I have to say i agree with some of the things you said, but also respectfully disagree on some other of your points.

The agreements:

(1) Mick Jagger! I am with you on this one. Putting aside the fact i have never bothered listening to the Rolling Stones [what´s more boring? Rolling Stones or watching a bunch of beer guys playing domino?], i fail to understand how “Sir” Jagger can even be considered one of the “greatest” frontmen. A ~50 year career in music certainly deserves respect; also you could consider it significant that an individual not far from reaching his 70s is still capable to run and dance across the stage like he does. But should that qualify him for such award?? One of the greatest?? Sorry but not in the galaxy where i live. If you ask me i think he sucks, but this personal opinion does not matter, i am trying to be objective here.

In 10 seconds 10 names of frontmen that clearly surpass him will come to my mind.

(2) Freddie Mercury! Agreed. Talented, creative and also charismatic [not as charismatic as Diamond Dave thoug]. Even though Queen is not my type of music i can enjoy some of their songs [unlike the Stones...who suck].

My problem with Mercury: too homosexual. That famous live footage where u can see Freddie gradually stripping of his clothes, to end only with those small white shorts, bare foot, and a white clothe around his neck is simply over-the-top. With all due respect to queers, fags, homos and associated fauna, no matter how hard you try to show the world being homo is “normal” i will never see it…normal.

But yes, i am sure Mercury should be in the top 5 of all time.

Now the disagreeing department:

(1) But by no means is he [Roth] even in the top 5 greateast of all time?

How come? You are not serious if you are really suggesting this. I mean i can understand that you might not like his voice or perhaps you do not like his style on stage, i´d understand that, and will have no problem with that.

But are u being objective?

I think the arguments you are using here to put down Dave are pretty much the same flawed arguments used by the people who seem to prefer Sammy.

VH quickly replaced him with Hagar? Hmmm…what would you expect them to do? To dissolve the band like Queen did after Mercury´s death? 3 guys in their late 20s in band that was skyrocketing?

If you are using this specific argument to somehow prove Dave can not be in the top 5 of all time…with all due respect i think there´s no connection whatsoever here.

(2) Hagar helped VH achieving far greater commercial success.
In terms of record sales yes, also more hits. But again, does this prove in any possible way Hagar is better than Dave? And again, that VH had greater commercial success with Sammy should lead us to believe Dave is not in the top 5 of all time?

[Little agreement here: Sammy is certainly a nice guy, too nice; sometimes i wish he was not as nice as he is so i could use harder terms to refer to him]

(3) VH brothers didn´t originally want him in the band? Well, i know where you took this from, but pay attention to the era where the unstable Eddie Van Halen said this: after Dave´s departure from the band!

You do not trust Eddie Van Halen´s opinion; he is unstable. I´ve sniffed throughout youtube watching the interviews both VH and Roth gave in the months/years following Dave´s departure from the band.

You can clearly see how Eddie is hurt; so hurt he will ultimately resort to insults and comments like that: “oh his voice sucked, we did not want him”…100% blah, blah, blah from an emotionally unstable individual. Not Dave who always looks fresh, happy and cool. Natural. Original.

I am not a guy from the VH era…i am significantly younger than those guys who had the great bloody luck to see VH live during 1978-1985.

I have listened to the entire VH discography and the conclusion was fast, solid and concise: give me all the CD´s from 1978-1984.

98% of the songs contained on the albums with Hagar and the other vocalist are as boring as watching phytoplankton using sunlight to process their food.

I do not know if Dave is # 1, but top 5 of all time SURE!

I have never seen that display of charisma, enjoyment, fun, energy, wit, physical skill and cool voice together in one single individual.

Those who say “he did not sing” or “he was a poor singer” , i say to you -with all due respect- you can come kiss my ass. So now it turns out the world is full of “conossieurs” who can easily distinguish a guy that is technically gifted/talented to perform the vocalist function from a guy who is not. LOL!!!! Their ignorance is impressive. These guys can not tell elbows from asses.

Roth left because a number of reasons related to the fact that he was no longer in charge of the band – Eddie’s studio put him in the driving seat, and he spent the best part of a year dragging out the making of ’1984′ while also making soundtracks for crappy films.