Best amateurs in the 2025 Masters field? We ranked them at Augusta National
Best amateurs in the 2025 Masters field? We ranked them at Augusta National
There are only five amateurs in the 2025 Masters field, but they are among the most important parts of the year's first major.
Whether it's the Amateur Dinner on Monday with Augusta National Golf Club chairman Fred Ridley, staying in the Crow's Nest or being awarded the Silver Cup on Sunday, amateurs have been a big part of the storyline for every single Masters, and that won't change this year.
However, only one can win low amateur honors (and he must make the cut to do so).
Here's a look at the ranking for the five amateurs in the Masters:
Ranking the amateurs in 2025 Masters field
5. Evan Beck
The reigning Mid-Am champion hasn't played a WAGR-ranked event since last November. He's likely to be on the U.S. Walker Cup team this fall, but as far as Augusta National, he comes in with likely more rust than anyone.
4. Hiroshi Tai
Tai has only one top-10 finish this season for Georgia Tech, somewhat of a surprise winner last year, nabbing the NCAA title at Omni La Costa. It's the second straight year a Yellow Jacket is playing at Augusta National, following Christo Lamprecht's footsteps from last year.
3. Noah Kent
Kent made his PGA Tour debut two weeks ago at the Texas Children's Houston Open, fighting with a bout of food poisoning and missing the cut because of it, but he did close in 4-under 67 on Friday. Then, he finished fifth last week at the Terra Cotta Invitational. The long hitter could find success at Augusta National but still is knocking off rust.
2. Justin Hastings
Hastings won the Latin America Amateur Championship earlier this year, and he is trying to supplant Xander Schauffele as the best golfer in San Diego State history. He finished in the top eight in four of his last five starts for the Aztecs, including a win. He's in good form, and that gives him the edge for this spot.
1. Josele Ballester
It has been a good week already for Spaniards at Augusta National, with Carla Bernat Escuder winning the Augusta National Women's Amateur. Ballester, the 2024 U.S. Amateur champion from Arizona State, is hoping to continue the momentum. There have been four Spanish winners of the Masters, and Ballester is scheduled to pay practice rounds with them this week. He comes to Augusta National in good form, and he has a great chance to win low amateur honors.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. Open Thursday live updates, leaderboard: Can anyone catch Scottie Scheffler at Oakmont?
The third major championship of the season is here, and all eyes are on Scottie Scheffler. The U.S. Open kicks off on Thursday from Oakmont Country Club outside of Pittsburgh, where a $21.5 million purse is up for grabs. Scheffler, the top-ranked golfer in the world, is starting off the week as the biggest favorite the event has seen in 16 years. Advertisement Scheffler has won three of his last four starts and has absolutely dominated the golf world in recent weeks. He won the PGA Championship by five shots last month, too, to claim his third major championship title. A win for him this week would bring him just a British Open away from completing the career grand slam. There are plenty of others to keep an eye on this week, too. Rory McIlroy, who won the Masters earlier this season, appears to be still enjoying his win — and that's taking a toll on his game. Bryson DeChambeau, who seems to be the only LIV Golf guy that is constantly in the mix this year, is apparently on the clock when it comes to his contract with the Saudi Arabian-backed league. And, of course, the rough. Everybody is talking about the rough at Oakmont, which is expected to provide plenty of carnage. That's a good thing, right? Stick with Yahoo Sports for all of the updates throughout the opening round of the U.S. Open. Advertisement How to watch the 2025 U.S. Open All times ET Thursday, June 12 USA: 6 a.m. - 5 p.m. Peacock: 5 p.m. - 8 p.m. Friday, June 13 NBC: 1 p.m. - 7 p.m. Peacock: 6:30 a.m. - 1 p.m., 7 p.m. - 8 p.m. Saturday, June 14 USA: 10 a.m. - 12 p.m. NBC: 12 p.m. - 8 p.m. Sunday, June 15 USA: 9 a.m. - 12 p.m. NBC: 12 p.m. - 7 p.m.
