Masters 2023: The Koepka-Rahm Show and Predictions for the Final Round
AUGUSTA, Ga.—The stage is set for the finish of the 87th Masters. Saturday weather turned out to be every bit as miserable as expected, and we could have a Sunday sprint to the finish. To get ready we convened our golf team to break down the event so far and predict what happens next.
What do you make of the threesome of Bennett, Rahm and Koepka?
Bob Harig: Hard to get much better. A four-time major winner with emotional scars who jumped to LIV. Perhaps the game’s hottest player and a U.S. Open winner in Rahm. And an amateur who is just happy to be here trying to make his mark. It’s got a ton of potential.
Gabrielle Herzig: The golf world asked for PGA Tour vs. LIV Golf drama at the Masters, and they got it—but a third and totally unforeseen force has entered the picture as well. Sam Bennett is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the up-and-coming talent in amateur golf, and it will be absolutely fascinating to see how he fares alongside Koepka and Rahm.
Jeff Ritter: It’s perfect. No notes.
Gary Van Sickle: The stars of yesterday, today and tomorrow… but don’t tell Brooks he was described as yesterday. He’s back. They’re the obvious stars of the week.
Farrell Evans: Bennett, an amateur, is playing with two major champions in Rahm and Koepka. It should be exciting. It will be interesting to watch how Bennett handles the moment.
Michael Rosenberg: An amateur who has a shot to beat all the pros; a LIV star who should have stayed on the PGA Tour and seems to know it; and a fiery superstar who might be the best player in the world. Can’t ask for more buzz than that.
Alex Miceli: So a LIVer, PGA Tour player and an amateur golfer represented in the final pairing, a first in Masters history. One expected, second not much of a surprise and the third, you need to go to the history books where you would find Charlie Coe.
Koepka’s lead comes with a bit of controversy, as his caddie was spotted by TV cameras appearing to signal what club he was hitting to his playing partner’s caddie. The Masters asked for an explanation and assessed no penalty. Are you good with that outcome?
Koepka has dominated the par-5 holes to take a comfortable lead with play suspended because of rain..
Erick W. Rasco/Sports Illustrated
Harig: You have to be good with it. We just do not know everything. Was there someone in TV he was signaling to? That is ultimately the reason for flashing these signals. No one should have any issue with the Masters committee fully vetting the situation even if it took a second day. They did that. And offered no other update other than what they said on Thursday when there was no penalty given. There will be conspiracy theories, but to not accept what they said means we have to then believe four people are lying. Is that possible? Of course. But that is a heavy accusation.
Evans: It was clearly a rules infraction but there is enough gray area to leave it at the discretion of the rules committee. Now if Brooks wins the tournament by a shot, we’re in for more debate about how the alleged infraction impacted the tournament.
Herzig: We all saw what we saw, and it didn’t look great. But at the end of the day, there’s nothing else to discuss once ANGC makes a decision—a twice-examined decision.
Ritter: Don’t love what I saw on the video clips, but there’s also a lot we don’t see on tape, like whether the caddie was signaling to a TV cameraman or reporter not seen in the video. This story got a second day of life because the Masters committee questioned guys again on Friday, but that’s the end of it.
Rosenberg: I think if you break the rules, you should be penalized according to the rulebook, and I think this is an important rule for the spirit of an individual game, and I think Koepka broke the rule … but I don’t know that he broke the rule. People tend to assume any video evidence is incontrovertible. I try to allow for the possibility of other explanations. I do wish ANGC had prosecuted the case harder, though. I think the officials heard what they wanted to hear.
Van Sickle: It looks like a blatant rules infraction from what we saw on video. But we don’t have all the views. So I’m OK with the decision, not thrilled with the caddies’ performance.
Miceli: In a week from now if Koepka goes on to win a Green Jacket, no one will remember this. Yet, it still seems to have a life of its own days later, so it’s something that is hungry for a definitive answer.
Players who endured the wind and rain were +88. Did the Masters make a mistake by forcing golfers to finish Round 2 on Saturday morning?
Evans: When were they going to complete play if they didn’t come out Saturday morning? The show has to go on.
Herzig: Maybe there could have been consideration of a rain delay when it really started dumping on Saturday morning, but that’s golf. Rahm played his back nine in 2 under. Play better or pack some more dry towels.
