Jamie Farr Coming Back Another Year

golfnut · 10-30-2009, 07:19 PM

I to would like to see the fields reduced. I think the maximum should be no more than 120 with a cut to the top 50 and ties. I mean after all we are trying to identify the best players aren't we? If people have a problem with that they just need to play better, simple as that. If someone is performing poorly at their job(if they have one these days) they normally get a chance to improve. if they don't then they are fired as it should be. That's what needs to happen here and it's not.

Whistling Straight · 10-30-2009, 11:57 PM

Reducing the field is an intriging idea if it meant saving a tournament but I've not looked at the numbers to see, on average, how much money this would save an existing tournament instead of looking for other cost-saving alternatives. The economy will bounce back but it's debatable how much money a business will ever once again devote to tournament sponsorship. Once a tournament has been reduced it will be a tough struggle to increase the field size to what it once was. Same as a business. The last resort is to cut head count because we know it will be hell to get the count back up even though the work increases.

golfnut · 10-31-2009, 03:15 AM

But that's just it WS. Women's golf doesn't have the depth of talen men's golf does. I may have just opened a can of worms by saying that, but it's true. I don't mean it dispariging at all. Field size can be reduced and expanded simply by policy changes. Ideally in my opinion only the top 70 would be exempt at year's end remaining exempt. This would help to promote better play with a better rotation so that new or younger players with more talent would be able to break through easier. In my opinion event winners should only be exempt for 2 seasons instead of the current 3 and major champions for 4 instead of five. This way no one player can get truly complacent for very long. I would have a lifetime exempt category as a reward for those who play best, i would peg it around 25 career wins, or 5 majors or something like that. Anyway just my 2 cents worth.

xman5 · 11-02-2009, 02:00 PM

At 23 Tournamnets 120 is reasonably (maybe 100 better). If it was back at 36 then 140 is OK.

There is not enough talent and opportunituy in the bottom group to be supported by 23 tournaments. And that is not even the full number that they can play when you count Asian tournaments, The Opens, Evian, Samsung and other short fields.

bangkokbobby · 12-19-2009, 09:45 AM

...the great impact, beyond golf, of the return of Jamie Farr...

...a video is here: Farr-reaching impact

Farr-reaching impact

Distributes $300k to children's charities
Published : Saturday, 19 Dec 2009, 12:11 AM EST

* Howard Chen
* FOX Toledo Sports Director

TOLEDO, Ohio - Besides providing the public with the world's top female golfers on an annual basis, the Jamie Farr Classic has also produced millions for children's charities.

On Friday, the Farr and its sponsors, Owens Corning and Kroger, distributed $300,000 to 12 different children's charities:

-Ronald McDonald House of NW Ohio
-Arts Commission of Toledo
-Central City Ministry
-Easter Seals of NW Ohio
-Girls Scouts of Western Ohio
-Hospice of NW Ohio
-Mobile Meals of Toledo
-NW Ohio Hemophilia Foundation
-YWCA of Greater Toledo
-JFOCC Scholarship Fund of the Toledo Community Foundation
-Rusty's House
-Gabby's Ladder

This year's donations bump the 25-year total to $6.5 million worth given out.

The most recent Jamie Farr Classic was won in July by Eunjung Yi. After some uncertainty about the tournament's future, the LPGA switched commissioners, ultimately leading to a new one-year pact for the Farr to return to Highland Meadows in 2010.

12-19-2009, 09:45 AM	#25
bangkokbobby Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: New York Posts: 2,895	...the great impact, beyond golf, of the return of Jamie Farr... ...a video is here: Farr-reaching impact Farr-reaching impact Distributes $300k to children's charities Published : Saturday, 19 Dec 2009, 12:11 AM EST * Howard Chen * FOX Toledo Sports Director TOLEDO, Ohio - Besides providing the public with the world's top female golfers on an annual basis, the Jamie Farr Classic has also produced millions for children's charities. On Friday, the Farr and its sponsors, Owens Corning and Kroger, distributed $300,000 to 12 different children's charities: -Ronald McDonald House of NW Ohio -Arts Commission of Toledo -Central City Ministry -Easter Seals of NW Ohio -Girls Scouts of Western Ohio -Hospice of NW Ohio -Mobile Meals of Toledo -NW Ohio Hemophilia Foundation -YWCA of Greater Toledo -JFOCC Scholarship Fund of the Toledo Community Foundation -Rusty's House -Gabby's Ladder This year's donations bump the 25-year total to $6.5 million worth given out. The most recent Jamie Farr Classic was won in July by Eunjung Yi. After some uncertainty about the tournament's future, the LPGA switched commissioners, ultimately leading to a new one-year pact for the Farr to return to Highland Meadows in 2010. __________________ Don't fear failure. — Not failure, but low aim, is the crime. In great attempts it is glorious even to fail. ---Bruce Lee http://bangkokbobbysports.wordpress.com/

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-30-2009, 07:19 PM	#21
golfnut Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Mandeville, Louisiana Posts: 484	I to would like to see the fields reduced. I think the maximum should be no more than 120 with a cut to the top 50 and ties. I mean after all we are trying to identify the best players aren't we? If people have a problem with that they just need to play better, simple as that. If someone is performing poorly at their job(if they have one these days) they normally get a chance to improve. if they don't then they are fired as it should be. That's what needs to happen here and it's not.

10-30-2009, 11:57 PM	#22
Whistling Straight Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 450	Reducing the field is an intriging idea if it meant saving a tournament but I've not looked at the numbers to see, on average, how much money this would save an existing tournament instead of looking for other cost-saving alternatives. The economy will bounce back but it's debatable how much money a business will ever once again devote to tournament sponsorship. Once a tournament has been reduced it will be a tough struggle to increase the field size to what it once was. Same as a business. The last resort is to cut head count because we know it will be hell to get the count back up even though the work increases.

10-31-2009, 03:15 AM	#23
golfnut Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Mandeville, Louisiana Posts: 484	But that's just it WS. Women's golf doesn't have the depth of talen men's golf does. I may have just opened a can of worms by saying that, but it's true. I don't mean it dispariging at all. Field size can be reduced and expanded simply by policy changes. Ideally in my opinion only the top 70 would be exempt at year's end remaining exempt. This would help to promote better play with a better rotation so that new or younger players with more talent would be able to break through easier. In my opinion event winners should only be exempt for 2 seasons instead of the current 3 and major champions for 4 instead of five. This way no one player can get truly complacent for very long. I would have a lifetime exempt category as a reward for those who play best, i would peg it around 25 career wins, or 5 majors or something like that. Anyway just my 2 cents worth.

11-02-2009, 02:00 PM	#24
xman5 Contest Statistician Join Date: May 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 3,904	At 23 Tournamnets 120 is reasonably (maybe 100 better). If it was back at 36 then 140 is OK. There is not enough talent and opportunituy in the bottom group to be supported by 23 tournaments. And that is not even the full number that they can play when you count Asian tournaments, The Opens, Evian, Samsung and other short fields.