Do only Slams count? - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 109 (permalink) Old Feb 3rd, 2015, 01:50 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
gabybackhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,256
                     
Do only Slams count?

I just read the WTA article about Serena Williams' place in history, and I got baffled: do only Slam wins count to be considered the GOAT or similar descriptions? I understand WTA's need to sell current game no matter if it implies to betray their old times faves, but so many people especially young people, would no stop to see through that and will probably get engulfed in the bias towards current players and the Slams count. I personally think that as much as Slams count, you have to take a lot of other facts into consideration: how could Serena, even with her remarkable career in Slams and losing very few finals at that level, be such a strong contender to be the GOAT in many people's view nowadays, with less than 700 career wins compared to other top players over 1,000, and havind already lost more matches than Graf; or how her 65 titles compare to Martina's or Evert's; or her number of weeks on the top of the rankings are still a long shot from Navratilova's or Graf's, among other stats. With all due respect to Serena's achievements (how much does she own to the weak era where she belongs I don't know, which is not her fault but still helps; just think that the second best player of her generation, Sharapova, last beat her in 2004 ), and even if I consider her one of the very best players ever, I think that people tend to give too much relevance to the Slams count and forget to consider much of the picture, IMHO, what do you think?

Witness of an Era of Grandeur
Chris the Ice Lady - Martina Grace&Power
Fraulein Forehand - The Divine Argentine
Merciless Monica - Barcelona Bumblebee
gabybackhand is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 109 (permalink) Old Feb 3rd, 2015, 02:01 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 40
                     
Re: Do only Slams count?

Yes. Everything else are of secondary importance.
tenaj is offline  
post #3 of 109 (permalink) Old Feb 3rd, 2015, 06:05 AM
Senior Member
 
Edinboro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinboro, Pennsylvania US
Posts: 5,284
                     
Re: Do only Slams count?

I think there is more to a legacy than total number of slams won. You also have weeks at number one, total titles achieved, year end top 10, career matches won. The list goes on.

ETA: Ill write up a detailed analysis on this.

LUCIE SAFAROVA!!

Madison Brengle!!
Tsvetana Pironkova, Maria Sharapova, Serena Williams, Lauren Davis, Petra Kvitova, Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, Timea Bacsinszky, Madison Keys, Kaia Kanepi, Klara Zakopalova, Agnieszka Radwanska

Elena Dementieva - Always my number 1 2012 FITD Olympic Gold Medal Champion!
Edinboro is offline  
 
post #4 of 109 (permalink) Old Feb 3rd, 2015, 08:09 PM
Senior Member
 
Ms. Anthropic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,514
                     
Re: Do only Slams count?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gabybackhand View Post
I just read the WTA article about Serena Williams' place in history, and I got baffled: do only Slam wins count to be considered the GOAT or similar descriptions? I understand WTA's need to sell current game no matter if it implies to betray their old times faves, but so many people especially young people, would no stop to see through that and will probably get engulfed in the bias towards current players and the Slams count.
The most hilarious thing about the WTA's Slam-GOAT fixation is that they are belittling their own tournaments and tour, even their relatively recent concept of Premier Mandatory events. The Slams aren't WTA "property." The WTA and The Slams/ITF/national tennis federations have often been at odds over the decades. Yet now they say, in essence, "Hey, fans and sponsors and players, our own tour events are meaningless! But please care about them and support them!" The message is too contradictory, especially for new fans and/or new markets. It shouldn't surprise anyone if the regular tour events struggle.

The other hilarious thing is that Navratilova and Evert, in their capacities as media mavens and WTA officers/grey eminences, have had a hand in cultivating the Slams-Only bias*, even though they themselves played in a time when it was more complex than that. They have (and have had for quite a while) some power to influence public perceptions and the current WTA away from the Slams-Only bias, but they have not. And now it comes back to bite their own GOAT-statures in the buttocks.

