HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > International Tournaments
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
International Tournaments Discuss international tournaments such as the World Juniors, Olympic hockey, and Ice Hockey World Championships, as they take place; or discuss past tournaments.

Countries Olympic Record (Top 8) (1998-2010) & 2014 Analysis

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-12-2013, 12:50 AM
  #1
Stars23*
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 114
vCash: 500
Countries Olympic Record (Top 8) (1998-2010) & 2014 Analysis

Discussion on Countries Olympic Record for Top 8 (1998-2010) (strictly treating a game, as a game - win, tie or loss)


Canada


Finland = (1998-L), (2002-W), (2006-L) (1W-0T-2L)

Sweden = (1998-W), (2002-L) (1W-0T-1L)

Czech Republic = (1998-L), (2002-T), (2006-W) (1W-1T-1L)

Slovakia = (2010-W) (1W-0T-0L)

Switzerland = (2006-L) (2010-SOW) (1W-0T-1L)

Russia = (2006-L) (2010-W) (1W-0T-1L)

U.S.A = (1998-W), (2002-W), (2010-OTW/L) (3W-0T-1L)


--------------------------------------------------------



Russia


Finland = (1998-W/W), (2002-L), (2006-L) (2W-0T-2L)

Sweden = (2006-W) (1W-0T-0L)

Czech Republic = (1998-W/L), (2002-W), (2006-L), (2010-W) (3W-0T-2L)

Slovakia = (2006-L), (2010-OTL) (0W-0T-2L)

Switzerland = (0W-0T-0L)

Canada = (2006-W) (2010-L) (1W-0T-1L)

U.S.A = (2002-T/L), (2006-W) (1W-1T-1L)


--------------------------------------------------------



Czech Republic


Finland = (1998-W), (2006-L), (2010-L) (1W-0T-2L)

Sweden = (2002-L), (2006-L) (0W-0T-2L)

Slovakia = (2006-W), (2010-W) (2W-0T-0L)

Switzerland = (2006-L) (0W-0T-1L)

Russia = (1998-L/W), (2002-L), (2006-W), (2010-L) (2W-0T-3L)

Canada = (1998-W), (2002-T), (2006-L) (1W-1T-1L)

U.S.A = (1998-W) (1W-0T-0L)


--------------------------------------------------------



U.S.A


Finland = (2002-W), (2006-L), (2010-W) (2W-0T-1L)

Sweden = (1998-L), (2006-L) (0W-0T-2L)

Czech Republic = (1998-L) (0W-0T-1L)

Slovakia = (2006-L) (0W-0T-1L)

Switzerland = (2010-W/W) (2W-0T-0L)

Russia = (2002-T/W), (2006-L) (1W-1T-1L)

Canada = (1998-L), (2002-L), (2010-W/OTL) (1W-0T-3L)


--------------------------------------------------------



Sweden


Finland = (1998-L), (2006-W), (2010-W) (2W-0T-1L)

Czech Republic = (2002-W), (2006-W) (2W-0T-0L)

Slovakia = (2006-L), (2010-L) (0W-0T-2L)

Switzerland = (0W-0T-0L)

Russia = (2006-L) (0W-0T-1L)

Canada = (1998-L), (2002-W) (1W-0T-1L)

U.S.A = (1998-W), (2006-W) (2W-0T-0L)


--------------------------------------------------------



Finland


Sweden = (1998-W), (2006-L), (2010-L) (1W-0T-2L)

Czech Republic = (1998-L), (2006-W), (2010-W) (2W-0T-1L)

Slovakia = (2010-W) (1W-0T-0L)

Switzerland = (2006-W) (1W-0T-0L)

Russia = (1998-L/L), (2002-W), (2006-W) (2W-0T-2L)

Canada = (1998-W), (2002-L), (2006-W) (2W-0T-1L)

U.S.A = (2002-L), (2006-W), (2010-L) (1W-0T-2L)


--------------------------------------------------------



Slovakia


Finland = (2010-L) (0W-0T-1L)

Sweden = (2006-W), (2010-W) (2W-0T-0L)

Czech Republic = (2006-L), (2010-L) (0W-0T-2L)

Switzerland = (0W-0T-0L)

Russia = (2006-W), (2010-SOW) (2W-0T-0L)

