Masters 2012 Leaderboard: Tiger Woods and More Stars Already out of Contention
With most of the Masters field already in the clubhouse following today’s third-round action, casual golf fans have to look pretty far down the leaderboard to find most of the recognizable names in the field. Phil Mickelson has clawed his way to a first-place tie with a brilliant third round—but after him, the pickings are slim.
This trio of past Masters winners have struggled so badly that they won’t even be a factor in Sunday’s action:
Golf’s most visible star hasn’t won a major since 2008, and he certainly won’t change that trend here. Tiger limped to an even-par finish today, leaving him at plus-three overall heading into Sunday’s action.
With some 39 golfers between him and the lead, Woods is in no position to make one of his famed last-day pushes in this tournament. Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18 major championships is looking safer by the minute.
Following a solid opening round of 70, Singh has been headed in the wrong direction over the last two days. He has slumped to plus-three in the third round (though he's still on the course at this writing), leaving him at one-over par for the tournament.
That kind of negative trend should look familiar to Singh, who has gone from Masters champion in 2000 to finishing out of the top 25 in each of the last three years. As dangerous as he once was at Augusta, Singh appears to have lost his touch here for good and all.
The 2009 champion at Augusta, Cabrera certainly hasn’t looked much like a player who knows how to win on this golf course. Thanks in large measure to an atrocious second-round score of 78, the Argentine standout finds himself at plus-four, placing him a lowly 41st overall.
Regardless of how well Cabrera recovers on Sunday (and his best round of the tournament has only been minus-one), he’s got too much ground to make up. It’s not that his title was a fluke by any means—Cabrera has four other top-10 finishes in Masters play—but this just hasn’t been his weekend.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?