World rankings - Page 23 - TennisForum.com
TennisForum.com   Wagerline.com MensTennisForums.com TennisUniverse.com
TennisForum.com is the premier Women's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!
Reply

Old Jul 13th, 2011, 12:08 AM   #331
country flag Charles Friesen
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 52
Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice
Re: World rankings

[quote=Rollo;19882771]I like this idea Elegos. If you or Charles Friesen (great post by the way Charles) is interested in leading the way I think a panel ranking for 2004 would be great.


I've just read the 1999 panel ranking post and I'm definitely in favour of more. I believe the top 5 replicated my ranking for the year, (altho I do not have it to hand and I could be wrong), so I could hardly disagree with the results. I've only been a member here for a few days and although I certainly have the will and energy to do so, I really do not feel experienced enough with the MO or zeitgeist of this group to lead the way in a panel ranking. I would love to participate, however, and perhaps I can take on more responsibility in the future.

I do strongly encourage the group to do panel rankings. I suspect they will be important one day.
Charles Friesen is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old Jul 13th, 2011, 12:29 AM   #332
country flag Charles Friesen
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 52
Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice
Re: World rankings

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris whiteside View Post
Personally, I would be highly dubious that a system based on just "best 5 results" could come up with a fair and accurate assessment.

Rollo has a points system based on best 10 results which seems a lot fairer although perhaps 12 might be my choice but everyone would have their own idea.

The Mods have a lot on at the minute in trying to detail full results in history for each year but perhaps it might be an idea at some stage to bring all Preacherfan's ranking threads under one banner.

Yes, I'm dubious of "points" ranking systems for yearend #1. We already have one - universal, published, and officially sanctioned - the WTA rankings. It's great and is defensible for determining seedings - a constant beef among players before the computer. I think that the nuances of POY or top ten of the year demand the subtleties of the human intellect.

But we all have different perspectives. Once the relevant authorities (or public) has been consulted, arithmetically averaging the top 10 from the collection of subjective lists is the only defensible way to establish significance or objectivity for the eyes of posterity. In short, the method used by the panel rankings seems to me to be the best.
Charles Friesen is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14th, 2011, 07:12 AM   #333
country flag DennisFitz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 559
DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all
Re: World rankings

Quote:
Originally Posted by elegos7 View Post
I came up with the same problem when I wanted to rank players in each year for my book "The concise history of tennis".

Up to around 1996 we fortunately have several published Top10 lists from various experts, so I used an arithmetic average of them.
But between 1997 and 1999 only John Barrett published rankings, and even he has stopped in 1999. Fortunately, the French Tennis Magazine took over between 2000 and 2007, but even they have stopped after that (although in 2010 they once again published a ranking).
So I myself came up with a point system, where I decided to take only the best 5 results of players. I also took into account the ITF and WTA awards. My rankings for 2004 (taking into account the French rankings and the ITF and WTA awards):
1 Sharapova, Maria
1 Myskina, Anastasia
1 Henin Hardenne, Justine
4 Davenport, Lindsay
5 Mauresmo, Amelie
6 Williams, Serena
7 Kuznetsova, Svetlana
8 Dementieva, Elena

The French Tennis Magazine co-ranked the first 3, Sharapova and Myskina got the WTA and ITF awards, respectively, and Henin and Sharapova finished tied in my point system, just ahead of Myskina.
So I co-ranked the first 3 in my book, but I put Henin below the 2 Russians as she won no award that year.

I think we should extend the Blaster's Panel rankings (compiled here in this forum for years 1958 to 1975), and do rankings after 1996 (or even after 1990).

