HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Greatest Hockey Player of All Time?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-13-2006, 02:18 AM
  #51
C-J...*
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I understand that when you compare players from era to era, you factor in obvious human size and strength issues that have increased incrementally from generation to generation. Starsh---, why don't you grasp how the comparison is based on what a Hull,Howe,Richard did in comparison to their peers ?
You don't simply drop a 1950 body in 1950 equipmnet and say,'see they're no good'. There's a kind of magic or art to imagining and comparing these guys. Claiming that Chad Kilger probably shoots harder or skates faster than Gordie Howe has nothing to do with comparing him as a hockey player.

The Roman army walked right over any other army about 2000 years ago, does that translate into them having a shot at beating the american army today?

Is the Roman army the best ever? If not, whats the difference?

C-J...* is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 03:10 AM
  #52
DaMick
at least we got D
 
DaMick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Purgatory
Country: United States
Posts: 8,433
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to DaMick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starshollow
The Roman army walked right over any other army about 2000 years ago, does that translate into them having a shot at beating the american army today?

Is the Roman army the best ever? If not, whats the difference?
Armies use weapons

Hence its a pointless argument [Roman vs modern armies]

Now if you want to argue sports..lets say Jack Johnson Vs any modern [last 10 years] Heavyweight

Johnson would whip thier *** in 18 rounds [ he won 1 championship in 20 another in 14]

Sheer Talent on the sporting field is rare

Jim Brown
Gordie Howie
Jim Thorpe
Mickey Mantle

those 4 would rule sports right now if they were around.

__________________
DaMick is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 06:00 AM
  #53
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starshollow
The Roman army walked right over any other army about 2000 years ago, does that translate into them having a shot at beating the american army today?

Is the Roman army the best ever? If not, whats the difference?
If today's soldiers had to take on the Romans with spears and swords, the Romans would likely kick our ***.

Just because a player wasn't born in the last 40 years doesn't mean they lack talent or wouldn't succeed today. Bobby Hull would have no problem dominating in today's league. Gordie Howe had no problem keeping up with modern players even when he was in his 40's.

JCD is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 07:45 AM
  #54
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starshollow
The Roman army walked right over any other army about 2000 years ago, does that translate into them having a shot at beating the american army today?

Is the Roman army the best ever? If not, whats the difference?
OK, if you choose not to use comparitive evolution in any of your arguemnets, which you can do because there isn't a set way of doing this, why the hell read the board and post ? Projecting the Roman army's strategies and discipline [I know nothing of military history] could be an interesting exercise for some. Saying there average height was 5'6" and they relied on scalding sort of ends discussion if you choose that point of view. So again, if you don't like the methods that some use to evaluate players from generation to generation, why bother ?

mcphee is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 08:34 AM
  #55
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
I don't think I can bear to read the entire thread. Have the great minds here at HFBoards reached a definite conclusion?

Snap Wilson is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 09:16 AM
  #56
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp
I don't think I can bear to read the entire thread. Have the great minds here at HFBoards reached a definite conclusion?
I think the consensus is that Beliveau,Richard,Howe,Orr,Lemieux and Gretzky were pretty effin good and if you try hard enough you can find a reason or a stat to say which one was best or worst.

mcphee is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 09:47 AM
  #57
sandels
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lake Bodom
Country: Finland
Posts: 256
vCash: 500
It seems to me that Starshollow is right in a sense. The game has evolved and if we could somehow teleport Gordie Howe or Rocket Richard exactly as they were in their heyday in todays NHL game, they would not dominate among modern players at all, I believe. Maybe they wouldn't look completely out of place, but they wouldn't dominate as they did back in the day. Conversely, IMO todays top players would have a field-day against the defenders and especially against the goalies of yesteryear, no matter how good they were back then among their peers. That is, if we just ignore anything else and just imagine them out of their real contexts.

It is of course different if we're talking about the sheer talent and tools and domination against their peers. Those things are pretty difficult to compare between different eras/cultures. Dominating a given era depends a lot on how good the overall competition is at the time. That said, greats of the past would no doubt be greats of today if they were given a chance to develope their talents in modern environment. No doubt about it at all.

