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.

How do you define "toughness"? Give some examples

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-05-2011, 07:25 PM
  #26
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,835
vCash: 500
A Few Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
The question is: do we want it to be like that? I guess 90% of the people on the forum will answer yes with passion and will despise one who thinks otherwise, but I know I'm certainly answering no.

The other thread asks for players who put fear in their opponents. Fear of physical harm or injury that is of course. Is this still sport we're talking about? After all, the adjective derived from sport is sporting and not intimidating.

Don't get me wrong: I'm fine with contact sport, but what's the purpose of contact in hockey? To separate the opponent from the puck or to intimidate and "punish" him? That's where I'd draw a line, winning or losing aside.
Yes the magical 90% that arises when someone throws around numbers that are unsupported or unsupportable. Contrived numbers tp su[[prt a perceived righteous position.

Contact sport. True. Dancing is also a contact sport. The real issue is how do you keep any contact sport from becoming a collision sport.

Toughness enters the game at this level. The toughness to resist and respond mentally and physically to those that wish to cross the line. Communicating the message yourself in a fashion that the other party has chosen as the appropriate means.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 07:56 PM
  #27
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Yes the magical 90% that arises when someone throws around numbers that are unsupported or unsupportable. Contrived numbers tp su[[prt a perceived righteous position.
Give it up. When the guy puts "guess" immediately before the number, you can't get upset that's he's providing an unsupported number. He said it was a guess in his post. It's not a gotcha when the OP himself says it's just a number he pulled out of the air.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The toughness to resist and respond mentally and physically to those that wish to cross the line. Communicating the message yourself in a fashion that the other party has chosen as the appropriate means.
Sorry, I thought that's what referees were for?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:09 PM
  #28
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,897
vCash: 500
Next time I better make a poll to get a legit number.

And somehow I'm under the impression that I used that contrived figure 90% not to support the position I think is righteous, but to show that most people will probably think the opposite position is righteous / that most people will probably think I'm wrong.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:15 PM
  #29
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
This is actually a courageous this to post in a public forum (or at least as courageous as you can be posting on an internet forum). And I agree with it 100%.
Thank you for the kind words.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:21 PM
  #30
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,835
vCash: 500
Rigor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Give it up. When the guy puts "guess" immediately before the number, you can't get upset that's he's providing an unsupported number. He said it was a guess in his post. It's not a gotcha when the OP himself says it's just a number he pulled out of the air.


Sorry, I thought that's what referees were for?
So the lack of rigor is to be applauded and encouraged?

The referees. Exactly. Not being thrown off your game by decisions good, bad or indifferent yet. Not resorting to vigilante acts yet getting the message across that the rules are in force whether there is a referee or not.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 09-06-2011 at 05:27 AM. Reason: punctuation
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 08:25 PM
  #31
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Toughness isn't just about power forwards and enforcers.

Toughness is also about doing what is right on the ice, knowing that you're going to take a physical punishment.

Things like battling in front of the net (even more so pre-lockout) ... Guys like Tim Kerr, Dino Cicarelli, Tomas Holmstrom etc.

Going into the corner first after a ****, knowing that there is a guy right behind you lining you up.

Sacrifice the body blocking shots ala, Ian Lapperierre, Ludwig, Carbonneau, etc.

A winger along the while staying in to make the play and get the puck out of the zone, knowing he's about to be blasted by a pinching defenseman.

Showing up and doing you job day in and day out, home or road, game 2 or game 48.

It's not just the Rick Tocchet's, Bob Kelly's and Dave Schultz's of the world that are tough.

Sami Kapanen, Bobby Clarke, Lappy, Mark Recchi, Ron Sutter, Tim Kerr, John LeClair, are all among the very "toughest" Philadelphia Flyers over the last 30, and only Lappy was much of a fighter.