Otherwise further generations will be left with the WTA computer rankings, which are certainly unfair for a great number of years.
I suspect that if there were TENNIS and World Tennis magazine rankings for 2004, they would have probably been something like this:

1 Maria Sharapova (magazine rankings tended to favor splashy, and popular, winners like Sharapova. Especially when Wimbledon is among major wins. The YEC didn't hurt her either. And would be enough to offset the rest of her record for the year.)
2 Justine Henin. The player who I think deserved to be #1 for the year. The Australian Open and Olympics win were huge. But her 2R and 4R losses at French and US, and w/d from Wimbledon would have hurt her overall chance.
3 Lindsay Davenport. Consistency would have been rewarded with a #3 ranking, despite no major win.
4 Anastasia Myskina. The French win was glorious, and leading her country to Fed Cup helped too. Then there was her 2R loss in the US Open, among other bad results.
5 Amelie Mauresmo. Pretty solid year. But just not enough to push her any higher.
6 Svetlana Kuznetsova. US Open win was stunning. French Open collapse vs Myskina proved even costlier than though of at the time.
7 Serena Williams. A dominant player only 18 months prior to end of '04 season, she did reach Wimbledon final. But indifference and injuries kept her away from the pinnacle of the sport she had dominated for a short time.
8 Elena Dementieva. Surprised everyone by reaching 2 major finals, but folded in both.
9 Jennifer Capriati. Part of the year's biggest rivalry (w/Serena), winning twice. But not much else from former #1 to warrant a higher ranking.
10 Venus Williams. Like her sister, injury and indifference caused a steep drop in her performance.

Although Davenport also ranked as year end #1 in 2005 ( ) I don't think a real #1 player emerged until Justine Henin in 2006. We think we're going through a soft patch now at #1. But from July 2004 through most of 2006 the WTA did not have an active, truly ensconced #1 player.
DennisFitz is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14th, 2011, 10:36 PM   #334
country flag SW15sport
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 42
SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice
Re: World rankings

It is an interesting recent phenomenon in the women's game that we've had some very diverse seasons due to an increase in depth plus injury-marred seasons (to Serena in 2003 and 2010 and Henin in 2004). The depth is illustrated by the fact in the 16 years from 1982-1997, there was only one season (1990) where the four majors were won by four different women. Since 1998, this has happened five times in 13 attempts and is on course to happen again this year. This change in depth was very apparent to me during my career at the WTA Tour from 1997-2009, in addition to the game becoming more physical.

In recalling those years where there wasn't a dominant No. 1 player, I do recall the importance placed on the year end championships by the players, officials and media surrounding those events at the time. In 98 there was enormous pressure on Hingis to put an end to her tournament losing streak (since may) by beating Davenport to give her the casting vote for that year. It was a similar situation in 2004 when Sharapova proved her Wimbledon win was no fluke beating Slam winners Kuznetsova, Myskina and an injured Serena to win a title that davenport was desperate to win (I remember her asking me if her loss to Myskina would prevent her from ending the year at no. 1 she was concerned enough at that time). Even though Maria had an inconsistent year, she was injury free and was the best player during the second half of the season and under the weight of expectation came through in a field that included three of the year's four major winners plus Serena and davenport.

In 2008, Wimbledon champ Venus had a similar claim, beating the world's top three to win the year end title, capping her strongest finish to a season since 2001. Those assembled felt this at the time. Austin was in the same position in 1981. I don't believe it should come down to one tournament to determine who is no. 1 for the year but there is a reason why these players come out on top ahead of everyone else. As BJK says pressure is a privilege, and champions always perform better under pressure at that moment in time.

www.womenstennisguide.co.uk
SW15sport is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14th, 2011, 10:36 PM   #335
country flag SW15sport
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 42
SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice SW15sport is just really nice
Re: World rankings

It is an interesting recent phenomenon in the women's game that we've had some very diverse seasons due to an increase in depth plus injury-marred seasons (to Serena in 2003 and 2010 and Henin in 2004). The depth is illustrated by the fact in the 16 years from 1982-1997, there was only one season (1990) where the four majors were won by four different women. Since 1998, this has happened five times in 13 attempts and is on course to happen again this year. This change in depth was very apparent to me during my career at the WTA Tour from 1997-2009, in addition to the game becoming more physical.