As to the original question, to me Bobby Orr was the greatest player ever, although I never saw him play. From everything I know of him, he could do it all, even with bad knees. Lemieux was propably the most talented individual of those I've seen. Some Soviet players might be a bit underrated in these discussions too, there were a lot of outstanding players there too.

sandels is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 09:56 AM
  #58
pei fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Orr was the best.Gretzky was the greatest.

pei fan is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 10:58 AM
  #59
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
I think the consensus is that Beliveau,Richard,Howe,Orr,Lemieux and Gretzky were pretty effin good and if you try hard enough you can find a reason or a stat to say which one was best or worst.
If you try hard enough, you'll believe you can do anything, but I'll get behind the first half of that statement.

McPhee, based on your own substantial viewing experience, who is your choice? Sorry if you've answered this already. I'd try to find it but I left my hip waders at home.

Snap Wilson is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 11:53 AM
  #60
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,611
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starshollow
The Roman army walked right over any other army about 2000 years ago, does that translate into them having a shot at beating the american army today?

Is the Roman army the best ever? If not, whats the difference?
I've seen this argument a number of times, and it's completely ********.

We're arguing who had the greatest impact on their era (ie: greatness). Is it so hard for people to understand? That's the criteria. It's abstract, not litteral.

As someone mentioned, Chad Kilger would be a superstar if you put him directly in a time machine to the 1940's...but NOBODY CARES. That's not the issue at hand. Jeebus.

arrbez is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 11:55 AM
  #61
habitue*
 
habitue*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,142
vCash: 500
1- Orr

2- Gretzky

3- Lemieux

habitue* is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 12:00 PM
  #62
Chili
Registered User
 
Chili's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: la Belle Province
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 1,954
vCash: 500
I don't think enough is ever mentioned for the support the best of the best have rec'd.

Howe had great teammates in Detroit like Lindsey, Abel, Delvecchio, Kelly and Sawchuk.

Richard had players like Blake, Lach, Geoffrion and Beliveau.

Hull played with Mikita, Pilote, Hall and a number of other fine players on the Hawks.

Orr had Esposito and a very solid team in Boston (like the year they had 7 of the top 10 scorers).

Gretzky may have had the most impressive supporting cast in Edmonton.

Lemieux played with a number of hall of famers (or future hof'ers) in the cup years.

They all had alot of help in achieving their individual greatness and they were all fortunate to play with some great teammates.

Chili is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 12:09 PM
  #63
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp
If you try hard enough, you'll believe you can do anything, but I'll get behind the first half of that statement.

McPhee, based on your own substantial viewing experience, who is your choice? Sorry if you've answered this already. I'd try to find it but I left my hip waders at home.
I go with Bobby Orr. My method is I sit back, picture the way the guy played, and simply think he was the best there ever was.

mcphee is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 03:17 PM
  #64
C-J...*
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez
Chad Kilger would be a superstar if you put him directly in a time machine to the 1940's....

You just proved my point.

C-J...* is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 03:22 PM
  #65
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chooch
Ever looked at the road the Oilers had to cross in the playoffs in those "dynasty" years while the East teams were bashing themselves senseless? And if Blair Callighan benefited from that for a year what does it prove?

.

Yeah cause as we all know the Oilers never had to beat any of those EAST teams to win the Cup. All they had to do was beat the Flames and Jets and then they won the Cup. (note the sarcasm)

Just for the record chooch, I know you're a big gretzky basher but I'm going to give you a few stats. In '84 the Oilers had 119 points. the next best team was the Islanders and the Oilers beat them 4-1. In '85 Philly led the league in points and made the Cup finals only to lose to Edmonton 4-1. In '87 Edmonton led the league in points and the next highest team was Philly who made the Cup finals. Edmonton beat them 4-3. The next year Edmonton had 99 points to Calgary's 105 and swept them before sweeping the Bruins in the Cups final 4-0. And then minus Gretzky in '90 they beat the Bruins 4-1 in the Cup final who led the league in points with 101. So every year they won the Cup, they either beat the best team in the East, or the best team in the league for points if they didnt lead the league on their own. And other than '87 no one came within a whisker of beating Edmonton. So explain to me this: How can the Oilers being so bad apparently continually beat the best team in the East every year? Give me a good explanation to that one!

