Opinion & Analysis
The 20 players who can win the Masters

My annual Masters column shortlisting the players that can win the Masters has been successful since its inception in 2013. Since the field is smaller compared to other majors and it is the only major event that plays the same golf course each year, there are clear set metrics that have strong predictive outcomes for success at Augusta National Golf Club. Thus, the filtering process that narrows the list to 20-24 players lives on.
Last year was the second year in a row where the winner rather easily walked away with the green jacket. But the next four closest competitors (Aberg, Morikawa, Homa, and Fleetwood) were all players that I had filtered out. But, I do feel that the weather conditions may have played a role in those players finishing better than expected.
Over the past 25 years, Augusta National has greatly favored longer hitters. The best way for the shorter hitters to compete in the Masters is to get the right type of weather. It could be record low temperatures with strong winds, like in Zach Johnson’s 2007 victory, or it could be soft conditions from rain that allow shorter hitters to be able to hold those long approach shots, like in Mike Weir’s 2003 win.
The current trend of “critical holes,” where past leaders in the tournament have gained the most strokes against the field, is holes 7, 11, 13, and 17. But with the tee moved well back on 13 for the first time last year, any inclement weather may completely change the importance of that hole and give some advantage back to shorter hitters who are superior wedge players if virtually nobody can reach the green in two shots. Having said that, 11 is still proving to be the most critical hole as top players in the past have been gaining an average of 1.5 strokes per tournament on that hole alone.
As I have done for the past two editions, I’ll filter out the LIV players first. Since LIV Tour does not provide ShotLink or Trackman data, it’s more of a guessing game as to how certain LIV Tour golfers are playing.
Tyrrell Hatton
Dustin Johnson
Phil Mickelson
Joaquin Niemann
Charl Schwartzel
Cameron Smith
Bubba Watson
It feels odd leaving Mickelson and DJ out, but they haven’t played very well, and I don’t think the key parts of their game to succeed at Augusta are on point at this time. Niemann has made 4 out of 5 cuts at Augusta, but hasn’t really scared the top of the leaderboard. Recency bias matters in golf forecasting, and neither Cameron Smith nor Tyrrell Hatton have played all that well lately on the LIV Tour and in other tournaments around the world.
Next, I filtered out the amateurs and all first-time professional attendees. The Masters has only been won three times by a first-time attendee: Fuzzy Zoeller was the last to win in 1979. Prior to Zoeller, though, it was Horton Smith in the inaugural event in 1934, followed by Gene Sarazen in 1935:
Jose Luis Ballester(a)
Evan Beck (a)
Brian Campbell
Rafael Campos
Laurie Canter
Thomas Detry
Nico Echavarria
Max Greyserman
Justin Hastings (a)
Joe Highsmith
Rasmus Højgaard
Noah Kent (a)
Thriston Lawrence
Matt McCarty
Maverick McNealy
Taylor Pendrith
Aaron Rai
Davis Riley
Hiroshi Tai (a)
Davis Thompson
Kevin Yu
Out of all of the first-time attendees, the data likes Nico Echavarria and Kevin Yu to play the best at Augusta National.
I also filtered out old Masters champions I do not believe can get into contention anymore.
Angel Cabrera
Fred Couples
Zach Johnson
Bernhard Langer
Jose Maria Olazabal
Vijay Singh
Mike Weir
As I mentioned earlier, there is a recency bias involved with performance forecasting. Missing the cut in the event in the prior week greatly reduces the likelihood of winning the following week compared to players who miss the cut, take a week off, and then play the following week.
Therefore, I filter out all players who missed the cut at the Valero Texas Open last week.
Ludvig Aberg
Akshay Bhatia
Sam Burns
Matt Fitzpatrick
Max Homa
Tom Kim
Chris Kirk
Hideki Matsuyama
Adam Schenk
I will also filter out the players who have never made the cut at the Masters.
Wyndham Clark
Nick Dunlap
Austin Eckroat
Stephan Jaeger
Michael Kim
A Tradition Unlike Any Other…
Augusta National has traditionally favored longer hitters and even more so in the past 20 years of the event. Of course, there have been exceptions, as in 2007 when the short-hitting Zach Johnson ended up winning the event.
Critics of my filtering system point out Johnson’s victory as a case for short hitters being able to win at Augusta, but they neglect the fact that Johnson’s victory came in historically low temperatures in the 40s with wind gusts reaching 35 mph. That made the par-5s almost unreachable in two shots, and the course stressed wedge play and short game around the green, where Zach had a sizable advantage.
Historically on the PGA Tour, scores start to increase significantly once the wind speeds are going 12 mph or more. The forecast calls for a nice Thursday with winds blowing 9 mph SSW. Friday is the day of uncertainty with a forecast of potential morning rain and winds at 12 mph coming out of the West. Saturday is supposed to be a little cooler with 8 mph NNW winds. And then it is setup for a beautiful sunny Sunday with a high of 73 degrees and winds only blowing at 4 mph out of the Northwest. Mind you that the key par-5’s, 13 and 15 go west, so the wind is likely to be in the golfers’ face to some degree on those holes.
I still don’t see the weather being a big enough factor to help the shorter hitters, so I will filter out the players that don’t have enough distance off the tee.
Lucas Glover
Brian Harman
Russell Henley
Tom Hoge
Denny McCarthy
Collin Morikawa
JT Poston
Justin Rose
Sepp Straka
Nick Taylor
Danny Willett
Morikawa is the most difficult player to leave off this list since Augusta National is such an approach shot player’s course and Morikawa is arguably the best iron player in the world. His lack of distance is the only area of the game that he is missing to be a perfect fit for the course. And he has picked up some distance in the past couple of years, but still just narrowly misses out on the distance filter. It should also be noted that Sepp Straka has been having a strong season with his irons, particularly on his long approach shots.
The next filter will be players who hit the ball too low. This filter has been controversial in the past, but has continually proven to be valid. Last year I had 5 players in this filter with two of them missing the cut and the best finish was a t-22 by Joaquin Niemann. This year we have another 5 players to filter out:
Daniel Berger
Sungjae Im
Robert MacIntyre
Jhonattan Vegas
Will Zalatoris
Every year, I filter out the poor performers on approach shots from 175-225 yards, as Augusta National puts a lot of stress on those shots. Last year, I filtered out nine players, and they had the most success out of any group of players filtered out in previous Masters, with both Max Homa and Tommy Fleetwood finishing T3 — but most of the group still underperformed.
Here are the golfers I’m filtering out due to poor play from 175-225 yards:
Christiaan Bezuidenhout
Cam Davis
Jason Day
Harris English
Tommy Fleetwood
Billy Horschel
Patton Kizzire
Adam Scott
Jordan Spieth
Sahith Theegala
Cameron Young
That leaves the 20 players who can win the Masters…
Byeong Hun An (150/1)
Keegan Bradley (100/1)
Patrick Cantlay (40/1)
Corey Conners (65/1)
Bryson DeChambeau (14/1)
Tony Finau (80/1)
Sergio Garcia (80/1)
Nicolai Højgaard (200/1)
Viktor Hovland (35/1)
Brooks Koepka (25/1)
Min Woo Lee (40/1)
Shane Lowry (40/1)
Rory McIlroy (6.5/1)
Matthieu Pavon (400/1)
Jon Rahm (16/1)
Patrick Reed (80/1)
Xander Schauffele (20/1)
Scottie Scheffler (5/1)
JJ Spaun (175/1)
Justin Thomas (25/1)
My personal top-10 picks
Corey Conners (65/1)
Bryson DeChambeau (14/1)
Viktor Hovland (35/1)`
Min Woo Lee (40/1)
Shane Lowry (40/1)
Rory McIlroy (6.5/1)
Jon Rahm (16/1)
Xander Schauffele (20/1)
Scottie Scheffler (5/1)
Justin Thomas (25/1)
Opinion & Analysis
The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Podcasts
Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Opinion & Analysis
On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
Filippo
Apr 10, 2025 at 10:04 am
I hope Rory, will win Koepka.
Andrew J
Apr 10, 2025 at 7:03 am
Rory is my favorite especially if he could putt. And Rory could with this which is the solution to rid of slow play on greens. EGOS – Expert Greenreading Operating System offered in Amazon books with large pics & font. Only $27 each which is a smoking deal for a lifetime skill.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DJT2YLL9 Great book for those with an analytical mind.
Masters Bettor
Apr 9, 2025 at 11:55 am
So you filter out all LIV players to start and end up with 20 that can win that include Serio, Rahm, Bryson, Brooks, and Pat Reed? You’re not making any sense with your paragraph of LIV and elimination of those golfers with that as written.
Richard
Apr 9, 2025 at 1:55 pm
Agree ….
livat
Apr 9, 2025 at 4:32 pm
Agree. The LIV analysis and reasoning is poor. Niemann is probably the LIV player with the best chance.
DukeOfChinoHills
Apr 11, 2025 at 12:41 am
His list of 20 players are the statistically probable players who could win.
The second list of personal top-10 picks are his “emotional” picks.
Masters Bettor
Apr 11, 2025 at 1:40 am
Yes but he derives that top 20 list (which is hilarious in it’s own right considering that there’s literally only like 10 guys max here who can win every year and half are the betting favs) while making literally zero sense with how he starts the article off about disqualifying all LIV players yet ending up with a top 20 list that includes a bunch of them.
Ross
Apr 9, 2025 at 11:07 am
I love your analysis. Great job. I think the will come from your top 10.
Felice Mastronzo
Apr 9, 2025 at 8:21 am
Another year another list of excuses about filtered out players that performed well instead.
Golf is not predictable at this level, too much variables.
Final top 10 list is just the list of normal favorites.
DontBMad
Apr 9, 2025 at 11:57 am
He’s been right 11/11 times – predictable enough…
Felice Mastronzo
Apr 10, 2025 at 4:27 am
Picking up 20 from a field of around 70 and predict one of them to be the winner is not so hard.
But the analysis model has many flaws.
Richie Hunt
Apr 11, 2025 at 1:33 pm
It’s 97 players in this year’s field.
Bobbie
Apr 23, 2025 at 11:00 pm
How many players was there is 2024?