John Flyers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 09:57 PM
  #32
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I can't say for sure if Sedin had fought Marchand (even to get hammered) if it had helped the Canucks win, but it wouldn't have hurt them at all. In fact seeing their captain drop the gloves should have been enough motivation for anyone. Instead, I truly believe this demoralized the Canucks and gave the Bruins a lift. What was the result? 4-0 Bruins? Marchand scores 2 goals and is all over the ice. The Sedins are invisible in the most important game of their life. Yes, I think the Bruins used that as a motivational tool or even played that clip over and over in their locker room
yeah, even though i didn't want to believe it at the time, i watched that incident and knew we weren't going to win game seven. didn't help of course that daniel sedin took, what, five straight punches to the face, did nothing except look the ref, took a sixth punch, looked at the ref again and said something, then HE got a penalty. the lack of battle by him and all of his teammates was the big factor. but i have to also believe that the ref's behaviour there also gave the Bs the confidence to play their game, which is a game the canucks were completely unwilling to play or even respond to.

also, henrik sedin is the captain, not daniel. but your point stands. watching the team's MVP that year, who also happened to be the art ross winner and their assistant captain, carry himself in that way must have been deflating of the team. it sure was deflating for their fans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan View Post
Toughness isn't just about power forwards and enforcers.

Toughness is also about doing what is right on the ice, knowing that you're going to take a physical punishment.

Things like battling in front of the net (even more so pre-lockout) ... Guys like Tim Kerr, Dino Cicarelli, Tomas Holmstrom etc.
it's funny that one of the things vancouver sports writers and canucks fans have been saying for the last ten years is that the sedin twins are in fact tough and that they have taken as much abuse as anyone in the league their entire careers. remember brian burke's line to the media in the '02 detroit series: "sedin is not swedish for 'punch me or headlock me in a scrum'"?

their cycle game basically demands that they take all sorts of physical punishment, ALWAYS taking a hit to make a play. it's no coincidence that as they've gotten bigger and stronger over the years, they've become more and more dominant players in this league, because they have been more and more physically able to play this style of game at a very high level.

but--

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The toughness to resist and respond mentally and physically to those that wish to cross the line. Communicating the message yourself in a fashion that the other party has chosen as the appropriate means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The referees. Exactly. Not being thrown off your game by decisions good, bad or indifferent yet. Not resorting to vigilante acts yer getting the message across that the rules are in force whether there is a referee or not.
this is the one step that they haven't yet taken, except for that one time daniel lost his cool and went after bolland in the '10 playoffs (and losing that series is probably why he didn't retaliate to marchand's punches). but i think the results (zero vancouver cups) show that toughness also has to include this other definition of the term where initiating physicality comes into play. the sedins, especially daniel, just haven't learned yet how to physically push back in a PRODUCTIVE way.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 10:12 PM
  #33
Stonefly
Registered User
 
Stonefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,032
vCash: 500
Stan Mikita suits my definition of toughness. As does Ted Lindsay. Both were as tough as nails. Both had the ability to play within the rules and outside them very well.
Smaller men who played like giants. Took abuse and dished it out. Backed down from no one. Tough.

But I don't think there has been anyone tougher than Bobby Orr.

Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 10:14 PM
  #34
McNuts
Registered User
 
McNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,825
vCash: 500
Bob Gainey playing with dislocated shoulders is pretty tough

McNuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 10:15 PM
  #35
BubbaBoot
Registered User
 
BubbaBoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mission Hill
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 10,989
vCash: 500
A lot has been said about the Canucks vs my Bruins in the finals...but I have to say that one of the toughest guys in that series was Ryan Kesler.

Guy played all out with a debiltating injury that would have most of us in bed maxed out on painkillers.

He never gave up and was so completely wasted by the end of the series that he bawled when it was over because he had put it all on the line and watched it slip away.

I maintain that if he had been healthy, the outcome could've been very different.

BubbaBoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 10:39 PM
  #36
Joe Sakic
Goodbye ROR
 
Joe Sakic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 3,747
vCash: 125
Everyone has their own perception of what being "tough" in hockey means.

Personally I think being tough is blocking shots, sticking up for your team mates through fighting, and playing through injuries.

Joe Sakic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 11:05 PM
  #37
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Well......... let's look at the other extreme.

1963 brawl Hawks at Leafs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDxIv...22A762546A82BB

watch and you will see the willingness of Dick Duff to go with Reggie Fleming.

At other times, Don Marshall fought Ted Lindsay, Ralph Backstrom fought Gordie Howe, Simon Nolet actually beat John Ferguson, small sampling of a larger list.

Domi and Probert. What did their teams ever win? Nada. Issue is when you have designated goons they come with a price - the cost is the reduced mental toughness on the rest of the team since the other player's start looking for someone else to assume their share of the toughness workload.
So what is the question you are asking here? I am not saying Domi was "Yzerman tough" or even mentally tough. He had a different degree of toughness for sure but that's the thing there are different versions of toughness and they aren't all wrong either. I'm not so sure anyone here has posted a "wrong" name. Someone said they find toughness to be a player who can take it without retaliating. That's true. That fits with Robitaille, Esposito, Leclair, etc. They weren't fighters, but not wimps either. Then there are the players who dig in the corners, who play with tenacity like this is the last game of their lives. I think John Tonelli is a good example of that. There are the shot blockers, there are the players with ironmen streaks. I think Doug Jarvis was tough, mentally and physically for that very reason.

But how can you not see that a fighter is tough as well? Okay, Domi and Probert never won the Cup, but so what? They were tough as nails. I'm pretty sure everyone of us posting here would be scared spitless if they cornered us. Being the policeman on your team, standing up to whoever messes with your team, fighting the other heavyweights, man, that's a tough job with a lot of stress and a lot of missing teeth. How is that not tough too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
The question is: do we want it to be like that? I guess 90% of the people on the forum will answer yes with passion and will despise one who thinks otherwise, but I know I'm certainly answering no.

The other thread asks for players who put fear in their opponents. Fear of physical harm or injury that is of course. Is this still sport we're talking about? After all, the adjective derived from sport is sporting and not intimidating.

Don't get me wrong: I'm fine with contact sport, but what's the purpose of contact in hockey? To separate the opponent from the puck or to intimidate and "punish" him? That's where I'd draw a line, winning or losing aside.
You talk about fear like its a bad thing. Intimidation is not a bad thing either. Taking a physical toll on your body for the sake of winning a Cup is just what exists. Ken Dryden claims the 1976 Canadiens had to drink their champagne sitting down even though it was a sweep and a seemingly easy win, which it wasn't. The 1983 Islanders weren't celebrating either. Not when Gretzky and Lowe walked by their dressing room and saw them all getting wrapped in bandages.

Winning takes a toll on players, and that's exactly what the fans want too. The whole idea of "who wanted it more" rings true. If you are afraid to go into the corner to retrieve the puck but the other guy isn't, then that's intimidation, I'm sorry to disapoint you. If and when Potvin and Messier went into the corners with one another don't you think there was some intimidation involved? Or the better question is, don't you think there SHOULD be some involved? I think so.

A body check is meant to seperate a player from the puck and knock them out of the play. Obviously it goes deeper but when grown men collide at top speed then you can get hurt. But ask yourself this, the three times that the Devils won the Cup how important was it that players intentionally tried to avoid Stevens? That right there throws you off your game. Potvin wasn't the type of player to let that happen to him. Messier wasn't either. But Pierre Turgeon, Craig Janney, Phil Housley and the Sedins never seemed to have the nerve to go that extra mile. It isn't a coincidence that none of them have a Cup while Stevens, Potvin and Messier have 13 combined. So in short, intimidation is part of the game, and it's a good thing that it's a part of the game since it takes hard work to win.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 11:17 PM
  #38
Hawksfan2828
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 7,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AvsFan16 View Post
Everyone has their own perception of what being "tough" in hockey means.

Personally I think being tough is blocking shots, sticking up for your team mates through fighting, and playing through injuries.
Playing though injuries is not the brightest thing to do IMO.

I suppose its one thing to tough it out for the rest of a game when it matters and its another to permanently destroy your body...

There is no point in destroying 2 or 3 more years of productive years for 2 or 3 more games of potential glory.

Of course it depends on the injury..... For example you have Bobby Braun and that was foolish, but Duncan Keith - well this is 2011 and the Hawks can buy him a new grill - they did.

It's only sports, not a real war....

Hawksfan2828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 01:56 AM
  #39
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
So the lack of rigor is to be applauded and encouraged?
No. But petty nitpicking and meaningless responses are to be chastised.

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 02:46 AM
  #40
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Sorry, I thought that's what referees were for?
Huh?. The only purpose referees' serve in a fight situation is to try & minimize the charges, hurt & harm. Guy goes down on his back or is obviously unconscious?. All over. The "Code" Iain;

38) A fight is over when the trainer approaches your prone opponent and you hear the words; "look bud, would ya mind laying off for a coupla seconds while we slide the Gurney under him"?.... It would then be time to stop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan View Post
Toughness isn't just about power forwards and enforcers.
Why oh why is this always about the Flyers John?. And of course your absolutely correct. "Tough" to me would be your 3rd & 4th liners. Guys who's skill sets might be limited (Kelly for eg.) but who play with their Hearts on their Sleeves and take on all Comers...

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 04:05 AM
  #41
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,835
vCash: 500
Different Approach

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
Stan Mikita suits my definition of toughness. As does Ted Lindsay. Both were as tough as nails. Both had the ability to play within the rules and outside them very well.
Smaller men who played like giants. Took abuse and dished it out. Backed down from no one. Tough.

But I don't think there has been anyone tougher than Bobby Orr.
Both defined the "Do unto others before they do unto you" approach.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 04:13 AM
  #42
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,835
vCash: 500
Cost

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
So what is the question you are asking here? I am not saying Domi was "Yzerman tough" or even mentally tough. He had a different degree of toughness for sure but that's the thing there are different versions of toughness and they aren't all wrong either. I'm not so sure anyone here has posted a "wrong" name. Someone said they find toughness to be a player who can take it without retaliating. That's true. That fits with Robitaille, Esposito, Leclair, etc. They weren't fighters, but not wimps either. Then there are the players who dig in the corners, who play with tenacity like this is the last game of their lives. I think John Tonelli is a good example of that. There are the shot blockers, there are the players with ironmen streaks. I think Doug Jarvis was tough, mentally and physically for that very reason.

But how can you not see that a fighter is tough as well? Okay, Domi and Probert never won the Cup, but so what? They were tough as nails. I'm pretty sure everyone of us posting here would be scared spitless if they cornered us. Being the policeman on your team, standing up to whoever messes with your team, fighting the other heavyweights, man, that's a tough job with a lot of stress and a lot of missing teeth. How is that not tough too?
Talking about the cost of toughness. The presence of a tough guy like Domi or Probert usually comes with the cost that certain players on the team look to the goon element to do the heavy lifting. Successful teams, SC winning teams everyone has to do their share of the heavy lifting.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 05:12 AM
  #43
Chili
Registered User
 
Chili's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: la Belle Province
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 1,953
vCash: 500
If you have the puck, you're a target. So the guys that have it alot, have to be tough.

Orr was a great example of that, not a coincidence he had a short career, he took a helluva lot of abuse, just like most star players you can name.

One of the first players I always think of as being tough is Henri Richard. To be smallish and grow up the Rocket's little brother, he had to be tough.

Salming is another great example. He was as much of a target as anyone I can remember but proved how tough he was by having a great NHL career.

Chili is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 07:37 AM
  #44
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,004
vCash: 500
My kind of tough: Dale Hunter, Petr Forsberg, Raymond Bourque, Darryl Sutter (hell, every Sutter!), Dino Ciccarelli, Doug Gilmour, Steve Yzerman, Mark Messier.