Big Phil is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 03:46 PM
  #66
KariyaIsGod*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili
I don't think enough is ever mentioned for the support the best of the best have rec'd.

Howe had great teammates in Detroit like Lindsey, Abel, Delvecchio, Kelly and Sawchuk.

Richard had players like Blake, Lach, Geoffrion and Beliveau.

Hull played with Mikita, Pilote, Hall and a number of other fine players on the Hawks.

Orr had Esposito and a very solid team in Boston (like the year they had 7 of the top 10 scorers).

Gretzky may have had the most impressive supporting cast in Edmonton.

Lemieux played with a number of hall of famers (or future hof'ers) in the cup years.

They all had alot of help in achieving their individual greatness and they were all fortunate to play with some great teammates.

It works both ways.

They also had to face superior competition.

And really, most of yuor stats are moot anyway. Gretzky at 38 with an arthritic back scored 91 pts. playing alongside Adam Graves and Niklas Sundstrom in the middle of the dead puck era.

The point is, great players will always be great irregardless of the extenuating circumstances.

KariyaIsGod* is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 03:55 PM
  #67
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starshollow
The Roman army walked right over any other army about 2000 years ago, does that translate into them having a shot at beating the american army today?

Is the Roman army the best ever? If not, whats the difference?
This is a hockey forum, not a military history board. If you're wanting to talk that, I'd be more than happy to (as long as personal favourites like Romeo Dallaire and Cliff Walker are included). But this is a sports forum. Save your comparisons for sports.

You are, in effect, arguing that John Andretti is better than Mario Andretti, Kazao Matsui is better than Babe Ruth and Hank Keuhne is better than Bobby Jones. Preposterous.

Chad Kilger would not have been a star in the 1940s. Arrbez, as much as I respect his inquizative nature, is wrong there. Kilger doesn't have the it qualities to be a star: the instincts, the drive, the ultra-competitive edge. If he had those, he'd be a star today.

There is far more than just pure skill to being an NHL player. If that's all it took, then Jason Bonsignore, Robert Dome and Alexander Volchkov would have had points under the Ogopogo system by now, because they have the talent to be stars. They don't have the drive, dedication, discipline, commitment to the team to be stars. There's only so much you can teach a player, the rest is God-given attributes/ingrained character traits. To say it's all just skill takes away the mental aspect and the intangibles that makes our game so great.

Maurice Richard was a gifted goal scorer. But he was also a ferocious competitor and a born winner. That's what made him great, and that's why he would dominate any era. Gordie Howe had every necessary trait to be an all-time great. So did Jean Beliveau and Stan Mikita. Bobby Hull had the greatest shot in the history of the game, and the passion, determination and nose for the net to go with it.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 04:36 PM
  #68
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starshollow
You just proved my point.

Read God Bless' post above. As well, did you get anything from our little talk on evolution?

I really don't know why you aren't getting this.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 04:55 PM
  #69
Sampe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Vantaa
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,648
vCash: 500
Skill can only help so much, but same goes for everything else. Tuomo Ruutu is not better than Jaromir Jagr no matter how great his character is (for hockey). Now I have only seen the Summit Series from the 70s, but nevertheless I was amazed at how much hockey has developed over the years. The players of today are a lot faster, a lot bigger, a lot stronger and a lot more skilled. That's quite a difference to make up for.

Greatness IMO is being ahead of your time and the competition you face. I don't see why it would have to mean dominating any era there is. We all have our limits no matter how great we think we are and to suggest otherwise just sounds amusing to me.

Sampe is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 05:04 PM
  #70
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starshollow
Best or greatest? Those arent neccesarely the same thing, infact in most cases theyre not.

And for Gods sake, quit comparing players from different eras, it simply cant be done. Not one player that were active in the 50:s could even make the lineup in any of the current NHL-teams, if he was teleported to the year of 2006.

Its a completely different game today..
If you had a teleporter and took 20 players from each of the six teams from the mid-50's and brought them to 2005 in June and trained them for the summer at the start of the season I say that approximately 40-50 of the 120 players would be playing in the NHL and that 10-15 of them would be stars and that players like Howe, Beliveau and such would be among the leading scorers and best players. This after 3 months of training. You can disagree but I think you fail to understand that the difference between the talent in the past and the present is in the bottom rung of players, not in the stars. And during the 50's and 60's with only 6 teams there was a very high level of talent even among the 3rd liners. It was during the 70's with almost 30 NHL/WHA teams and before the influx of Europeans when the talent pool was lowest not in the 1950's.

Martin St. Louis led the NHL in scoring last season and was MVP, do you think he is far, far better than Mikita or Dionne in their prime? All are of similar size and stature and I say with a time machine Mikita and Dionne are both better than St. Louis.

You think Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays couldn't be Hall of Famers if they were born in 1970 instead of in 1930? Or that Jim Brown wouldn't have been a star running back today? All sports have changed in the past 50, 40, 30, 10 years but the best players can adapt, that is why they are the best players. Could Doug Harvey adapt to playing 1:20 shifts instead of 3 min shifts? Or Phil Esposito adapt to playing hard for 50 sec shifts instead of floating around for 2 minute shifts? Of course they could. That is the biggest change - The length of shifts and the emphasis of taking more shifts which are shorter and at a faster pace.

Sure a marginal player 40 years ago wouldn't make today's NHL. But ask yourself how many players today would be able to be on the top 3 lines or 5 defenceman of the 1970's Habs? Not that many and certainly not Chad Kilgour or other marginal players of today.

Sens Rule is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 07:04 PM
  #71
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,202
vCash: 500
Have never for the life of me understood all these hypotheticals. You know...

If Gordie Howe were playing today....

If Gretzky didn't have Kurri on his wing and Messier, Anderson and Coffey as teammates....

Right, and if I had Brad Pitt's fame and fortune and looks...I would have Angelina Jolie.

What's the point?

If the "born yesterday, everyday" crowd - those who have little respect for that which came before them - wish to degrade the NHL of yesteryear (classified as anything pre-2000 in many cases ) , let them. The karma will come back to bite them in the rear 20 years hence, when some punk is calling for that tired old Crosby to retire and claiming that Ovechkin played against inferior competition!

Only thing as insufferable as an old windbag unwilling to embrace the new is a young punk without a clue about what came before him.

Past or present, greatness is greatness...no matter how hard a few feebly try to chisel away at it.

Just my opinion.


Last edited by Trottier: 02-13-2006 at 07:11 PM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 07:30 PM
  #72
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,611
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starshollow
You just proved my point.
Yes, I agree with your point. So does everyone else here.

Unfortunately, you're the only one who finds your point relevant to this conversation. That's the issue here.

We all acknowledge that players today have massive advantages over players of yesteryear. But once again, that's not the point of this topic.

Otherwise, me might as well say that Martin St. Louis is the best player who has ever existed, and then close the history forum untill a new MVP is crowned.

But where's the fun in that?

arrbez is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 08:20 PM
  #73
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
He's not getting it either because he's just trying to be a disturber or he is just simply incapable of understanding rational thought.

Anyways, its not easy to decide who the greatest forward was. I've seen most of the greats play live since the 60's and most of the others before that on film.
If I want to see how Howie Morenz play, I just have to put in a tape and I can see that he was a superior skater and had greater acceleration than other players at the time. But I haven't seen enough of his whole career to include him.

Gordie Howe's record speaks for itself. Howe was dominant moreso in the 50's of course as those were his prime years. But in studying Howe's career, I find that he didn't elevate his play in the playoffs as Maurice Richard did. To me, greatness means the ability to go beyond the normal limits. Detroit was in the finals 4 out of 6 years in the 1960's and failed to win the Cup each time. Its not fair to single out one player for the failure as Howe probably played well, but he did not elevate his game enough to make a difference. Maurice Richard, though, did elevate his game in the playoffs - sometimes doing superhuman feats that were totally beyond the abilities or thoughts of most players. Richard had numerous playoff overtime goals, Gordie Howe had zero.

