[Ed Oden]

This may have been discussed before, but I searched and couldn't find anything.  So here goes.  While working on my armchair architect design, I was struck by the importance of transition holes.  I thought it was fairly easy to find a number of obviously good holes.  But connecting the dots was extremely difficult without (a) compromising the qualities of the good holes that made them good in the first place or (b) entirely copping out and just putting in any piece of junk hole to transition between the space created between the good holes.  This got me thinking, are transition holes really the most important holes on a course?  Do they define quality design even more so than "great" holes?  Are the best architects those that can make transition holes fit seemlessly within the design such that they can not be noticed as transition holes?  I'd love to hear some of the architects on the board describe some of their favorite transition holes they have created.  Thanks in advance for any responses.

Ed

[Chris Buie]

I haven't really considered the matter before but it is a good topic.  The old truism "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" would seem to apply here.  
It would be very rare to find a course with 18 brilliant holes.  So transitional holes do have an underestimated role in the overall quality of a course, I suppose.

[Mike Leveille]

Ed:

Transition holes are what make a great course in my mind, as no site is perfect and for whatever reason for me it is more enjoyable to play a course with some ups and downs in the quality of the holes than a constant barrage of visually stunning and perfect holes.  A good example for me is the 7th at Royal Dornoch.  While most of RDGC is sited over dunes land that is ideally suited for golf, the 7th rests upon what seems to be a boring and relativiely flat piece of non-dunes terrain.  There would seem to be three options that were available in what to do with the 7th hole, (1) leave the land as-is and have a flat and boring hole that simply gets you back to the linksland on the second half of hole 8, (2) manufacture the land to try to make a spectacular hole that rivals some of the other holes set on the better terrain, or (3) throw in a bunker or two, and a nice false front on the green, and you have a fairly solid golf hole that serves the purpose of getting you from the 6th green to the ridge on the 8th with an acceptable amount of interest.  Seems to me that at RDGC the architect chose option (3), which in my mind was the best choice.

Most times, I think you end up with a greater sum of parts if you live within the basic limitations of the land presented to you, as opposed to trying to contrive any bland piece of land into something special.

Mike

[Charlie Goerges]

Brilliant Ed! My purpose with the contest has been fulfilled! My raison detre is that someone get something out of it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed,

Do transition holes become more important as the quality of the routing diminishes ?

If a course has a good/great routing, why would it need transition holes ?

[archie_struthers]

 

We have talked about this on board before and it gets back to the idea of flow. Flow makes for a great golf course , and transition holes are a significant part of this. You really can't have eighteen tough holes . Better to have eighteen easy ones.  

Just because a hole is easy doesn't make it bad or tough make it good. I've always  felt there is nothing simpler for the archititect than making a hole tough . If you can make an easy hole great , now you are doing something.  

Transition holes in the context you are talking about lead to a good flow, a somewhat esoteric trait that even some highly rated  ("great") courses unfortunately lack.

[Ed Oden]

Ed,

Do transition holes become more important as the quality of the routing diminishes ?

If a course has a good/great routing, why would it need transition holes ?

Patrick, I don't know.  But I suspect the best routed courses in the world have transition holes.  How could it be any other way?  Unless a course evolves in perfect linear fashion with the architect identifying the first hole at the outset and then each successive hole thereafter, then there will always be a need to connect the dots and get from point A to point B.  Its the architect's job to put the puzzle together so that those holes result in the great routing you speak of.  The transition holes that succeed are those that go beyond merely connecting point A to point B and add to rather than detract from the routing and the overall design as a whole.  Put another way, are transition holes the key to a great routing?  I hope some architects will chime in with their perspective. 

Ed

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed,

I think Archie Struthers hit the nail on the head.

"Flow" seems to be the critical qualifying element.

To a degree I think modern day architects are handicapped because they have to factor safety issues and cart traffic into their equations/routings.

I look at some of the holes at GCGC and NGLA and see how they flow, almost seemlessly, from one green to the next tee.

I doubt that a modern day architect would attempt to place those "golf points" in such close proximity today.

On the other hand, many courses mandate a disconnect in the flow due to site/permitting constraints.