Harig: That will likely be second-guessed a good deal but the bottom line is the weather was just O.K. enough to play. There was no standing water of consequence, and that is typically the stopping point. There was also no lightning. Pro golfers have played in worse. It was brutal, but it happens.
Ritter: I was good with starting the round on Saturday, but that last half-hour of Round 2—right about when Tiger finished—was a bit too much. There was standing water on the course and it was coming down in buckets. The guys who finished at the end of that round, including Justin Thomas, had a raw deal.
Van Sickle: It’s tournament golf, sometimes you’ve got to play in total crap. It’s called the rub of the green. I came prepared with a ski cap today. Forgot the hand-warmers, though.
Rosenberg: Bad weather is part of golf. This was certainly unpleasant but far from unplayable. I didn’t see any shots that were impossible to hit because of the weather. It was weird to see this at the Masters, but weird does not mean they made the wrong decision.
Miceli: Yes, inherently unfair. I know the draw is crucial at the Open championship, but the Masters has much more flexibility with a small field.
Is there another golfer who could come out of nowhere and win the tournament besides Koepka and Rahm?
Young is one of the best players in the world without a PGA Tour victory.
Erick W. Rasco/Sports Illustrated
Evans: Cam Young. He hasn’t won on tour yet, but he’s probably the best player in the world without a victory. And he’s got a veteran caddie in Paul Tesori, who has been around Augusta a lot through the years with some good players such as Webb Simpson and Vijay Singh.
Van Sickle: Certainly. Seven shots is doable in one round; Morikawa, Cantlay and Rose are in the neighborhood. Cantlay has the best short game of those three.
Ritter: I’m keeping a side-eye on Justin Rose and Jordan Spieth. Rose has one Masters near-miss and Spieth always plays well here. Either could see green on Sunday.
Harig: Jordan Spieth could certainly do it. He’s had just enough success around Augusta National to put together a low round. But he’s going to need help. He started Round 3 seven back of Koepka and five back of Rahm, who is 10 under. Can Spieth or anyone get to 10 under? That’s probably where they need to be and hope that Koepka and Rahm don’t break away.
Rosenberg: Yes. The fact that the second round took so long made it seem like these guys have played more golf than they actually had. At cut time, there was a group of significant names in the 2-under to 6-under range. The question was just who would go low—and how low was low enough. That last part depends on Rahm and Koepka.
Miceli: No, what would have been the final pairing should have the winner. The conditions don’t lend themselves to a chaser, especially since they both are playing so well.
Herzig: I don’t think so. It looks like we’re going to have a Henrik Stenson vs. Phil Mickelson at the Open situation on our hands. Unless Koepka and Rahm both lose their momentum, we won’t see anyone else have a real chance to catch them.
Who will be wearing the green jacket?
Rahm is chasing Koepka, who has dominated the first two rounds.
Erick W. Rasco/Sports Illustrated
Evans: I like Brooks Koepka. He’s got some buyer’s remorse about joining LIV. He misses the PGA Tour and the limelight. The majors are the stage he loves most. It’s his time to shine again.
Van Sickle: What’s not to like about Koepka? He just steamrolled the course for 36 holes. But I think Rahm’s putter might be the difference.
Harig: Rahm. That was big to get within two of Koepka going into the third round. As nicely as Koepka is playing, Rahm has been on a roll going back to last fall. The course suits both of them, so neither would be a surprise, but it seems Rahm’s seasoning over the course of the last several months will be the difference.
Ritter: It’s been the Brooks Show for two days, but he’s hardly a lock from here. Still, he’s now the man to beat, and if we’re making a pick right now, he’s gotta be the guy.
Rosenberg: Forced to choose, I say Rahm. He has played so much more high-pressure golf than Koepka in recent years, and though we all remember Koepka’s poise at Shinnecock and Bellerive, he has also blown up at times, too. (See, especially, his final-round 74 when almost everybody else was going low at the 2020 PGA Championship.)
Miceli: Koepka. Got the better end of the draw and is playing the best golf by far through 36 holes. If his putter warms just a little more, it could be a runaway. Oops, did I jinx him?
Herzig: Rahm. I picked him at the beginning of the week and I’m sticking with him. He has a more complete game than Koepka right now, and if I had to guess, that is going to become clearer as the pressure sets in. Koepka hasn’t dealt with a lot of that recently.