
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Habsfan 32 Send a message via MSN to Habsfan 32
His hair.

Habsfan 32 is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 03:33 PM
  #85
Lowetide
Registered User
 
Lowetide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloned
I rarely ever disagree with your sentiments, LT, but in this case I think I have to go with mudcrutch. With Orr there is definitely an argument to be made. But to have Gretzky any lower than #3 (and IMO #2, but that's debatable too I guess) on the list of best players in NHL history IMO is disconcerting. Granted, this is all subjective anyways, and the definition of "best" is at best (very corny, I know) broad and vague. However, putting all of it together -- the performances, the accomplishments, the contributions to the game, the statistics, the attitude, the talent, the skill, the value to a team, the creativity, the respect, and so on and so forth -- to have Gretzky at #4 is a little bit of an injustice IMO.
I know people get emotional about this issue, so I don't want to come off as being so sure of myself that there is no room for doubt. This is just my opinion, shared by maybe no one.

But I honestly believe if you're going to name someone best of all time they need to be exceptional in all facets of the game. 99 WAS dominant from the blueline in, and the things I mentioned in my first post in this thread are also true.

However, if we're going to nick Orr for 9 seasons of complete brilliance, what shall we do with Gretzky's penchant for waiting at the Yellow Pages sign for the breakout pass? Was that not also a reality?

And Gretzky's numbers ARE ridiculous, but are they so much better than we can discount the things he didn't bring to the game? Is the physical force Messier or Howe brought to the ice every night enough to get them by 99?

Were his 92 goals in 81-82 (when the average GF per team was 321) more impressive than Phil Esposito's 76 goals in 70-71 (when the average GF per team was 243.5)?

Lowetide is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 03:45 PM
  #86
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowetide
If the debate is who had the best Sandy Koufax career, then it's Orr.
I'm not even sure that this is true. I assume that by breaking it down to Aaron/Koufax comparisons that you accept that "best" means "contributed most to the chance of his team winning." If I may break out some numbers. In order to look at the Koufaxian careers of each, I've changed their numbers to reflect where the level of scoring stood in each league relative to the post-expansion NHL. I've focused each players 8 years starting at age 18. Here are the factors I've used to adjust their statistics.

Code:
1974-75	0.95	1987-88	0.88
1973-74	1.02	1986-87	0.89
1972-73	0.99	1985-86	0.82
1971-72	1.06	1984-85	0.84
1970-71	1.04	1983-84	0.83
1969-70	1.12	1982-83	0.84
1968-69	1.09	1981-82	0.81
1967-68	1.17	1980-81	0.85
Orr played in a slightly defensive era, Gretzky played in a very offensive era. Applied to their stats, that gives us:

Code:
YR          G           A           PTS       PPG
1967-68	13	23	36	0.79
1968-69	23	47	70	1.04
1969-70	37	98	135	1.77
1970-71	39	106	145	1.86
1971-72	39	85	124	1.63
1972-73	29	72	100	1.59
1973-74	33	92	124	1.68
1974-75	44	85	128	1.60
TOTAL	256	607	863	1.54
Code:
YR          G           A           PTS       PPG
1980-81	47	92	139	1.74
1981-82	75	97	172	2.15
1982-83	60	105	165	2.06
1983-84	72	97	169	2.29
1984-85	61	113	174	2.18
1985-86	43	134	176	2.20
1986-87	55	107	162	2.06
1987-88	35	96	131	2.04
TOTAL	447	842	1289	2.09
Essentially, Gretz had an extra .5 PPG during their respective Koufaxian careers. Moreover, that penalizes Gretz a bit, because his G/A ratio was 0.53 while Orr's was .42. I'm sure we'd both agree that generally speaking, a goal scorer is more valuable than a passer.

So we're left with the question of valuing their defence. It seems like a pretty big gap to make up to me on defensive value alone-both of these guys were so good during their prime that pucks didn't spend much time in the defensive zone.