*Unless you are Margaret Smith Court.
Ms. Anthropic is offline  
post #5 of 109 (permalink) Old Feb 4th, 2015, 02:57 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 109
 
Re: Do only Slams count?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms. Anthropic View Post
The most hilarious thing about the WTA's Slam-GOAT fixation is that they are belittling their own tournaments and tour, even their relatively recent concept of Premier Mandatory events. The Slams aren't WTA "property." The WTA and The Slams/ITF/national tennis federations have often been at odds over the decades. Yet now they say, in essence, "Hey, fans and sponsors and players, our own tour events are meaningless! But please care about them and support them!" The message is too contradictory, especially for new fans and/or new markets. It shouldn't surprise anyone if the regular tour events struggle.

The other hilarious thing is that Navratilova and Evert, in their capacities as media mavens and WTA officers/grey eminences, have had a hand in cultivating the Slams-Only bias*, even though they themselves played in a time when it was more complex than that. They have (and have had for quite a while) some power to influence public perceptions and the current WTA away from the Slams-Only bias, but they have not. And now it comes back to bite their own GOAT-statures in the buttocks.

*Unless you are Margaret Smith Court.
You and your wacky conspiracy theories
Anna4077 is offline  
post #6 of 109 (permalink) Old Feb 4th, 2015, 06:29 AM
Chionophile
 
Sam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Cryosphere
Posts: 39,560
                     
Re: Do only Slams count?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gabybackhand View Post
I just read the WTA article about Serena Williams' place in history, and I got baffled: do only Slam wins count to be considered the GOAT or similar descriptions? I understand WTA's need to sell current game no matter if it implies to betray their old times faves, but so many people especially young people, would no stop to see through that and will probably get engulfed in the bias towards current players and the Slams count. I personally think that as much as Slams count, you have to take a lot of other facts into consideration: how could Serena, even with her remarkable career in Slams and losing very few finals at that level, be such a strong contender to be the GOAT in many people's view nowadays, with less than 700 career wins compared to other top players over 1,000, and havind already lost more matches than Graf; or how her 65 titles compare to Martina's or Evert's; or her number of weeks on the top of the rankings are still a long shot from Navratilova's or Graf's, among other stats. With all due respect to Serena's achievements (how much does she own to the weak era where she belongs I don't know, which is not her fault but still helps; just think that the second best player of her generation, Sharapova, last beat her in 2004 ), and even if I consider her one of the very best players ever, I think that people tend to give too much relevance to the Slams count and forget to consider much of the picture, IMHO, what do you think?
I think the answer is pretty simple, isn't it?

Times change. More importance is given to slams since the 90s since that's what players concentrate on. That wasn't the case back in the 70s where Chris Evert might've skipped Australian and French Opens to play WTT. But nobody does that now. Nobody skips slams since the 90s.

I remember in the late 80s even some players didn't come to Australia because "it was too far".

More money, more prestige is attached to slams and therefore, that's what players concentrate their efforts on. That's also why Serena had a year like 2009 where she won barely anything outside of the slams.

Given that most of tennis is now played on hardcourts and with modern racquets, you also can't expect the very top players to be playing and winning 21 tournaments a year like Margaret Court did with wood racquets on grass. That will shorten their careers drastically.

If I'm a WTA player starting out right now, I would not concentrate on minor events. My schedule will be built around the slams for peak performance during those 8 weeks. Yes, that means my stats overall will be less than Chris/Martina/Margaret/Steffi. But that means:

1. I will give myself the best chance at where it matters -the slams
2. I will prolong my career but saving my tennis years.

Yes, right now, only slams matter, pretty much. But historically, no? That means two things:

1. You could say Serena is not automatically greater than Chris/Martina because she now has 1 more slam than them.

But also:

2. You could say Serena's other stats shouldn't be used to diminish her standing as a GOAT contender because she never went out to win the most tournaments, stay most weeks at no. 1 etc.. because it's not possible in this day and age.

That's the two sides of the coin.

Dancing and Skating through Life


Sam L is offline  
post #7 of 109 (permalink) Old Feb 4th, 2015, 02:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Re: Do only Slams count?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam L View Post
I think the answer is pretty simple, isn't it?