Canada = (2010-L) (0W-0T-1L)

U.S.A = (2006-W) (1W-0T-0L)


--------------------------------------------------------



Switzerland


Finland = (2006-L) (0W-0T-1L)

Sweden = (2006-L) (0W-0T-1L)

Czech Republic = (2006-W) (1W-0T-0L)

Slovakia = (0W-0T-0L)

Russia = (0W-0T-0L)

Canada = (2006-W), (2010-SOL) (1W-0T-1L)

U.S.A = (2010-L/L) (0W-0T-2L)



Pretty interesting to see how even it is - discuss and add please


Last edited by Stars23*: 02-12-2013 at 09:07 PM.
Stars23* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 02:28 AM
  #2
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,638
vCash: 500
The first round for the top countries are more or less exhibition games and giving them the same weight as the gold medal game is like saying a preseason game is equal to game 7 of the SC finals.

I figure the only way to give meaning to these results is by having a formula based on how far each country went in the Olympic playoffs.

For example if you awarded 8 points for winning the gold, 4 pts for reaching the final, 2pts for reaching the semi's and 1 pt for making the QF's the rankings since '98 would be as follows:

CAN 19
CZE 12
SWE 11
USA 10
FIN 9
RUS 9
SVK 3
BLR 3
SUI 2
GER 1
KAZ 1

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 02:31 AM
  #3
Stars23*
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 114
vCash: 500
No such thing as "exhibition games" in the Olympics

Mr Kanadensisk, I will tell you now - this thread purpose has been stated above ("Discussion on Countries Olympic Record for Top 8 (1998-2010) (strictly treating a game, as a game - win, tie or loss)", so please don't try to start bringing in your own personal ideas of what you want this thread to be. Go start another one if you want, but read the header bud - Respect the forum rules and guidelines


Last edited by Stars23*: 02-12-2013 at 02:39 AM.
Stars23* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 02:37 AM
  #4
joe89
#5
 
joe89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,107
vCash: 500
So..
Sweden: 7-5 - 1,75 points average.
Finland: 10-8 - 1,67.
Slovakia: 5-4 - 1,67.
Canada: 9-1-7 - 1,65.
Russia 8-1-8 - 1,47.
Czech 7-1-10 - 1,22.
USA 4-1-9 - 0,93.

Slovakia with a 5-4 record probably stands out the most.

joe89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 05:48 AM
  #5
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars23 View Post
No such thing as "exhibition games" in the Olympics
I beg to disagree. I'm not sure if you are old enough to remember the '98 and '02 games but when you have 8 teams playing in the first round for 8 playoff spots, and no teams eliminated, I would call those exhibition games. I realize they were used for seeding, but that doesn't mean much. For example the World Championships are used for the Olympic seeding and aside from Russia no one really cares enough to send their top players to those tournaments. For the top countries all that really matters is that you get a chance to play the elimination games.


Last edited by Mr Kanadensisk: 02-12-2013 at 06:07 AM.
Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 06:05 AM
  #6
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,638
vCash: 500
Here's at look at where the gold medalists ranked at the end of the first round.

1998 Czechs 3rd
2002 Canada 6th
2006 Sweden 5th
2010 Canada 6th

This again shows that the first round games have next to no relevance in terms of who wins the tournament. In fact teams that go undefeated in the first round on average have finished the tournament in less than 3rd place.


Last edited by Mr Kanadensisk: 02-13-2013 at 10:01 AM.
Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 06:24 AM
  #7
EbencoyE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 1,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
This again shows that the first round games have next to no relevance in terms of who wins the tournament.
Thanks captain obvious. There's a reason they play more games after the first round. The tournament isn't over yet.

Your argument is ridiculous. "Because the results of the first round aren't the same as the results of the whole tournament, obviously the first round is meaningless!"

Hilarious.

No need to play the NHL regular season guys, because the President's Cup winner never wins the Stanley Cup anyway! They're meaningless exhibition games!

EbencoyE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 07:56 AM
  #8
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbencoyE View Post
Thanks captain obvious. There's a reason they play more games after the first round. The tournament isn't over yet.

Your argument is ridiculous. "Because the results of the first round aren't the same as the results of the whole tournament, obviously the first round is meaningless!"