It's debatable, but I think that Gretz is so dominant offensively, that even if he's of a type of hockey player that you and I aren't particularly fond of-his value nosedived in his 30's, I'm sure-he seems to me to still be a viable contender for the title of greatest player of all time, regardless of the definition used.

To prove I'm not a total homer, I'm baffled by your inclusion of Messier. I'd guess you're basing this on leadership, and yet I'm sure you've heard the same whispers I have. He played to win on the ice and in the room, but I'm not nearly as likely to give credit to his magical leadership powers to a guy with as much off-ice nonsense and he seems to have been associated with.

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 04:35 PM
  #87
Lowetide
Registered User
 
Lowetide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
both of these guys were so good during their prime that pucks didn't spend much time in the defensive zone.
I would suggest to you that Orr did one helluva lot more in his defensive zone than 99 did, and although I can't put a number on it the difference is significant. I think that's where the argument that Gretzky is the best ever falls down, to be honest. If we're suggesting 99 was the best ever, shouldn't he be good at some of the things associated with keeping the puck out of the net? Faceoffs? Something?

He was an astounding offensive player and that in itself has value as a defensive tool. I believe you have to nick him a bit in that regard, like you would when comparing a LF and a SS.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
To prove I'm not a total homer, I'm baffled by your inclusion of Messier. I'd guess you're basing this on leadership, and yet I'm sure you've heard the same whispers I have. He played to win on the ice and in the room, but I'm not nearly as likely to give credit to his magical leadership powers to a guy with as much off-ice nonsense and he seems to have been associated with.
I give Messier tons of credit for being a big game player, but 99 was no slouch in that regard either. Where I think Messier passed Gretzky was that he stayed at the top of his game for longer and had a wider variety of skills.

Gretzky's career had a long coda that padded the stats but didn't help his team win. Messier's decline happened later in his career and because he did have a wider variety of skills he was able to have an impact for a longer time.

Lowetide is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 04:57 PM
  #88
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowetide
If we're suggesting 99 was the best ever, shouldn't he be good at some of the things associated with keeping the puck out of the net? Faceoffs? Something?
It'd be nice, but I honestly don't think it matters in terms of value. If the sum of the goals created/prevented by Gretzky is better than that of the sum of the goals created/prevented by Orr, then I'd say that Gretz is the better player. The object of the game is to create positive goal differential, at least in my eyes. How a player does it is irrelevant.

Quote:
He was an astounding offensive player and that in itself has value as a defensive tool. I believe you have to nick him a bit in that regard, like you would when comparing a LF and a SS.
Absolutely. But at the same time, if there is a guy, who plays his entire career at DH, and then retires with a .380/.600/.900 line or something similarly ridiculous, the lack of defensive acument is irrelevant. He's made so many runs with his bat that it doesn't matter if he ever played an inning in the field.

Quote:
I give Messier tons of credit for being a big game player, but 99 was no slouch in that regard either. Where I think Messier passed Gretzky was that he stayed at the top of his game for longer and had a wider variety of skills.

Gretzky's career had a long coda that padded the stats but didn't help his team win. Messier's decline happened later in his career and because he did have a wider variety of skills he was able to have an impact for a longer time.
Interesting. I'd say that Gretz was still a better player than Messier into the mid-90's, and that Messier went down pretty quickly as well. Messier's different game has allowed him to hang around just like Gretz-everything since maybe season one with the Canucks has been garbage time. I think it's pretty amazing that Messier hasn't made the playoffs in something like 8 years. Not to hang that on him, but I don't think he can be a front line contributor anymore, and I don't think he's been able to for a good, long while. In the "Last Hurrah" of 96-97, when the Rangers went to the conference finals, Gretz put up 20 points, while Mess put up 12.

They're phenomenal players, both of them, but I just don't see that much evidence that Messier's decline was that different from Gretz's.

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 05:08 PM
  #89
Lowetide
Registered User
 
Lowetide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
But at the same time, if there is a guy, who plays his entire career at DH, and then retires with a .380/.600/.900 line or something similarly ridiculous, the lack of defensive acument is irrelevant. He's made so many runs with his bat that it doesn't matter if he ever played an inning in the field.
You've framed the issue perfectly.