In recalling those years where there wasn't a dominant No. 1 player, I do recall the importance placed on the year end championships by the players, officials and media surrounding those events at the time. In 98 there was enormous pressure on Hingis to put an end to her tournament losing streak (since may) by beating Davenport to give her the casting vote for that year. It was a similar situation in 2004 when Sharapova proved her Wimbledon win was no fluke beating Slam winners Kuznetsova, Myskina and an injured Serena to win a title that davenport was desperate to win (I remember her asking me if her loss to Myskina would prevent her from ending the year at no. 1 she was concerned enough at that time). Even though Maria had an inconsistent year, she was injury free and was the best player during the second half of the season and under the weight of expectation came through in a field that included three of the year's four major winners plus Serena and davenport.

In 2008, Wimbledon champ Venus had a similar claim, beating the world's top three to win the year end title, capping her strongest finish to a season since 2001. Those assembled felt this at the time. Austin was in the same position in 1981. I don't believe it should come down to one tournament to determine who is no. 1 for the year but there is a reason why these players come out on top ahead of everyone else. As BJK says pressure is a privilege, and champions always perform better under pressure at that moment in time.

www.womenstennisguide.co.uk
SW15sport is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16th, 2011, 01:49 PM   #336
country flag chris whiteside
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,620
chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold
Re: World rankings

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Friesen View Post
1971 Goolagong vs King
It is far from clear to me that King would be ranked #1 in "today's computer rankings." Given the best of 15 (or whatever it is now) system, I think Goolagong's 11 tournament victories and 2000, 2000, 1400 point slam finishes would likely trump whatever points King's record would generate. BJK would undoubtedly suffer for scoring 0's at mandatory slam events.

But obviously, the tour then is not comparable to today and any attempt to wrestle it into today's ranking system is highly artificial.

What IS important, I think, is what contemporaries thought about it. The contemporaneous vote seems to have gone overwhelmingly with Goolagong. In this the Wimbledon title, I think, cannot be underestimated.

Although the World Championship label was dropped in 1924, it still lived on in people's minds as THE tournament. As long as most people and the players thought of it as the most important tournament, it was. If everyone is saying, "this is the de facto world championship" and player X wins it, then most people will think that player is #1 for that year - even the other players - since they have attached that significance to Wimbledon. It would take enormous shortcomings in the Wimbledon winner's record for that year or heroic accomplishments by some other player to displace the #1 notion in the public's (and players') mind. At some point in the late 70's early 80's this had shifted - Chris Evert may in fact be responsible - but in 1971 the importance of Wimbledon for yearend #1 was still huge and should not be underestimated.

At the end of the day, however, what is key in the 1971 #1 debate is the viewpoints of the contemporaries, and here we must side, I believe, with Goolagong.
I think there is a very important point there regarding the viewpoint of the contemporaries.

Looking at it some 40 years later can we really understand fully the mindset of the day especially when prior to the onset of the WTA the parameters were so different?

Until the latter part of the 20th century, at least, Wimbledon was always regarded as the most important and prestigious event and was weighed accordingly.

I would have regarded Wimbledon as the World Championships of the sport - but in any sport it isn't always the #1 who wins the world title.

1962 Champion Karen Susman was only ranked #4 by most based on year round performance. Margaret Court's superior all round 1969 record outranked Ann Jones.

Sometimes with personal lists little biases crept in. I do believe that a little ice-skating syndrome crept in at times when a former champion was sometimes treated rather leniently because of their past performance. Ranking should only be based on the results achieved during that year.
__________________
Margaret Thatcher - Michele Bachmann two strong women of our time.
chris whiteside is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16th, 2011, 02:10 PM   #337
Rollo
Moderator - BFTP
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 17,843
Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: World rankings

Quote:
In recalling those years where there wasn't a dominant No. 1 player, I do recall the importance placed on the year end championships by the players, officials and media surrounding those events at the time. In 98 there was enormous pressure on Hingis to put an end to her tournament losing streak (since may) by beating Davenport to give her the casting vote for that year. It was a similar situation in 2004 when Sharapova proved her Wimbledon win was no fluke beating Slam winners Kuznetsova, Myskina and an injured Serena to win a title that davenport was desperate to win (I remember her asking me if her loss to Myskina would prevent her from ending the year at no. 1 she was concerned enough at that time). Even though Maria had an inconsistent year, she was injury free and was the best player during the second half of the season and under the weight of expectation came through in a field that included three of the year's four major winners plus Serena and davenport.
I wouldn't have any problem with Maria as #1 for 2004. And Davenport as #1 would have been ok with me had she won the YEC. Linds was always a mental mystery to me-at times her lack of confidence was downright amazing to considering the nuclear weapons she had. As Billie Jean would say, she was throwing out "negative vibes" in the middle of matches she could clearly win. Contrast that with a street fighter like Jennifer Capriati who ended up with the same number of slams Davenport did. JCap choked a few matches and never could crack Venus, but no one threw the willies into Serena the way she did until Henin came along.

