Bishop Canevin sophomore sets school mark, qualifies for PIAA west golf regional
By Nathan Smith
Published: Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Sam Smallhoover's day at the WPIAL Class AA golf championship event wasn't just good — it was historic.
The Bishop Canevin sophomore shot an 80 to finish 10th — the highest finish by a male golfer in school history.
“I wasn't too comfortable with the course,” Smallhoover said. “But the greens were nice and rolling well. It was my first time here. I had a lot of support from my teammates back at Canevin so that helped.”
Keystone Oaks had two golfers fail to qualify for the west regional as sophomore Josh Short finished in 29th with an 88 and senior Andrew Bigler shot a 97 to finish in 42nd.
The WPIAL championship was played at Sewickley Heights Golf Course — a course many went into expecting high scores due to the difficulty. Smallhoover was somewhat familiar with the setting.
“All the bunkers were pretty tough,” Smallhoover said. “Some of the greens were, too. I played here this past summer and played here earlier this week to get ready.”
Smallhoover said his goal was to reach the western regionals heading into the WPIAL championship. Now he just wants to keep the season going.
“I really wanted to move on from (WPIALs),” Smallhoover said. “Now I want to get to the championship round.”
Smallhoover will play at the PIAA west regionals scheduled for Oct. 16 at Tom's Run Golf Club in Blairsville.
Nathan Smith is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org or 412-388-5813.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.