Times change. More importance is given to slams since the 90s since that's what players concentrate on. That wasn't the case back in the 70s where Chris Evert might've skipped Australian and French Opens to play WTT. But nobody does that now. Nobody skips slams since the 90s.

I remember in the late 80s even some players didn't come to Australia because "it was too far".

More money, more prestige is attached to slams and therefore, that's what players concentrate their efforts on. That's also why Serena had a year like 2009 where she won barely anything outside of the slams.

Given that most of tennis is now played on hardcourts and with modern racquets, you also can't expect the very top players to be playing and winning 21 tournaments a year like Margaret Court did with wood racquets on grass. That will shorten their careers drastically.

If I'm a WTA player starting out right now, I would not concentrate on minor events. My schedule will be built around the slams for peak performance during those 8 weeks. Yes, that means my stats overall will be less than Chris/Martina/Margaret/Steffi. But that means:

1. I will give myself the best chance at where it matters -the slams
2. I will prolong my career but saving my tennis years.

Yes, right now, only slams matter, pretty much. But historically, no? That means two things:

1. You could say Serena is not automatically greater than Chris/Martina because she now has 1 more slam than them.

But also:

2. You could say Serena's other stats shouldn't be used to diminish her standing as a GOAT contender because she never went out to win the most tournaments, stay most weeks at no. 1 etc.. because it's not possible in this day and age.

That's the two sides of the coin.
That's probably the best argument I've heard in this debate. I too have struggled with Serena's inconsistencies - long periods out of the game, lackluster play, early exits (esp. at major events). But there can be no arguing that she has not reached peaks that haven't been scaled before. Until Steffi's era, all the best players didn't play every Slam. Now, Slams are everything.

It's comparing apples and oranges. Each of the GOAT candidates has things that skew the statistics.

Court - 24 Slams - but 11 at mostly weak Aussie fields - but for most of those she was #1 in the world anyway

Graf - 22 Slams - hate to say it, but yes the stabbing had to give her at least some advantage

Wills Moody - 19 Slams - What if she had played the French every year and the Aussie ever?

Serena - 19 Slams - but only 4 years with a year end #1 ranking? - I know there are arguments against the system, but this shows her lack of consistency. Still, she keeps winning Slams.

Navratilova - 18 Slams - had to compete with another GOAT for her entire career - stretches of dominance that haven't been matched since

Evert - 18 Slams - Had to compete with other GOATs for entire career - 18 could easily be in the 20s - skipped French 3 times and missed many Aussies while #1 player - (plus her weeks at #1 are misleading - she was probably #1 for much of '74 and '75 before the first computer rankings were kept)

So, I've decided that this argument will never be settled until someone wins 35 Slams and puts everyone else in the dust.

There are a list of GOATs. I think you have to include Connolly and Lenglen in the mix.

PreacherFan
preacherfan is offline  
post #8 of 109 (permalink) Old Feb 4th, 2015, 06:42 PM
Senior Member
 
Sumarokov-Elston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 474
                     
Re: Do only Slams count?

Evert - 18 Slams - Had to compete with other GOATs for entire career - 18 could easily be in the 20s - skipped French 3 times and missed many Aussies while #1 player - (plus her weeks at #1 are misleading - she was probably #1 for much of '74 and '75 before the first computer rankings were kept)

Most people rightfully mention that Evert skipped the French Open 1976-78, well inside the very years she was unbeaten on clay. But she also skipped the French Open in 1972, as she was finishing school I believe. Roland Garros was won that year by Billie Jean King, whom Evert had already thrashed on clay 6-1, 6-0 by that time (Nancy Richie would probably have been the favourite and had Chris's number on clay, but withdrew from the tournament). Evert also did well in Australia, a country where she had two grass-court wins over Navratilova (1981, 1982), not to mention her hard-court win in 1988, so you had to give her a couple there in the 1970s, I think.
Sumarokov-Elston is offline  
post #9 of 109 (permalink) Old Feb 4th, 2015, 11:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Ms. Anthropic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,514
                     