Last edited by Rollo : Jul 16th, 2011 at 03:01 PM.
Rollo is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16th, 2011, 02:14 PM   #338
country flag chris whiteside
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,620
chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold
Re: World rankings

Quote:
Originally Posted by SW15sport View Post
In 2008, Wimbledon champ Venus had a similar claim, beating the world's top three to win the year end title, capping her strongest finish to a season since 2001. Those assembled felt this at the time. Austin was in the same position in 1981.
www.womenstennisguide.co.uk
Do you just take a player's successes and ignore the losses which is what a points system does?

I thought Austins's losses to Shriver in the quarters at both the Aussie and Wimbledon were of some significance.

I also hate round robins. I find it unsatisfactory in tennis that a player emerges the winner having lost earlier in the event. Evert winning their classic group match at the YEC and then Tracy destroying her in the final.
__________________
Margaret Thatcher - Michele Bachmann two strong women of our time.
chris whiteside is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 17th, 2011, 03:22 AM   #339
country flag Charles Friesen
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 52
Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice Charles Friesen is just really nice
Re: World rankings

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris whiteside View Post
I think there is a very important point there regarding the viewpoint of the contemporaries.

Looking at it some 40 years later can we really understand fully the mindset of the day especially when prior to the onset of the WTA the parameters were so different?

---

Sometimes with personal lists little biases crept in. I do believe that a little ice-skating syndrome crept in at times when a former champion was sometimes treated rather leniently because of their past performance. Ranking should only be based on the results achieved during that year.
Excellent point! This is an important counterbalance to the "opinion of the contemporaries" ranking. And that is the objectivity gained by a little distance.

Somehow we need to balance this. The contemporaries have the sense of the what were the important matches in a particular year. As SW15sport says above, in some years the YEC were very significant in determining yearend top dog in the players' minds. This might not be evident to the students of future history.

How do we balance the contemporaries important connection to the year's zeitgeist with a perhaps more objective opinion (but possibly less informed) obtained from a few year's distance?

Again, I encourage this group to do panel rankings.
Charles Friesen is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21st, 2012, 03:00 AM   #340
country flag AlternateRatings
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3
AlternateRatings is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: World rankings

It seems bizarre that winning a Grand Slam 50 weeks ago is worth the same as winning one last week (ie the Previous Wimbledon in the week after the French Open) and then worth absolutely nothing a couple of weeks later.

I have come up with a ranking system based on the WTA points allocation but with a more gradual decay over 3.5 years.

Here are the results ...


Azarenka 8945
Wozniacki 8210
Kvitova 7012
Sharapova 6899
Stosur 6690
Zvonareva 6609
Clijsters 6324
Williams S 5944
Na 5363
Radwanska A 5316
Bartoli 4764
Schiavone 4502
Jankovic 3989
Petkovic 3675
Kuznetsova 3257
Williams V 3035
Ivanovic 2825
Pennetta 2789
Hantuchova 2676
Pavlyuchenkova 2658
Cibulkova 2604
Wickmayer 2544
Lisicki 2508
Kanepi 2382
Kirilenko 2366
Kerber 2277
Gorges 2263
Peng 2248
Petrova 2232
Pe'er 2219
Dementieva 2129
Safarova 2112
Vinci 1959
Jie 1806
Medina Garrigues 1747
Martinez Sanchez 1731
Niculescu 1588
Errani 1572
Safina 1492
Pironkova 1502
Zakopalova 1482
Gajdosova 1459
Makarova 1409
Dulgheru 1352
Cetkovska 1353
Kleybanova 1328
Henin 1298
Benesova 1296
McHale 1297
Bondarenko 1277
AlternateRatings is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2012, 07:53 PM   #341
Rollo
Moderator - BFTP
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 17,843
Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: World rankings

Added in the 1955 World Ranking from L'Equire magazine.

