Humana Challenge 2013: Top-50 Golfers Who Will Be in Contention on Day 4
Well, we're through the first two days of the 2013 Humana Challenge, and there have already been plenty of surprises.
None other than Roberto Castro and James Hahn share the lead with a 14-under-par 130.
Of course, there are still some big names still in contention. Here's a look at golfers ranked in the top 50 who will be in contention on Day 4.
Zach Johnson (No. 25)
Johnson, who placed eighth at the Humana Challenge last year and tied for ninth at the British Open, has what it takes to not only be in contention, but win the tournament.
Robert Garrigus (No. 40)
Garrigus had eight top-10 finishes on the PGA Tour last year and finished off 2012 with a second-place finish at the Children's Miracle Network Hospitals Classic.
Russell Henley (No. 50)
The 23-year-old American entered the tournament as one of the hottest golfers in the world, capturing the Sony Open in Hawaii while leading the field in birdies and one-putts.
Not bad, given the Sony Open was Henley's debut on the PGA Tour. He's only been a professional since September 2011.
Matt Kuchar (No. 22)
The winner of the 2012 Players Championship, Kuchar posted two top-10 finishes in Hawaii to open up the 2013 campaign. He also tied for third at the Masters and tied for ninth at the British Open last year.
Kuchar has some ground to make up in the final two days, but it's certainly not out of his reach.
Bo Van Pelt (No. 23)
Van Pelt has a 10-under 134 through two days, and he birdied two of his final four holes on Day 2.
Brandt Snedeker (No. 8)
That's because the 32-year-old from Nashville posted seven top-10 finishes in 2012, including two victories. He also placed eighth at the Humana Challenge and third at the British Open.
After placing third at the Hyundai Tournament of Champions to start off the 2013 campaign, Snedeker is looking good, and his score of nine-under 135 at PGA West is not too great of a distance for him to overcome.
What are your thoughts?
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?