Re: Do only Slams count?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna4077 View Post
You and your wacky conspiracy theories
The "greatest of all time" arguments as a constant talking point did not really exist until Navratilova's 1983. There would be some offhand comments or articles, but most people, even Chris "I can't stand it when people compare someone to Helen Wills Moody or to Little Mo because the conditions are different, times are different, the competition is different" Evert of the day seemed to understand that, yes, everything was too different to make any kind of comparison. Lendl more or less started the "Slams are the ONLY tournaments that matter" philosophy in the mid-Eighties, once he started winning them. Before that, people really did think in terms of the overall year or even prize money. ("She's had a great two years," acknowledged Evert Lloyd when someone asked if it would be appropriate to consider Navratilova as one of the greatest women's tennis players of all time. "But that's really all she's had. Two great years. Before that, she had eight pretty average ones.") So, at least Evert should realize that "greatness" has been established by different criteria in the past, because she herself used to judge "greatness" by more than just the Slam count.

And it's also hilarious how in this Era of Only-Slams-Count, Margaret Smith Court's record is so often brushed off as being "padded" with amateur/shamateur era Slams (as if she could help when she played or that tennis wasn't open) or "padded" with weakly-contested AOs (not all of them were that flimsy), while failing to take into account just how much of her prime Court missed. She retired for the first time after Wim 1966 and was absent for all of 1967. (Hey, Billie Jean, how's it feel to win some Slams with a major competitor sitting out?) She was MIA again after Wim 1971 when she had a baby, didn't return until USO 1972, then proceeds to win three out of four Slams in 1973, then takes more time off to have another baby in 1974. (Hey, Chrissie, how's it feel to win some Slams with a major competitor sitting out?) And let's not forget that she was playing with her non-dominant hand. Court's woulda-coulda-shoulda is downright scary -- but she still gets little to no respect.
Ms. Anthropic is offline  
post #10 of 109 (permalink) Old Feb 5th, 2015, 02:11 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 109
 
Re: Do only Slams count?

Quote:
Originally Posted by preacherfan View Post
That's probably the best argument I've heard in this debate. I too have struggled with Serena's inconsistencies - long periods out of the game, lackluster play, early exits (esp. at major events). But there can be no arguing that she has not reached peaks that haven't been scaled before. Until Steffi's era, all the best players didn't play every Slam. Now, Slams are everything.

It's comparing apples and oranges. Each of the GOAT candidates has things that skew the statistics.

Court - 24 Slams - but 11 at mostly weak Aussie fields - but for most of those she was #1 in the world anyway

Graf - 22 Slams - hate to say it, but yes the stabbing had to give her at least some advantage

Wills Moody - 19 Slams - What if she had played the French every year and the Aussie ever?

Serena - 19 Slams - but only 4 years with a year end #1 ranking? - I know there are arguments against the system, but this shows her lack of consistency. Still, she keeps winning Slams.

Navratilova - 18 Slams - had to compete with another GOAT for her entire career - stretches of dominance that haven't been matched since

Evert - 18 Slams - Had to compete with other GOATs for entire career - 18 could easily be in the 20s - skipped French 3 times and missed many Aussies while #1 player - (plus her weeks at #1 are misleading - she was probably #1 for much of '74 and '75 before the first computer rankings were kept)

So, I've decided that this argument will never be settled until someone wins 35 Slams and puts everyone else in the dust.

There are a list of GOATs. I think you have to include Connolly and Lenglen in the mix.
Oh come on, if somebody wins 35 slams, you'll just have their rivals cheering squads arguing that the number is 'inflated' or 'should have an asterisk beside it' due to something or other That's why these GOAT discussions drive me crazy and I try to avoid them as much as possible.
Anna4077 is offline  
post #11 of 109 (permalink) Old Feb 5th, 2015, 03:25 AM
Moderator - BFTP
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 24,839
                     
Re: Do only Slams count?

Scattered thoughts on these-all the posts so far make for great reading-a lot better than the food fights I see in GM.

Quote:
Posted by Sam L I think the answer is pretty simple, isn't it?