Hilarious.

No need to play the NHL regular season guys, because the President's Cup winner never wins the Stanley Cup anyway! They're meaningless exhibition games!
Wow, I see I have touched a nerve here. First of all I can see that your reading comprehension is poor. To start with the quote you inserted in your response are not my words and secondly don't accurately reflect any statement I have made here. If you are going to quote someone then the least you can do is actually quote what they said, it's really not that hard to do.

I don't really see any substance in your post worthy of a debate, other than to say it was both hilarious and ridiculous.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 01:26 PM
  #9
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,168
vCash: 500
Here are the records for elimination games against Top 8 countries:
Can - 5 - 2
Cze - 4 - 3 (2-6-1 in opening round games!)
Swe - 3 - 2
Fin - 4 - 4
USA - 3 - 3
Rus - 3 - 4
SVK - 1 - 2
SUI - 0 - 2

Note that Sweden lost an elimination game against Belarus, which is not counted here


Last edited by Uncle Rotter: 02-12-2013 at 01:42 PM.
Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 01:39 PM
  #10
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
 
Uncle Rotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Kelowna, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars23 View Post
Discussion on Countries Olympic Record for Top 8 (1998-2010) (strictly treating a game, as a game - win, tie or loss)




Czech Republic



U.S.A = (2002-T/L), (2006-W) (1W-0T-1L)



--------------------------------------------------------



U.S.A

Switzerland = (0W-0T-0L)


--------------------------------------------------------
Czechs & USA have not played each other since 1998. USA beat Swiss twice in 2010

Uncle Rotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 02:35 PM
  #11
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,638
vCash: 500
I think an interesting question is why is there such a big difference between the top team's records in the preliminary round compared to the playoff games? Two of the major reasons are likely that the top teams treat the preliminary round as warm up games and that the lack of experience teams have playing together leads to more random results in the beginning.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 05:24 PM
  #12
CoolForumNamePending
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,055
vCash: 500
Well if this thread proves anything I guess it's there are probably dozens of different ways to evaluate performance/records.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
I beg to disagree. I'm not sure if you are old enough to remember the '98 and '02 games but when you have 8 teams playing in the first round for 8 playoff spots, and no teams eliminated, I would call those exhibition games. I realize they were used for seeding, but that doesn't mean much.
I dunno... I think winning your group and facing a 'second tier' nation in the QF would have provided plenty of motivation. It's not like a team is entering a game not wanting to win. I mean what is more impressive Canada beating Kazahkstan in the QF or beating Sweden in the US in 'meaningless' group games to win the group and theoratically earn the easier path (like facing Kazahkstan in the QF) to their ultimate goal? I get the idea that prelim games shouldn't mean as much as medal round games but to outright dismiss them as exhibition games?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
For example the World Championships are used for the Olympic seeding and aside from Russia no one really cares enough to send their top players to those tournaments. For the top countries all that really matters is that you get a chance to play the elimination games.
Huh... You're all over the place with whatever point you are trying to make here. Not sure how you telling us who you think cares and doesn't care about the WC is relevant to the topic. I am sure there will be plenty of opportunities for us Canadians to do our god given duty of ambassadors of the sport of hockey and have plenty of tedious threads telling those silly Euros & Russkies how pointless the WC is come May.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
I think an interesting question is why is there such a big difference between the top team's records in the preliminary round compared to the playoff games? Two of the major reasons are likely that the top teams treat the preliminary round as warm up games and that the lack of experience teams have playing together leads to more random results in the beginning.
I am curious how those numbers play out. What nations are being considered 'top teams'? Are you just counting games played between two top teams or any game featuring a top team regardless of the opponent?