Years ago I questioned architects with respect to the element of elasticity and how they design a golf course for the wider spectrum  of golfer today.  And, how they can allow for margins should distance continue to increase.  All of these factors affect "FLOW".

I think that "flow" or the ease of "flow" enhances the golfer's perception of the golf course.

I've always enjoyed the "flow" of Hidden Creek.

At Hidden Creek, in very few cases do you find a disconnect in the flow, and I think that's a great asset to any course.
It's an interesting topic.

[Mike_Young]

I think you can find great holes on mediocre courses but the genius is in the WHOLE.

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes, what Mike said.

Sometimes I hear a great jazz solo, and there's a beautiful bar where the musician plays only a half-note. And what fills the rest of that bar is space, silence. That's as 'transitional' as you can get, I guess -- but that silence is as much a part of the music as the half note is; in fact, it's the two beats of silence that makes the half note a half note. 

The great jazz players know a lot of things, including how to use space/silence. The ones I don't like listening to are the ones that seem afraid of being quiet for even a second; who feel the need to fill all the available space with a torrent of notes lest maybe the audience miss how great they are.  (Older, more experienced musicians might say of them: "They're talking a lot but they're not saying anything").

The great ones have the confidence (and the smarts) to take a breath; they have nothing to prove.   

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

There are lots of transition holes on most courses, and they come in different types:

a)  transitions across the most difficult part of the property, where you have to find a hole even though there is no obvious choice;

b)  transitions between two great holes; and most importantly,

c)  transitions where you modify a green or tee location on a really good hole so that you can make the transition to the next seamlessly.

"Flow" is another topic, but the ability to smooth over the transitions so that no one recognizes them is one of the keys to a great design.

[John Moore II]

There are lots of transition holes on most courses, and they come in different types:

a)  transitions across the most difficult part of the property, where you have to find a hole even though there is no obvious choice;

b)  transitions between two great holes; and most importantly,

c)  transitions where you modify a green or tee location on a really good hole so that you can make the transition to the next seamlessly.

"Flow" is another topic, but the ability to smooth over the transitions so that no one recognizes them is one of the keys to a great design.

On a residential course such as Riverfront, how does this idea work? Are you typically given preset corridors where holes are to be placed or do you design the holes and then the rest of the development is fitted around the course?

How do you work transition holes in these situations when there is pressure to make the course as 'house-lined' as possible?

And how often are great holes or even very good ones scrapped totally because there is no way to fit it in the routing?

[Adam Clayman]

Ed, Is there's a difference between a breather hole and a transition hole, at least in how you've posed the question? The issue of flow would seem to relate more to the breather versus the transition, which in my mind deals more with the specific site and how it's utilized. Do I have that correct?

Two examples I think of, fall into the category of breather. The old 15th at Pebble and the  old 12th at Butler. Both holes were like an oasis on my first visits. They were holes that a mid to high handicapper has an opportunity to par or birdie, amongst a series of holes that are typically way too difficult for that level of player.

Pacific Dunes 17th comes across to me as a purely transition hole. But I may have a bug up my ass about it since I was told how great a hole it was, but it didn't float my boat as being the quintessential redan.

John, On housing courses where the corridors are dictated by real estate, they are all transition holes. 

[Tom_Doak]

Are you typically given preset corridors where holes are to be placed or do you design the holes and then the rest of the development is fitted around the course?

How do you work transition holes in these situations when there is pressure to make the course as 'house-lined' as possible?

And how often are great holes or even very good ones scrapped totally because there is no way to fit it in the routing?

John:

I have never taken a job where the routing was already set in stone.  I believe the routing is key to our style of design, so if I can't be significantly involved in where the holes go, I don't want to build the course.

In the case of Riverfront, the client was a friend who'd known me since I was 21.  I submitted my first preliminary routing, and the land planner came back with a modification where only ONE of the 18 holes was still in the same place.  So, we had to have another meeting, and the client asked the land planner why my first hole couldn't be where I put it, and why my second hole was a problem, and so forth.  After a couple more iterations, I pretty much put the holes where I wanted to.  There were still transitions to be made ... but they were more about making the transition from marshside to open holes, instead of about the housing.