Times change. More importance is given to slams since the 90s since that's what players concentrate on. That wasn't the case back in the 70s where Chris Evert might've skipped Australian and French Opens to play WTT. But nobody does that now. Nobody skips slams since the 90s.
Novotna was the last one in my memory-skipping the Aussie.

BTW SAM, your post ROCKED.

There are two sides of the coin with almost all of these GOAT talks.

Quote:
Posted by Preacherfan There are a list of GOATs. I think you have to include Connolly and Lenglen in the mix.
Yes, Yes, Yes! Connolly because she won the Holy Grail in 1953-and her 9 consecutive slams entered.

Lenglen as she was so invincible.

Quote:
Sumarokov-Elston Most people rightfully mention that Evert skipped the French Open 1976-78, well inside the very years she was unbeaten on clay. But she also skipped the French Open in 1972, as she was finishing school I believe. Roland Garros was won that year by Billie Jean King, whom Evert had already thrashed on clay 6-1, 6-0 by that time (Nancy Richie would probably have been the favourite and had Chris's number on clay, but withdrew from the tournament). Evert also did well in Australia, a country where she had two grass-court wins over Navratilova (1981, 1982), not to mention her hard-court win in 1988, so you had to give her a couple there in the 1970s, I think
I love Chrissie-she deserves space in the GOAT talk. But using Sam's "two sides of the coin theory", I will play devil's advocate. Evert's "extra" French slams in 1972 and from 1976 to 1978 (plus 4 let's say) could easily have been reduced if Tracy Austin played and won the French in 1979 and 1980.

And don't forget her #1 rival in 1976, Goolagong, got pregnant. In addition Evonne was barred from the French in 1974 was refused to enter it for many years after.


Quote:
Posted by Mrs Anthropomorphic The "greatest of all time" arguments as a constant talking point did not really exist until Navratilova's 1983.
I disagree Mrs A. Looking at the literature and viewing old matches on TV it's always been around-what changed by the early 1980s was more media exposure due to television.

And now the Internet of course.

Quote:
And it's also hilarious how in this Era of Only-Slams-Count, Margaret Smith Court's record is so often brushed off as being "padded" with amateur/shamateur era Slams (as if she could help when she played or that tennis wasn't open) or "padded" with weakly-contested AOs (not all of them were that flimsy), while failing to take into account just how much of her prime Court missed. She retired for the first time after Wim 1966 and was absent for all of 1967. (Hey, Billie Jean, how's it feel to win some Slams with a major competitor sitting out?) She was MIA again after Wim 1971 when she had a baby, didn't return until USO 1972, then proceeds to win three out of four Slams in 1973, then takes more time off to have another baby in 1974. (Hey, Chrissie, how's it feel to win some Slams with a major competitor sitting out?) And let's not forget that she was playing with her non-dominant hand. Court's woulda-coulda-shoulda is downright scary -- but she still gets little to no respect.
Preach on sister! The church of Margaret Court devotees says Amen (or should it be "baaaah"! to that!

If ONLY slams count you either count them or you don't-period.

You'd think Court beat a series of weekend scrubs or something. If win all 4 in one year a la Connolly, Court, and Graf you are in rare air.
Rollo is offline  
post #12 of 109 (permalink) Old Feb 5th, 2015, 03:34 AM
Moderator - BFTP
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 24,839
                     
Re: Do only Slams count?

Quote:
Anna4077Oh come on, if somebody wins 35 slams, you'll just have their rivals cheering squads arguing that the number is 'inflated' or 'should have an asterisk beside it' due to something or othe
Truer words were never posted!

Some other truths and predictions.....

The latest is always the greatest in the media or polls. Thus Serena>Steffi>Martina>Chris>Margaret>(who the hell was Margaret Court?)>some chick from the dark ages.

In 10 years some Chinese girl will pile up majors. Once she's at ten Serena will be old hat.

The Serena and Graf camps were chummy up to now-having a mutual rival in Navratilova. And funny how Martina and Monica fans are friendly. None of this is coincidental.