Last edited by CoolForumNamePending: 02-12-2013 at 06:11 PM.
CoolForumNamePending is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 08:39 PM
  #13
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolForumNamePending View Post
I dunno... I think winning your group and facing a 'second tier' nation in the QF would have provided plenty of motivation. It's not like a team is entering a game not wanting to win. I mean what is more impressive Canada beating Kazahkstan in the QF or beating Sweden in the US in 'meaningless' group games to win the group and theoratically earn the easier path (like facing Kazahkstan in the QF) to their ultimate goal? I get the idea that prelim games shouldn't mean as much as medal round games but to outright dismiss them as exhibition games?
I don't think I dismissed the preliminary round games anywhere. They are vital warm up games for the players to get familiar with their team, trying different line combos, goalies, systems, etc. Since you used Canada as an example I wouldn't say they didn't want to win their prelim games, but on the flip side I don't think they were too worried about the seeding either. I actually think playing the extra game in the last Olympics helped them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolForumNamePending View Post
Huh... You're all over the place with whatever point you are trying to make here. Not sure how you telling us who you think cares and doesn't care about the WC is relevant to the topic. I am sure there will be plenty of opportunities for us Canadians to do our god given duty of ambassadors of the sport of hockey and have plenty of tedious threads telling those silly Euros & Russkies how pointless the WC is come May.
Just as the preliminary round in the OG establishes seeding for the playoffs, the WC establishes the seeding for the OG prelim rounds. My point is simple in that if the seeding was seen as being critical you would see more countries put more emphasis on the WC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolForumNamePending View Post
I am curious how those numbers play out. What nations are being considered 'top teams'? Are you just counting games played between two top teams or any game featuring a top team regardless of the opponent?
I consider the top teams to be CAN, USA, SWE, RUS, CZE, FIN (in that order). I love Slovakia, but I don't think they quite fit in with the big 6. I would say that the seeding probably means the least to Canada and then increases slightly as you move down the list.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 09:04 PM
  #14
Stars23*
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
I don't think I dismissed the preliminary round games anywhere. They are vital warm up games for the players to get familiar with their team.
Remeber what the thread's purpose was? We're not here for your own theory, games are games here - discuss properly or don't post here - simple


Last edited by stv11: 02-13-2013 at 03:20 AM. Reason: playing mod
Stars23* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2013, 10:56 PM
  #15
CoolForumNamePending
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
I consider the top teams to be CAN, USA, SWE, RUS, CZE, FIN (in that order). I love Slovakia, but I don't think they quite fit in with the big 6. I would say that the seeding probably means the least to Canada and then increases slightly as you move down the list.
Thanks...

Not sure how your original point about 'a big difference between the top team's records in the preliminary round compared to the playoff games' holds up though.

If you're just counting 'top 6 team' vs 'top 6 team' results Canada, Finland, Sweden & US's record from the prelim to the knockout/medal rounds doesn't really change that much. Russia is worse and the Czech Rep. is better.

If your counting 'top 6' vs all opponents the Czech Rep once again improves, Canada is marginally better, while Finland, US (both somewhat mariginally), Russia and Sweden are worse.

At the end of the day though breaking down what is already a small amount of data into so many smaller subsets and trying to draw any conclusions from is probably pretty pointless. With that said I guess since I spent the past 15 minutes sorting this all out I find it somewhat interesting,


Last edited by CoolForumNamePending: 02-12-2013 at 11:08 PM.
CoolForumNamePending is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2013, 12:02 AM
  #16
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
The thing is, randomness is typically most prevalent in single elimination settings.

Unlike a round-robin prelim, anybody can win/lose 1 game in a one-and-done setting, upsets royally skew brackets, and the 'luck of the draw' typically plays a huge factor....especially at this level.


Like CoolForumNamePending said, when an already small sample size is arbitrarily broken down into subsets, 1 single game can cause huge statistical deviations.


If we're attempting an in-depth look at the OG, it's important to view the tournament holistically. We get an incomplete and altered picture if we don't.


Last edited by Zine: 02-13-2013 at 02:06 AM.
Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2013, 10:01 AM
  #17
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,638
vCash: 500
I agree that we are looking at a small data set which introduces significant errors. It probably would be worthwhile to look at the other major tournaments (ie World Cups / Canada Cups) to see what trends they show. Even so, the data set would be small.

However I think the placing of each of the gold medalists prior to the playoff rounds in their respective tournaments says a lot about the lack of correlation between preliminary round success, seeding and winning the tournament.

1998 Czechs 3rd
2002 Canada 6th
2006 Sweden 5th
2010 Canada 6th

On average the gold medalists were seeded 5th going into the playoffs. With only ~6 legitimate contenders for the gold you would think that seeding 5th would mean they didn't have a great shot at winning that year since they would have to play teams with better records in the playoffs. However, at least in the small sample we have the opposite was true.

Small sample size or not I think it is obvious that looking at aggregate records as the OP did is a poor indicator of who will have ultimate success in the tournament.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2013, 01:42 PM
  #18
CoolForumNamePending
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
However I think the placing of each of the gold medalists prior to the playoff rounds in their respective tournaments says a lot about the lack of correlation between preliminary round success, seeding and winning the tournament.

1998 Czechs 3rd
2002 Canada 6th
2006 Sweden 5th
2010 Canada 6th
I dunno... At the risk of sounding like a broken record... As already mentioned by breaking things down into single tournaments (which already feature a small amount of teams and games) and then breaking those single tournaments again into even smaller subsets it is going to lead to swings like that.

You could also just as easily say the gold medal game has never not featured a team that one their group.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
On average the gold medalists were seeded 5th going into the playoffs. With only ~6 legitimate contenders for the gold you would think that seeding 5th would mean they didn't have a great shot at winning that year...
A single one goal win or loss could be the difference between a team 'impressively' winning their group or 'struggling' to a third place finish in it. Given up to this point how tight things have proven to be amongst those 6 teams (+ Slovakia) as long as they have been competitive I wouldn't be writing any of them off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
...since they would have to play teams with better records in the playoffs. However, at least in the small sample we have the opposite was true.
The problem with thinking this is that in reality only once in 4 tournaments has the eventual winner had to in both the SF and final beat a team with a better record than them entering the game. In '06 Sweden didn't have to play a team with a better record than them until the final. The year that it did happen was '98 and in that year the Czech Rep. was less than a period away from winning their group.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
Small sample size or not I think it is obvious that looking at aggregate records as the OP did is a poor indicator of who will have ultimate success in the tournament.
IMHO it isn't any less valid than your method. To be honest though regardless of how we look at things none of it probably means that much. In my case I just really don't have a life and need something to argue about and pass the time.


Last edited by CoolForumNamePending: 02-13-2013 at 01:55 PM.
CoolForumNamePending is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2013, 03:40 PM
  #19
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolForumNamePending View Post
You could also just as easily say the gold medal game has never not featured a team that one their group.
You could, but I think that would be less significant than the evidence I provided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolForumNamePending View Post
A single one goal win or loss could be the difference between a team 'impressively' winning their group or 'struggling' to a third place finish in it. Given up to this point how tight things have proven to be amongst those 6 teams (+ Slovakia) as long as they have been competitive I wouldn't be writing any of them off.
You're right, all though many people do write teams off that don't do well in the opening round and also greatly exagerate the importance of seeding. This is a bit off topic, but the only way to make the opening round games more meaningful is to have less teams make it to the playoffs. For example if only the top 4 teams advanced to a SF format then all the games would be critical. It is very hard to have a meaningful opening round when you only have 6 contending teams, but 8 or 12 playoff spots open.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolForumNamePending View Post
The problem with thinking this is that in reality only once in 4 tournaments has the eventual winner had to in both the SF and final beat a team with a better record than them entering the game. In '06 Sweden didn't have to play a team with a better record than them until the final. The year that it did happen was '98 and in that year the Czech Rep. was less than a period away from winning their group.
Exactly, because the prelim round records don't really mean anything, and the teams with the better prelim records don't necessarily make it any deeper in the tournament.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolForumNamePending View Post
IMHO it isn't any less valid than your method. To be honest though regardless of how we look at things none of it probably means that much. In my case I just really don't have a life and need something to argue about and pass the time.
Maybe not, but at least there is some evidence to back up what I am saying.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 02:04 AM
  #20
CoolForumNamePending
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,055
vCash: 500
I think we have probably reached an impasse and will just have to agree to disagree that you have developed a superior method in measuring Olympic performance.

CoolForumNamePending is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 10:03 AM
  #21
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolForumNamePending View Post
I think we have probably reached an impasse and will just have to agree to disagree that you have developed a superior method in measuring Olympic performance.
No problem, it is okay to disagree. I wouldn't say there is anything to revolutionary about my method. For example I don't see too many people arguing that the aggregate pre season, regular season and playoff records of an NHL team are the best way to gauge their success.

Mr Kanadensisk 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 02:07 PM.

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.