As an overall player during the regular season, Howe gets the nod over Richard because of his defensive play But in the playoffs, it was no contest as Richard was the superior player.

If you talk to some of the players who played in the 50's, a few will say that Jean Beliveau was much tougher to defend against over Gordie Howe. Beliveau in his prime was that good. And if you want to add intangibles, Beliveau was a superior leader.

Bobby Hull had more pure skill than any of those players if you talk about skating and shooting and scoring. If Hull had gotten the room that Gordie Howe got, he would have had greater numbers. Hull was the only player that could be as dynamic as Maurice Richard was.

Wayne Gretzky dominated his peers so much in his prime both in the regular season and playoffs that he has to get a lot of consideration as the top forward. Same with Mario Lemieux

So, I don't have an ranking order but my top 6 are Gretzky, Hull, Lemieux, Richard, Beliveau and Howe. I'm not comparing how good Richard was in comparison to Lemieux or Gretzky but rather against his peers.

And finally, as I've mentioned before, a few of the superstar players of the past, given their style of play and if they were given the advantages of the modern players, would still be stars today. Its ridiculous to say otherwise. Bobby Orr played in the 60's and received his early training in the 50's. Is someone going to say that Orr wouldn't make an all-star team if he played today while in his prime?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Read God Bless' post above. As well, did you get anything from our little talk on evolution?

I really don't know why you aren't getting this.

ClassicHockey is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 08:53 PM
  #74
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
 
Bring Back Bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Delicieux!
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 7,847
vCash: 968
Here's my list

Wayne Gretzky- goes without saying

Lafleur- BOy, you noticed him on the ice. I only saw the later part of his career but he sure had presence

Messier: Guts, mean and talented

Bossy: Puck on his stick in the slot that boy was golden

Coffey: Absolute artistry

Lemieux: The most complete package of my lifetime

Bourque: I hated the Habs when I was a kid and he drove me crazy missing the net from the point in the playoffs, but what a wonderful overall game

Sakic: Slick

Mats Naslund: For a little guy he sure could get it done. he was fun to watch and had the shizzle

Denis Potvin: Was that guy ever easy to hate for an Oilers fan. He had it all

These are just some of the great guys I got to see in my time as a fan. I don't think you can elevate any one of them by dumping on any of the others. Great players are great players no matter what the era. Appreciate the ones you were lucky enough to see.

Bring Back Bucky is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 09:24 PM
  #75
DaMick
at least we got D
 
DaMick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Purgatory
Country: United States
Posts: 8,433
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to DaMick
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
This is a hockey forum, not a military history board. If you're wanting to talk that, I'd be more than happy to (as long as personal favourites like Romeo Dallaire and Cliff Walker are included). But this is a sports forum. Save your comparisons for sports.

You are, in effect, arguing that John Andretti is better than Mario Andretti, Kazao Matsui is better than Babe Ruth and Hank Keuhne is better than Bobby Jones. Preposterous.

Chad Kilger would not have been a star in the 1940s. Arrbez, as much as I respect his inquizative nature, is wrong there. Kilger doesn't have the it qualities to be a star: the instincts, the drive, the ultra-competitive edge. If he had those, he'd be a star today.

There is far more than just pure skill to being an NHL player. If that's all it took, then Jason Bonsignore, Robert Dome and Alexander Volchkov would have had points under the Ogopogo system by now, because they have the talent to be stars. They don't have the drive, dedication, discipline, commitment to the team to be stars. There's only so much you can teach a player, the rest is God-given attributes/ingrained character traits. To say it's all just skill takes away the mental aspect and the intangibles that makes our game so great.

Maurice Richard was a gifted goal scorer. But he was also a ferocious competitor and a born winner. That's what made him great, and that's why he would dominate any era. Gordie Howe had every necessary trait to be an all-time great. So did Jean Beliveau and Stan Mikita. Bobby Hull had the greatest shot in the history of the game, and the passion, determination and nose for the net to go with it.
Beautifully said GBC

DaMick 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 12:16 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.