In general I like the look of your ranking AlternateRatings. It reminds me of the WTA's old ranking systems back in the 1990s.
Rollo is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2012, 04:04 AM   #342
country flag AlternateRatings
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3
AlternateRatings is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: World rankings

Following the Italian Open ...

Azarenka 8694
Sharapova 7658
Wozniacki 6422
Radwanska A 6073
Williams S 5862
Kvitova 5709
Stosur 5467
Na 5114
Zvonareva 4824
Clijsters 4400
Bartoli 4295
Schiavone 3314
Kerber 3029
Jankovic 3025
Petkovic 2766
Ivanovic 2716
Pennetta 2387
Williams V 2383
Cibulkova 2376
Kuznetsova 2336
Lisicki 2179
Goerges 2162
Hantuchova 2148
Safarova 2127
Errani 2087
Kanepi 2076
Kirilenko 2067
Pavlyuchenkova 2058
Wickmayer 1983
Vinci 1857
Petrova 1848
Peng 1777
Pe'er 1647
Medina Garrigues 1622
Cetkovska 1452
Dementieva 1449
Jie 1440
Makarova E 1397
Niculescu 1322
Zakopalova 1308
McHale 1264
Martinez Sanchez 1214
Cirstea 1166
Barthel 1161
Pironkova 1138
Benesova 1136
Suarez Navarro 1120
Gajdosova 1088
Hercog 1076
Vesnina 1063
Hradecka 1052
Scheepers 1017
AlternateRatings is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17th, 2013, 07:01 PM   #343
country flag AlternateRatings
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3
AlternateRatings is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: World rankings

How can a ranking system have any credibility when the winner of a tournament drops below the person they just beat in the final of that tournament?


Azarenka 10424
Williams S 8784
Sharapova 8552
Radwanska A 6831
Na 5977
Kvitova 5451
Stosur 4576
Wozniacki 4465
Kerber 4323
Errani 4082
Bartoli 3530
Petrova 2615
Ivanovic 2575
Cibulkova 2550
Kirilenko 2454
Zvonareva 2388
Clijsters 2305
Vinci 2279
Stephens 2067
Jankovic 1998
Schiavone 1966
Goerges 1867
Safarova 1863
Kuznetsova 1815
Pavlyuchenkova 1812
Makarova E 1794
Lisicki 1773
Barthel 1728
Williams V 1658
Wickmayer 1653
Kanepi 1637
Petkovic 1571
Zakopalova 1567
Peng 1566
Hantuchova 1493
Vesnina 1419
Paszek 1394
Cirstea 1357
Pennetta 1347
Suarez Navarro 1316
Niculescu 1271
Pironkova 1263
Jie 1262
Radwanska U 1198
Lepchenko 1187
McHale 1168
Su-Wei 1110
Jovanovski 1086
Arvidsson 1060
Flipkens 1058
Medina Garrigues 1050
Cornet 1042
Begu 1022
Halep 948
Scheepers 948
Robson 935
Oprandi 932
Cetkovska 922
Shvedova 920
Hradecka 916
Pe'er 897
Morita 897
Watson 873
Pervak 869
Wozniak 852
Hercog 843
Date-Krumm 802
Dominguez Lino 783
Rybarikova 776
Martinez Sanchez 774
Martic 773
Bertens 756
Mladenovic 746
Beck 744
Tatishvili 740
Larsson 713
Voskoboeva 696
Hampton 694
Erakovic 691
Govortsova 687
Parmentier 677
Gajdosova 669
Zahlavova-Strycova 637
Putintseva 628
King 623
Johansson 623
Tsurenko 607
Svitolina 593
Benesova 591
Soler Espinosa 550
Rus 550
Bouchard 533
Arn 530
Hlavackova 511
Yung-Jan 505
Daniilidou 500
Vandeweghe 499
Babos 488
Arruabarrena-Vecino 483
Davis 483
AlternateRatings is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios