Weekend Wrap - Dodged Bullet Edition

Whew!  That was close.....

Rahmbo In Full - As I occasionally remind, I started the 2022 season (calendar edition) watching to see if Jon Rahm could separate himself from the pack, which was wrong or, perhaps, just a tad early.

Two-time champion Jose Maria Olazabal missed the cut at the 87th Masters, but he donned his Green Jacket and waited behind the 18th green in the gloaming of a brisk but sunny Sunday at Augusta National Golf Club to welcome his fellow Spaniard Jon Rahm to the club.

 

“He said he hopes it’s the first of many more. We both mentioned something about Seve, and if he had given us 10 more seconds, I think we would have both ended up crying,” Rahm said.

Rahm became the fourth Spaniard to win the Masters, joining Sergio Garcia (2017), Olazabal (1994, 1999) and Seve Ballesteros who died in 2011 and 40 years ago birdied the first four holes to win the title for the second time (the first being in 1980.) On what would’ve been Seve’s 66th birthday, Rahm had to play 30 holes, rallying from four strokes back at the start of the day and two behind with 18 holes to go to shoot 3-under 69 and beat Brooks Koepka and Phil Mickelson by four strokes.

Ollie's presence was poignant, and I'm sure Sergio would have been there as well if there was an appearance fee on offer...

Geoff was fawning as well:

There are great golfers and there are golf geniuses.

Jon Rahm falls into the latter camp and no jury watching or listening Sunday would disagree upon seeing the 28-year-old Spaniard overcome the wrong side of the draw to win the 2023 Masters.

Besides becoming the fourth man from Spain to win here, he’s also the first European to win the Masters and U.S. Open. And then there all of the nutty April 9th coincidences (or not). But first, the genius component to this wildly satisfying win.

One of the Golf Channel talking heads put the value of the wrong side of the draw at 2.4 strokes, and if I had more available time I'd go through that top ten and see if anyone else overcame that hurdle as well.  Add the four-jack on the first green on Thursday, and it seems he beat the field by 8.4 strokes over the final 71 holes, so I'll go out on a limb and say the best man won.

Mike Bamberger was invoking the gods, always a dangerous business:

On this Easter Sunday, on this fourth day of Passover, the question can be asked:

Do golfing gods actually exist?

And now we know. Now we have proof.

They do.

And here’s the proof.

Jon Rahm of coastal Spain and greater Phoenix and the PGA Tour, won the 87th Masters by four shots over two men, a sun-whipped 52-year-old Phil Mickelson and his fellow LIV Golf golfer Brooks Koepka.

 Oh, they exist...And they're an ornery bunch.

Amusingly, Bams ties it back to that non-penalty penalty:

When Saturday’s rain finally stopped and the sunrise came at Augusta National on Sunday, Koepka was leading by four shots. Through three days of heat and wind and cold and rain, he looked like a golfing stud. But had he gone on to win this tournament, an asterisk would have been attached to his victory and this Masters forever, because of a rules incident in his Thursday round.

There’s no need to rehash the whole incongruous rules episode here. (This space is reserved for Senor Rahm!) But briefly:

After his Thursday round, Koepka was shown seemingly conclusive video evidence that his caddie had shared information with another caddie about what club his boss had hit for his second shot on the 15th hole. Sharing such information violates one of golf’s basic principles. Faced with the video evidence, Koepka could have said, “In the interest of fairness to the rest of the field and the tournament itself, I’ll assess myself a two-shot penalty.” He didn’t do that, and his first-round score stood as 65, not the 67 many thought it should have been.

And that made Rahm’s job that much more difficult, and his victory that much more of a relief for anybody still old-fashioned enough to believe golf has a value system that makes it unlike any other sport.

I just don't get their logic.... Either change the rule or enforce it, but the charade is unseemly.

Geoff had an interesting take that harkens back to 2019:

Last year Rahm played the final round with a gimpy Tiger Woods and finished T29. But ever the self-proclaimed historian, Rahm took bits of wisdom from sources far and wide and fed them into

his constantly-running brain server. He’s gleaned insights from Woods, former champion Jose Maria Olazabal and caddie Adam Hayes among others en route to what seemed like an inevitable victory at the place so good to Spain. Oh, and an early week practice nine tidbit picked up from Tony Finau, who lost to Woods in 2019, helped at Amen Corner.

“I played nine holes with him on Wednesday,” Rahm said while wearing the Green Jacket. “I asked him when him and Francesco hit those shots in the water, ‘Did you actually hit a good shot?’

“He said, ‘Yeah, it was I good shot, it was just a yard too far right and spun in the water.’ Then he mentioned Tiger's shot went left of the bunker to that Sunday pin.”

Rahm, ever the calculating mega talent who merges shotmaking, artistry, cold-blooded relentlessness and a wicked propensity to make left-to-righters, infused that wisdom into his a stress-free final round 12th hole par.

“So when I got there today, dry land is mission No. 1, right?” he said. “So I learned from what I did this morning, try to basically make a hole-in-one to the third round pin and hit a perfect shot because I was about three feet from it, right. That's what I had to do, hit it right over the center of the bunker and hope it hits green. And then after that, hit a great lag putt, tapped it in and moved on.”

Don't you love how their minds work?  I say that affectionately, but you can be 20 yards left on No. 12, but you can't be six inches too far right.... which is what I call a mistake, not a good shot.

The hardest thing to do in golf is to win when you're supposed to, which includes getting it to the house on a Sunday afternoon, most especially this Sunday afternoon.  This whole bit was amusing, but only because he had that four-shot cushion:

Armed with a four-stroke cushion, Rahm clipped the ancient pines with his 18th hole drive and was forced to hit a provisional before word reached the tee that his ball was safe. For the record, he was credited with a 193-yard tee shot.

“I think that was karma,” Rahm said. “I was just telling Adam how great I hit a low fade the entire week. Hit pretty much every -- the fairway all four days on 17, which I've never done. And I was bragging about it a little bit, and, of course, on 18, that happens, right, which was maybe two feet from missing that tree.

“But it will be a good story in the future, I guess.”

As former Masters Champion Trevor Immelman said during the CBS telecast, Rahm thought his miracle par was an appropriate as-Seve-would have done it conclusion. Another reminder that great minds don Green Jackets.

I've been reliably informed that the rain in Spain falls mostly on....wait, where was I?  Geoff had some date and Spain-centric bits:

Jeepers, were there some stunning coincidences with Sunday, April 9th and Spaniards.

• Rahm is the fourth to win joining Ballesteros, Olazabal and Garcia. Also…
• The last April 9th finish of the Masters was won by Garcia in 2017. 

• Seve’s 66th birthday would have been April 9th, 2023.

Rahm’s win is forty years to the day of Ballesteros’ second Masters victory.

• His caddie number this week was 49.

In addition to those doozies…

• This was the sixth total Masters win by a native of Spain, surpassing South Africa’s five.
• Rahm is the second player from Spain to win two different majors (Seve Ballesteros Masters/The Open). And he’s the first to do the Masters/U.S. Open combo.

Sorry about the messy formatting above, which has prevented me from inserting a nice screen capture of the winner and Ollie.

The Tour Confidential panel had some thoughts on the winner as well:

Jon Rahm was four shots off the lead on Sunday morning, cut the deficit to two after the third round and cruised to a four-shot win at the Masters over Brooks Koepka and Phil Mickelson. What most impressed you about Rahm’s victory, and are you surprised he came all the way back to win?

Hmmm.... that Koepka guy was four up at the start of play Sunday and lost by four, isn't there a word for that kind of collapse?   Yanno, something like Normanesque?

Alan Bastable: Given how well Koepka was not only striking the ball but also putting, I didn’t

see him kicking away his lead. But who knows, maybe not having enough recent reps in 72-hole tournaments finally caught up to him. I was most impressed that Rahm overcame a double-bogey on the opening hole Thursday and still won (only two other players have done that in a major in the last 30 years) and also that he kept his cool and steel during the foul weather. His maturation has come a long way.

Jack Hirsh: What isn’t there to be impressed with Rahm? I’ll start with the most obvious one which was his driver. Aside from the one on 18, which he said he didn’t even care about because he was up four, he drove it on a string. I said his tee shot on 13 in the final round was probably the best in the history of that tee! He can work it both ways when he has to. Oh and what did he do after the smother hook on 18? Rope it down the middle. I really wasn’t surprised to see him come back, especially after he did it in Maui.

Jessica Marksbury: His calm demeanor and belief, especially between the end of the third round and the start of the final round. He was in complete control — and he knew it.

We'll get to Koepka in a moment, but Bastable hits on a point I made in the moment.  Gee, if only he had more experience at four day events...

But that was quite the display of ball-striking once he had a sniff of the lead and saw Brooks leaking oil.  So, the only remaining question is, can he separate himself from the pack?

LIV In Full - Gotta eat some crow here, as I didn't see this coming.....  In fact, I'm pretty sure I said something about Phil having his weekend free, so shall we wash that crow down with a claret?

After taking a two-shot lead into the final round, Brooks Koepka didn’t win, but his fine play — not to mention Phil Mickelson’s — still fired up the LIV Golf-vs.-PGA Tour debate. How much do you suppose Koepka’s week will help to bolster LIV Golf’s image/credibility?

Sens: Well, with three LIV players finishing in the top four spots, it dispels the idea that these guys were all going to instantly lose their edge. But I don’t think it does anything to change LIVs bigger image/PR problem, which is that the team concept feels forced and the events seem weightless. At the same time, the strong showing by Koepka and Co., doesn’t cast a great glow on the Tour, either, as it reminds fans of what’s been lost in the Tour vs. LIV rift. Now, we only get the very best of the best four times a year.

Umm, no.  It's actually three of the top six, which is still good enough that you don't to exaggerate it... 

Bastable: A few of my colleagues and I had lunch (humble brag alert) on the clubhouse’s second story veranda Sunday from where we spied PGA Tour commissioner Jay Monahan sitting by himself on a bench that looks out toward the course. Would have paid him more than a penny for his thoughts, but you couldn’t help but think he wasn’t thinking about the day’s outcome and how it might influence the pro-golf war. Would a Koepka (or Phil or Reed) win really damaged the PGA Tour? Not in any tangible way. But it would have been a reminder to fringe fans that LIV, however you feel about the tour, has some serious talent. Heck, even without a LIV winner, as Sens points out, that point was still made this week.

Marksbury: Well said, Josh. And as Koepka said in his post-round press conference, “We’re still the same people.” This week’s performances seem to support that. If anything, I think LIV’s finishes at Augusta add even more intrigue and excitement to the major weeks where both LIV and the PGA Tour will go head-to-head.

Hirsh: I agree, this doesn’t change much of the public perception around LIV Golf, but it does prove these guys can still play. And hey, that intrigue is good for us!

I would argue that what they got was better than Norman's fever dream of an 18th green celebration.  Better because three of them were on that first page, and also that it wasn't Cam or DJ.  To me that gives a plausible argument about depth... well, not so much plausible as having an argument.

The funniest bit is that my small-sample size poll Sunday morning yielded a unanimous "Not Brooks" vote tally, and we were in the Spanish Armada in viewing the early stages of the broadcast.  But after Phil finished strong and posted -8, both Employee No. 2 and I had moments of rooting for Brooksie as the far lesser evil...  Just funny what this game does to you.

But first, no one said these guys still couldn't play.... excepting, of course, for Brooks and Phil.  The former due to recurring injuries and the latter due to demographics.  In the three LIV events to date, Phil has finished T27, T30 and T41, results that sre both objectively poor and not much of a trend line to speak of, and that's before we deal with the field strength.  

I've never bought into Phil's act completely, and in recent years (many would say since September 2014) I've turned hostile to the man.  But I've always steered clear of criticizing his golf career, because he's obviously a transcendent talent.  But I remain mystified that he would squander his good name for thirty pieces of silver, walking away from Ryder Cup captaincies, the senior tour and an honorary starters gig at this very venue.  Yesterday my feeling was one of sadness, that he didn't allow us to revel in what should have been one of those glorious Sundays that Augusta can deliver for the old-timers.  

Koepka is a far more interesting case, because if he's actually healthy, it could get interesting.  But the devastating point for the LIV apologists is that he's been pretty candid in telling us that he only went to LIV because of the injuries....  Yeah, that's a great slogan, Give me your tired, your poor, your huddle masses.... they'll be rallying around that flag.  That's why that "We're still the same guys" is so laugh-out-loud funny, because he most of all didn't think he was the same guy.

But you'll recall that we had that Eamon Lynch column last week to the effect that even a LIV winner would change the arc, and Josh's answer above sounds the same notes.  Straw men aside, no one has ever said they have no talent there, just that they don't near enough and no way to replenish it....

I'm going to move on, but this is a subject we will no doubt revisit in the coming days.  

Ghosts of Tiger - Eamon had a column on this:

Lynch: At the place where it all began, the end has never seemed closer for Tiger Woods

So where on that continuum is Tiger Woods?

He’s certainly well shy of embarrassing himself, and like Arnold in his latter years has earned the right to do so if he chooses (but he won’t). Nor can he be accused of selfishly taking someone

else’s place in the field, since he’s earned the berth he occupies. On paper, at 47 he’s still of an age where opportunities to win are fewer but not finished. But in practice, he’s so banged up that winning or even contending has never seemed more distant in the rearview.

There was an ineffable sadness in watching Woods limp around the golf course he bestrode like a colossus in 1997, when he won the Masters by a dozen strokes. There’s an understandable desire to focus on his swing mechanics, to find positive signs that the weaponry is intact. Now and again it is, but his is an artillery gun borne on a rickety wagon, too unpredictable and unstable to be relied upon in the battle.

I certainly think that's right, although I also think there's a distinction here that is missed.  Tiger can still play golf at a fairly high level, he just can't walk.  I don't mind so much at the Masters, because his slot wouldn't be filled if he didn't play.  The issue for me is that in the next three Masters, he'll be using a scarce resource to play.

I'm not at a point where I think he should have stepped aside, but that day is coming.

Tiger Woods withdrew from the Masters before the resumption of Sunday’s third round, citing a reaggravation of his plantar fasciitis. The cold conditions weren’t ideal for Woods, and he was limping badly on Saturday, but how does this change your opinion on how often we’ll see Woods in majors going forward or how effective he can be?

Hirsh: I think people are getting ahead of themselves when talking about Tiger’s future after this week. He got dealt just about the worst hand he could have been given with the already difficult walk here plus the weather and having to get up early to play multiple rounds. He still made the cut. I think there are slightly healthier days ahead for Woods when he doesn’t have to deal with the plantar fasciitis. I’ll say good chance he skips Oak Hill next month, 50/50 on the U.S. Open in LA, but I’d put money on him being at Hoylake in July.

Bastable: Gosh, I don’t know. On Saturday, as I hyped for this site, he was limping so badly he looked like he was walking barefoot on broken glass. Yes, the conditions were brutal but that’s as bad as we’ve seen him. Huge props to Woods for making the cut (truly, that’s an incredible accomplishment), but I am not bullish about the rest of his 2023.

Sens: Tiger got caught in a perfect storm this week. And while Oak Hill in May seems like a long shot, I think we will see him make a go at the U.S. Open. He’ll have two months to rest and rehab. It’s hard to picture him being a big factor in majors going forward though. He’s an ancient 47, and he’s up against a wave of young talent that he helped inspire. Tiger himself seems to be coming to grips with that. As tough as that might be for his fans to swallow — the idea of Woods shifting into a more ceremonial role — it’s got to be even tougher for Woods himself.

Marksbury: After what we saw this week, it’s hard to imagine Woods ever getting into contention again. But it’s never wise to underestimate him! I think he’ll continue to pick and choose courses that may be best suited for him. And I was very encouraged to hear him talking about the Champions Tour in such a positive way. Seems crazy to think about, but senior events aren’t far off on his horizon.

It's quite the conundrum, no?  No one wants to let go of the Tiger era and I personally find that grind to make the cut one of the most profound pleasures of our game.  But the late-week DQs are accumulating, and that's not a great look.

Lucky Thirteen - I hope we'll get more data, but this was the Tc panel's take:

In the lead-up to the week, there was much speculation about the newly lengthened par-5 13th hole to which the club added 35 yards to protect the integrity of the design and better test the field. Mission accomplished?

Hirsh: Love it. Love it. Love it. Love it. I’m not a rollback guy and I’m not a build-an-8,000-yard-golf-course guy, but what Augusta National did here was perfect. Guys were still hitting their tee shots in similar positions as last year, which means they were taking driver instead of 3-wood. I don’t think anyone got much closer than 190, which considering guys used to hit driver over the trees and then wedge in, is a win. Most guys ended up having around 210-240 yards, which is right in the range that makes it the “momentous decision” Jones and Roberts intended it to be. Overall the hole played easier than last year, but that’s more to do with the soft conditions than anything.

Sens: Agreed, Jack. With the wild weather, I’m not sure this week gave us the most accurate barometer of how they’ll attack this hole in the future, but the fact that we won’t likely be seeing 8-irons into the green anymore is a great thing.

Bastable: Fun fact for the haters: there were eight eagles on the 13th hole this week — two more than a year ago! But yeah, overall, I dig the change. Anytime you can make the world’s best golfers deliberate a bit more over a shot, that’s a win for us watching at home.

Marksbury: I think they got what they wanted. From home, I didn’t notice a difference in the level of excitement. There’s still plenty of drama on the back nine, with or without the added length on 13.

I think that's mostly right, but I'd like to know the eagle count for more than just last year, because six seems like a low-water mark.

What we hear is that the guys have trouble drawing the ball with their drivers these days, which only increases my admiration for that tee ball Rahm hit on this hole yesterday.  

Alas, I have to get on a call, so will wrap our preliminary Augusta musing here.  But we'll have much more to reflect on in the coming days, so please do check back early and often.