New York Times
44 minutes ago
- New York Times
The college sports employment case that looms as the NCAA's next pivotal court battle
The final settlement of the House v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit is a huge relief to college sports. It's the start of a new economic model and a chance for college sports leaders to show legislators and the public they are capable of change. Here is what it is not: The end of their legal troubles. Throughout the final stretch of this case, many involved have pointed to the next big one coming down the pike. Johnson vs. NCAA, which has been moving through the courts for almost six years now, gets into one of the thorniest issues in college sports: employment. It could be a clarifying win for the NCAA, or it could be the case that hastens the big changes many have predicted — football breaking away from the rest of college sports, and a football Super League. Advertisement In February 2019, Ralph 'Trey' Johnson, a former running back at Villanova, sued the NCAA and nearly a dozen schools, claiming that athletes should be recognized as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case has slowly wound through the system, growing to include other former athletes while NCAA efforts to have the case dismissed have been swatted away. Essentially, the Johnson side argues that the NCAA and its schools have gotten away for decades — and continue to do so, even in the age of name, image and likeness payments and revenue sharing — with having athletes take part in a relationship that has all the appearances of employment, without paying them an hourly wage. 'Athletes should have the same, limited student employee status as classmates selling popcorn at NCAA games,' said Paul McDonald, the lead lawyer for the Johnson side. The NCAA argues that the arrangement has worked for decades, benefits athletes and still works for them, especially with NIL, revenue sharing and cost-of-attendance payments added to the pile. But the organization also seems to acknowledge this as another challenge to the system, and hopes it can be solved through federal legislation rather than the courts. 'The NCAA is making changes to deliver more financial benefits to student-athletes but there are issues such as employment that can only be addressed by Congress,' the NCAA said in a statement to The Athletic this spring. 'The Association looks forward to working with student-athletes and lawmakers to set a stable, and sustainable future for all 500,000 student-athletes.' The case could go to trial as early as next year. There's always a chance the NCAA and the plaintiffs will settle, as in the House case, which leads to new rules and perhaps collective bargaining. But for now, both sides seem dug in. McDonald sees this as a civil rights and fairness issue, and asks why athletes aren't treated the same as student concession stand workers, teaching assistants or any student who does work for the university and is considered an employee. Those students are usually paid hourly, often minimum wage, because they are performing a job. McDonald argues athletes should have the same 'equal treatment' to classmates in work-study student employment, some of whom are also on academic scholarships that don't preclude them from earning a wage. Advertisement 'This would be easy to implement using NCAA-mandated timesheets, and affordable on hourly, minimum wage scales — particularly if colleges stop overpaying some coaches,' McDonald said. 'Colleges have never explained why they oppose this easy and equitable solution.' Johnson filed his case before the NIL and revenue sharing eras began, but McDonald argues that should have no impact: While NIL payments are based on an individual's popularity and revenue sharing rewards a sport's popularity, all athletes should be deemed employees because they are performing a job. For several reasons, colleges and universities are very much against employment. There's the culture of college athletics, the idea that these are students seeking a degree and also playing sports, rather than paid athletes. Some cynics say there's a measure of control involved too, especially with the coach-player dynamic. And of course, there's the money. Every employee has a salary and other costs attached, and paying them all hourly wages would wreck budgets. The SEC and a group of education associations filed an amicus brief in the Johnson case, warning that only 2 percent of NCAA member schools generate enough revenue to cover operating costs. 'If colleges and universities are forced to pay their student-athletes (as employees) it is inevitable that many schools will simply eliminate athletics teams, with non-revenue sports teams the most likely to be on the chopping block,' the brief read. The other possible result: The richest schools pulling away from the rest of the NCAA, as the disparity between the haves and have-nots widens. Every school, even the big brands, is adjusting costs and chasing more revenue to pay for revenue sharing. Employment for athletes could prompt another wave of cost-adjusting and revenue-chasing. Advertisement Preventing athletes from being employees has been a central focus of the NCAA in federal legislation, and the House of Representatives' Education and Workforce committee plans to work to codify that restriction as part of a set of bills in the works from three House committees this week. Of course, any federal law could still be challenged in the courts, which is why outside observers think this will still be settled there. What constitutes employment can be a complicated issue, including various tests. Does the employer have the right to hire and fire the employee? Does the employer set rules and working hours? How much day-to-day supervision is involved? There have been court cases before on employment status, but none quite like this. 'In the employment law world, you have employees and you have non-employees. There's only two buckets,' said Josh Nadreau, an employment lawyer in Massachusetts who has advised some schools on employment issues. 'And I think with respect to looking at student athletes, to try to put them into this two-bucket paradigm is complicated.' There could be a lesson in what the Third Circuit said last year when it denied the NCAA's attempt to dismiss the case. The circuit court judges devised a test to determine whether athletes are employees, which could lead to different conclusions about athletes in revenue versus non-revenue sports. 'They're not subject to the same pressures, they're not subject to the same economic forces,' Nadreau said. 'I think at some point we'll start drawing circles around different groups, some will be employees and some will not.' For many, that's the clean solution, but McDonald is not distinguishing between sports in his arguments. Field hockey players, though their sport is not a revenue driver, also work hard and compete for their school, serving essentially as brand ambassadors, and have expectations from their coaches. Meanwhile, the NCAA has expressed no interest in granting hourly wages to any athletes, even those in football and basketball, hoping the House settlement's revenue-sharing structure shows that athletes are now being sufficiently paid. One final caveat: Expecting this to play out the same way as the House case ignores that it has a different lawyer and is also starting on the opposite coast. The House case, led by Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler, went before the same federal judge, Claude Wilken, in California, who oversaw the Alston case (also led by Berman and Kessler) that eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously against the NCAA's ability to cap education-related benefits. The Johnson case was filed in Pennsylvania, which the Third Circuit oversees, so it could proceed predominantly on the East Coast. Advertisement But unless and until the case makes it to the Supreme Court — or gets settled — there could still be more lawsuits and differing rulings. The result could be a mish-mash of laws, with athletes' employment statuses depending on where you live. 'The question of common sense comes down to who's deciding,' Nadreau said. 'What some people might say is common sense might be different than the rest of the country.'
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
The Bunker Specifically Designed to Torment the World's Best Golfers
When renowned golf architect Gil Hanse was asked to renovate the course at Oakmont Country Club ahead of this week's U.S. Open, he knew it presented two fundamental challenges. First, he had to make sure it was fiendishly difficult. After all, Oakmont has been regarded as one of the toughest courses around ever since it was established more than a century ago. But he also had to make sure it was fair—a course that strategically tests players is far more interesting than one that's just plain cruel. As Hanse sat down to consider those twin objectives, he began to realize that he was staring at one of the conundrums that has come to define modern golf. Today's top players can smash a small white ball farther than ever before. But the distance between the biggest hitters and everyone else is just as much of a problem. While Masters champion Rory McIlroy and reigning U.S. Open winner Bryson DeChambeau can routinely drive the ball in excess of 330 yards, others in the field might be happy to land within 50 yards of that. Which creates a peculiar question for course designers like Hanse. How do you create an equitable challenge for the best golfers on the planet when there's such an enormous disparity between how far they hit the ball? The answer lies just left of the fairway on the seventh hole at Oakmont, where a small patch of sand could decide who wins the next major championship. 'Some of the field is really going to have to think about it,' said Hanse, before adding that two players in particular might not be so concerned. 'Rory and Bryson aren't really going to have to think that much.' For decades now, the sport has wrestled about what to do about the increase in power of today's biggest hitters. Augusta National, host of the Masters, has warned against the day when the course would have to stretch to 8,000 yards in length. Governing bodies have already unveiled plans to roll back cutting-edge golf ball technology. Over the years, organizers haven't been afraid to target individual players. When Tiger Woods took over the game in the late 1990s, it was simply called 'Tiger-Proofing.' Meanwhile, tournaments are left with decisions about holes like No. 7 at Oakmont, which was already plenty difficult before the renovation. Back in 2016, when Dustin Johnson won here, only 44% of players reached the green in regulation, the lowest rate of any par-4 at the course. But when Hanse added another trap to a space that had previously been fairway, he wasn't simply concocting ways to make it meaner. Rather, as he and his team studied old layouts from the original Oakmont design, they noticed that bunkers like this one had once existed yet had disappeared over time. 'They asked you to make a really significant gamble, to go down the left side, make that carry over the cross bunker,' Hanse says. 'But the reward was dramatic.' That just left Hanse and his team figuring out how far away to place it, and every inch would have an enormous effect. A yard or two closer to the tee and most players wouldn't have much trouble clearing it. Any farther back and almost no one would consider trying to clear it—the seventh hole is also uphill and into the wind. And even farther away than that would feel like the bunker was specifically targeted at two players in particular. McIlroy and DeChambeau, who produced a U.S. Open for the ages last year, can bludgeon the ball unlike other elite pros. When McIlroy won the Masters in April, they ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in driving distance—and nobody else was within 13 yards of them. The compromise, Hanse found, is that while it's almost impossible to force every player into the same risk-reward decision on every hole, there are ways to ensure that each competitor is tested over the course of a single day. For instance, while DeChambeau and McIlroy can bomb it on No. 7, their power gives them a problem off the 15th tee when they could reach a bunker down the left side or a ditch down the right. 'You try to make sure throughout the round that you're not constantly favoring or penalizing one particular class of golfer,' Hanse says. The irony on the 7th is that any player who steers clear of the cross bunker is left with an entirely different headache. Hitting to the right gives competitors a blind shot with a worse angle to the green. Which means that playing it safe might actually be the bigger risk. Write to Andrew Beaton at