I do disagree, though. I require my "best player of all time" to put on the glove and take his place on the diamond so the other man can get his 3 outs.

And by the same token, imo Wayne Gretzky had a myriad of gifts in one area but was lacking enough in another that we can reasonably question his being the best of all time.

I could be wrong, though, and I must say it isn't a comfortable position to be matching wits with mudcrutch and arguing against 99.

Lowetide is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 05:33 PM
  #90
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowetide
I do disagree, though. I require my "best player of all time" to put on the glove and take his place on the diamond so the other man can get his 3 outs.
So much of the disagreement with these things comes from different definitions. I'd term that "best all-around player of all time" and figure you need a threshold on various skill levels. In that case, I'd agree with you, Orr is the choice based on everything I've ever read.

Quote:
I could be wrong, though, and I must say it isn't a comfortable position to be matching wits with mudcrutch and arguing against 99.
Hmm, I had a similar thought when I was writing about how much time they spent in the D/O zones. I suspect that you've seen both of them play a lot more than I have.

mudcrutch79 is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 05:40 PM
  #91
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudcrutch79
It'd be nice, but I honestly don't think it matters in terms of value. If the sum of the goals created/prevented by Gretzky is better than that of the sum of the goals created/prevented by Orr, then I'd say that Gretz is the better player. The object of the game is to create positive goal differential, at least in my eyes. How a player does it is irrelevant.
Couldn't agree with you more. The only thing that matters for winning is a positive goal differential. How that goal differential is accomplished is irrelevant. (The stats support this statement... the larger a team's goal differential, the more they win).

While I agree that Gretzky was a mediocre defensive player, his incredible offense offsets that. He scored 200 pts per year in his prime (170 adjusted for era points) so even if he wasn't a great defensive player, he was still contributing a significant positive goal differential to his team.

With that said, I haven't seen enough evidence to conclude that Orr or Gretzky were better in their primes.

EDIT: "Best all-around player of all time" is a different question. Trottier and Clarke were better all-around players than Gretkzy (ie taking into account offense, defense, checking, etc), but Gretzky was better in terms of overall performance (positive goal differential).

Hockey Outsider is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 07:28 PM
  #92
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,694
vCash: 500
The only knock I have on him is he and the Oilers kept my Isles from winning 5 straight cups.

JKP is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 07:43 PM
  #93
plaugher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Wales
Posts: 1,956
vCash: 500
The pretentious number choice and the lack of physicality are the only ones I can come up with.

plaugher is offline  
Old
02-27-2005, 08:14 PM
  #94
David Puddy
Registered User
 
David Puddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,824
vCash: 500
Wayne Gretzky won 8 straight and 9 of 10 Heart Memorial Trophies . Bobby Orr only won 3 total Harts. Nobody dominated hockey like Wayne Gretzky did during the prime of his career.

David Puddy is offline  
Old
02-28-2005, 05:30 AM
  #95
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey_00
I agree................Janet Gretzky is the YOKO ONO of hockey.........don't forget.....some day Gretzky's kids (if they're good enough) will be playing their hockey for Team U.S.A.
I've heard Gretzky say that.

I don't think he's all that good a GM, when he was shadow Gm in LA, starting CuJo in Slat Lake.

I was pretty pissed about his "American propaganda" rank at Salt Lake, when it was the Toronto media all over him.

I don't think he was all that bad a schill, compaired to Michael Jordan (who I am alone in despising.)

Hasbro is online now  
Old
02-28-2005, 05:45 PM
  #96
Injektilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Taiwan
Country: United Nations
Posts: 2,516
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Injektilo
I think a differentiation can be made between "greatest player ever" and "most skilled/talented player ever". One isn't necessarily better than the other, but I'd put Gretzky in the former and Mario in the latter. The skill/talent category allows for what could have/might have been. I've never seen Orr play a full game, that was well before my time, so I don't think I'm qualified to talk about that.