My prediction: Serena and Steffi fans get less friendly as Serena edges possibly closer to 22.....it is happening already.
Rollo is offline  
post #13 of 109 (permalink) Old Feb 5th, 2015, 03:58 AM
Moderator - BFTP
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 24,839
                     
Re: Do only Slams count?

Quote:
Posted by Preacherfan Serena - 19 Slams - but only 4 years with a year end #1 ranking? - I know there are arguments against the system, but this shows her lack of consistency. Still, she keeps winning Slams.
But why has she ended the year as #1 only 4 times?

Yes, she has been up and down and not as consistent for some of those years. But the reality is the "modern" (after 1996) ranking is flawed. It rewards losers who play tons of events over the likes of Serena Williams.

The 1997 ranking system would have given us Sanchez-Vicario in 1994-and
that's not horrible as she won 2 slams and beat Graf.

Then we would have Conchita Martinez as #1 in 1995. That's crazy IMO.

Since the 1997 rankings change we've had several slamless computer #1s.

2000-Hingis (old rankings would have Venus at #1)
2001-Davenport (Venus under divisor rankings)
2004-Davenport (Henin under divisor rankings)
2005-Davenport (Clijsters under divisor rankings)
2008-Jankovic (Serena under the divisor rankings)
2010-Wozniacki (Serena under the divisor rankings)
2011-Wozniacki (probably Kvitova)

Looking at things that way (6 years #1 using divisor rankings) she is suddenly a stronger candidate.

Last edited by Rollo; Feb 5th, 2015 at 09:00 AM.
Rollo is offline  
post #14 of 109 (permalink) Old Feb 5th, 2015, 06:16 AM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Hugues Daniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Manosque
Posts: 34,855
                     
Re: Do only Slams count?

Of course not (answer to the title question) BUT I have nonetheless observed something very special while following the WTA tour since 2013 (not missing any event, watching every stream available): some players manage to play better at slams, which are obviously the events to which you have to show your best (knowing your form is fluctuating, especially today, with the challenging strengths and athleticism required). It isn't question no more for a player, today, to win everything and dominate the tour outrageously. The top players want to peak at slams, because they know it will be hard. So it's at slams that the truth is revealed, regarding of who is the best. Slams now count more than they ever did, at least that's my observation. There is also more pressure around them today. I get the impression that in the sixties for instance, to win the French was nice, but not that prestigious. Today, it's an amazing effort to achieve, round after round. Which is more true again with the ATP.
Hugues Daniel is online now  
post #15 of 109 (permalink) Old Feb 5th, 2015, 06:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Re: Do only Slams count?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
But why has she ended the year as #1 only 4 times?

Yes, she has been up and down and not as consistent for some of those years. But the reality is the "modern" (after 1996) ranking is flawed. It rewards losers who play tons of events over the likes of Serena Williams.

The 1997 ranking system would have given us Sanchez-Vicario in 1994-and
that's not horrible as she won 2 slams and beat Graf.

Then we would have Conchita Martinez as #1 in 1995. That's crazy IMO.

Since the 1997 rankings change we've had several slamless computer #1s.

2000-Hingis (old rankings would have Venus at #1)
2001-Davenport (Venus under divisor rankings)
2004-Davenport (Henin under divisor rankings)
2005-Davenport (Clijsters under divisor rankings)
2008-Jankovic (Serena under the divisor rankings)
2010-Wozniacki (Serena under the divisor rankings)
2011-Wozniacki (probably Kvitova)

Looking at things that way (6 years #1 using divisor rankings) she is suddenly a stronger candidate.
I agree with the rankings system issues. But with the exception of the Serena Slam year, Serena until the last 3 years hasn't been a start to finish #1. She has been far more inconsistent that the previous GOATs. Heck, even last year, until she won the USO, she didn't deserve #1 status for the year.

Again, not knocking Serena. She has done things differently, some by choice some by circumstance, but she has achieved greatness and deserves her status in the rare air.

PreacherFan
preacherfan is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may 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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome