David Bradshaw leads Fuhrer Invitational after Day 1 |
Other Local

David Bradshaw leads Fuhrer Invitational after Day 1

Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
David Bradshaw tees off on the 17th during the Frank B. Fuhrer Jr. Invitational Wednesday, June29, 2016 at the Pittsburgh Field Club.

David Bradshaw didn’t match his sizzling start during the second round of the Frank B. Fuhrer Jr. Invitational, but the three-time champion is halfway home to a possible fourth title.

The West Virginia native followed his 7-under-par 63 with a 1-under 69 to finish Day 1 of the three-day event with an 8-under par 132 at Pittsburgh Field Club.

He still maintains a four-shot lead over Ryan Zylstra, who is at 4-under 136. There are four players tied for third, all at 3-under 137: Jay Woodson, Mike Van Sickle, Spencer Mellon and 2017 champion T.J. Howe.

The 72-hole no cut event continues Tuesday and concludes Wednesday.

Bradshaw, who won in 2012, ’15 and ’16, opened the round with a bogey, and after a birdie on No. 2 he finished, his opening front nine with five-consecutive birdies. He added two more birdies (Nos. 13 and 14) on his second nine.

He finished his 36 holes with 12 birdies and four bogeys.

The low amateur was Franklin Regional senior Palmer Jackson, who is tied for 15th with Bob Friend and Penn-Trafford graduate Dan Obremski at 4-over 144.

Paul Schofield is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at [email protected] or via Twitter @Schofield_Trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.