And on a side note, Mother Teresa worked in Calcutta, India, so she probably wouldn't have been doing much walking around African villages.

Injektilo is offline  
Old
02-28-2005, 07:23 PM
  #97
I Hate You All*
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver
Country: Palau
Posts: 7,243
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to I Hate You All* Send a message via Yahoo to I Hate You All*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadway Crosby
Why/How is he an ego-maniac?
Look at what he wrote on the re-name the Aneheim Mighty Ducks petition:

"I AM THE GREAT ONE AND THE ONLY REASON BOTH THE CANADIAN MEN'S AND WOMEN'S HOCKEY TEAMS WON GOLD AT THE 2002 WINTER OLYMPICS. MY 'RALLY CRY' STARTED IT ALL. WHEN THEY BRING BACK HOCKEY, THEY SHOULD CHANGE THE RULES SO THAT THEY DO NOT PLAY A GAME, BUT RATHER, THE FANS COME AND WATCH ME SIT ON A CHAIR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ICE FOR 60 MINUTES. THAT WOULD BE A PRIVLEDGE FOR FANS. NOT A RIGHT."

http://************************/mod_pe...cgi?duckname&1

I Hate You All* is offline  
Old
02-28-2005, 08:07 PM
  #98
Broadway Brett
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Florida, but born in
Country: United States
Posts: 2,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
Wayne came to my high school for some promotional thingy back in 1997 or 98. He was walking out of the high school and I asked if he could sign my hand and he said "only paper" and walked off to his waiting limo.
He's been known to do that. I don't blame him, but he could've waited for you to get paper or something. Not the best thing to do, IMO. His actions, not yours, I mean.

BTW, did you ever get his autograph?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Staze19
Look at what he wrote on the re-name the Aneheim Mighty Ducks petition:

"I AM THE GREAT ONE AND THE ONLY REASON BOTH THE CANADIAN MEN'S AND WOMEN'S HOCKEY TEAMS WON GOLD AT THE 2002 WINTER OLYMPICS. MY 'RALLY CRY' STARTED IT ALL. WHEN THEY BRING BACK HOCKEY, THEY SHOULD CHANGE THE RULES SO THAT THEY DO NOT PLAY A GAME, BUT RATHER, THE FANS COME AND WATCH ME SIT ON A CHAIR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ICE FOR 60 MINUTES. THAT WOULD BE A PRIVLEDGE FOR FANS. NOT A RIGHT."

http://************************/mod_pe...cgi?duckname&1
:lol

Broadway Brett is offline  
Old
02-28-2005, 08:48 PM
  #99
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,947
vCash: 500
His percentage on penalty shots.

It's what made Crawford opt for Shanahan and Brind'amour over the greatest goal scorer in history.

VanIslander is online now  
Old
02-28-2005, 09:42 PM
  #100
Rand
Registered User
 
Rand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,429
vCash: 500
I'm tempted to say his lack of physicality and mediocre defensive game, but all considered I'd lean towards his skating.

He was never a particularly good skater, and was quite mediocre when he first broke into the NHL.

He was never a very fast skater, nor was his acceleration anything to be impressed about. His hunched over style was hardly anything to emulate. He was reasonably strong on his skates and very shifty but that's it.
During the early and later portions of his career he tended to float at times as well.

Were it not for his on-ice vision and the fact that he seemed to be able to anticipate the play literally a minute before it even happened I doubt he'd have been so dynamic even with his incredible passing abilities, he definitely didn't have the reach/speed/moves or even the strength to walk through the defence himself like Lemieux or someone else could.

His incredible vision probably prolonged his career as well, he had a knack for shifting just as a D-Man would move to check him. Take away his vision and given his style of skating and relatively soft play and I'd bet he would have been pretty injury prone.

I believe he was the best player of All Time, but IMHO he was far from being the most skilled player of all time.
Outside of his playmaking, I can name a few players that I believe are better then him in almost every purely physical skill area... none of them outside of Lemieux are a tenth the player Gretzky was though.

Rand is offline  
Closed Thread

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 09:54 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.