That never-say-die, stop-whining-and bleed-while-playing attitude of going through walls or off walls was a contagious kind of tough resolve, true toughness in the gritty sense of being tough, not acting tough. These guys never gave up, never let up, had only two gears: drive and overdrive, and no dang injury or burly player was gonna get between them and a play to be made!

Tim Thomas exemplified toughness in the 2011 postseason. Here it's so evident against the least tough player I know of in today's game:


VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 08:11 AM
  #45
begbeee
Registered User
 
begbeee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 3,962
vCash: 500
Most names mentioned in thread are from NA. Does it mean that prejudice about soft europenas is right? Or they just aren't recognized?
Only two names stand out, Salming and Chara. Personally I would give credit also to the guys from first real euro-wave in early eighties.

Just tryin' to extend the discussion...

begbeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 08:37 AM
  #46
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee View Post
Most names mentioned in thread are from NA. Does it mean that prejudice about soft europenas is right? Or they just aren't recognized?
Only two names stand out, Salming and Chara. Personally I would give credit also to the guys from first real euro-wave in early eighties.

Just tryin' to extend the discussion...
Salming was one very very tough cookie.

BraveCanadian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 09:00 AM
  #47
JaymzB
Registered User
 
JaymzB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 2,541
vCash: 500
Likewise Mats Naslund was a tough player, who despite his small stature, would go into high traffic area’s to make a play. Faced a lot of “toughness” questions from commentators like Neanderthal Don Cherry, but he paid the price to score.

JaymzB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 10:06 AM
  #48
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,203
vCash: 500
Toughness in hockey is simply put, being competetive. Playing a full season (and a playoff) while doing eveything you need to do to win. That is toughness.

This excludes players who pretends to be injured, chokes and/or guys who gives but can't take it.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 10:35 AM
  #49
mobilus
Registered User
 
mobilus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: high slot
Posts: 595
vCash: 500
Brent Gilchrist in the '98 playoffs with the Wings, getting painkiller shots to his groin because a tendon was tearing away from the hip bone. Holmstrom had to leave the trainer's area because of Gilchrist's screaming.

mobilus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 10:55 AM
  #50
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
If you are afraid to go into the corner to retrieve the puck but the other guy isn't, then that's intimidation, I'm sorry to disapoint you. If and when Potvin and Messier went into the corners with one another don't you think there was some intimidation involved? Or the better question is, don't you think there SHOULD be some involved? I think so.

A body check is meant to seperate a player from the puck and knock them out of the play. Obviously it goes deeper but when grown men collide at top speed then you can get hurt.
Conceded, no contact without a degree of intimidation. But the necessity has its limits. What's the purpose of "finishing the check" for example? Solely to hurt the opponent, not to separate him from the puck. Not a necessary hockey play, but nevertheless commonly accepted and embraced as a mean to intimidate and punish. And how about hits against the head? But I know your opinion on that topic. I disagree with you there, but I'm not going to get into a discussion of how bad our society is developing, how responsibility is disappearing etc. Maybe it's just that I'm younger then you, but I have no issue with the direction the world is heading in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
But ask yourself this, the three times that the Devils won the Cup how important was it that players intentionally tried to avoid Stevens? That right there throws you off your game. Potvin wasn't the type of player to let that happen to him. Messier wasn't either. But Pierre Turgeon, Craig Janney, Phil Housley and the Sedins never seemed to have the nerve to go that extra mile. It isn't a coincidence that none of them have a Cup while Stevens, Potvin and Messier have 13 combined. So in short, intimidation is part of the game...
Yes, in fact it is, but the question was...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
...and it's a good thing that it's a part of the game since it takes hard work to win.
...whether we're happy with it or not. You are, alright. I'm not. But I'm aware I'm most likely in the minority here. (But who knows whether I will still be in the minority 10 or 20 years from now. Wait and see.)

Theokritos 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 01:32 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.