As to your last question, I have always said that an architect has to be willing to give up on the best potential hole on the property, if it will make the course better as a whole.  That said, I don't often stare too long at any potential hole, no matter how good it might be, if it's obvious that it won't fit into the overall scheme.  I know that's one of the areas where my associates struggle, when I give them a map to do a routing on their own ... they often come up with a bunch of holes that are interesting, but they hit one or two dead-ends they can't find a way out of ... because there IS no way out.  I've just got more experience in avoiding those dead-ends.

[Sean_A]

The last course I saw with lots of transition holes was Cavendish.  It seemed like the course was constantly in flux from the 4th onwards.  The par 3s are mainly about transitioning from one elevation change of the property to another, but a few par 4s do this as well and on a whole probably do a better job of it than the par 3s.  On the other hand, one could look at say the par 5 14th or the par 4 6th over flatish land and say they are the transition holes back to some other more interesting land.  The routing really is a masterpiece and the biggest surprise course for me last year.  

Ciao

[John Moore II]

Are you typically given preset corridors where holes are to be placed or do you design the holes and then the rest of the development is fitted around the course?

How do you work transition holes in these situations when there is pressure to make the course as 'house-lined' as possible?

And how often are great holes or even very good ones scrapped totally because there is no way to fit it in the routing?

John:

I have never taken a job where the routing was already set in stone.  I believe the routing is key to our style of design, so if I can't be significantly involved in where the holes go, I don't want to build the course.

In the case of Riverfront, the client was a friend who'd known me since I was 21.  I submitted my first preliminary routing, and the land planner came back with a modification where only ONE of the 18 holes was still in the same place.  So, we had to have another meeting, and the client asked the land planner why my first hole couldn't be where I put it, and why my second hole was a problem, and so forth.  After a couple more iterations, I pretty much put the holes where I wanted to.  There were still transitions to be made ... but they were more about making the transition from marshside to open holes, instead of about the housing.

As to your last question, I have always said that an architect has to be willing to give up on the best potential hole on the property, if it will make the course better as a whole.  That said, I don't often stare too long at any potential hole, no matter how good it might be, if it's obvious that it won't fit into the overall scheme.  I know that's one of the areas where my associates struggle, when I give them a map to do a routing on their own ... they often come up with a bunch of holes that are interesting, but they hit one or two dead-ends they can't find a way out of ... because there IS no way out.  I've just got more experience in avoiding those dead-ends.

If you don't mind me asking, what holes at Riverfront would you consider the transition holes? I would say 2 and 7 on the front and certainly 13 on the back. Yes, no? And what would you say is the best hole on the course? Do you recall having to give up any that were better than that to get the routing the way you wanted? Thanks.

[Pete_Pittock]

Many of my least favorite transition holes are at the beginning or ending of a round where you have to tie in the clubhouse with the rest of the course.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

It's been a long time since I did the routing of Riverfront.  There were potentially some terrific holes out closer to the river on the peninsula past #1 green, and also going across the marsh to the right of #17, but those were reserved for housing.

In the present layout, I would agree with #2 and #6 - 7 the transition holes on the front side.

But I was very surprised to hear you insist on #13, the par three.  That was one of the holes I liked the best from early on.  There IS an awkward transition involved, because of a big road and then a power line we had to get past in the routing ... you have to do the same between #16 and #17.  But, the tee for #13 is pretty close once you get past those things; I didn't really think I was stretching to get to it, although I'm sure it feels much different today in a built-out environment.  The sixteenth and seventeenth were really the only holes on the back that I would label "transition".  Sixteen was a give-back to the development [we had to give them more marsh frontage on that end of the course somewhere]; seventeen was awkward because there was only a narrow belt of trees along the marsh, and we had to keep the hole narrower than the rest if we wanted to save any of the trees to the left side of the hole and not make it completely open.

[John Moore II]

John:

It's been a long time since I did the routing of Riverfront.  There were potentially some terrific holes out closer to the river on the peninsula past #1 green, and also going across the marsh to the right of #17, but those were reserved for housing.

In the present layout, I would agree with #2 and #6 - 7 the transition holes on the front side.

But I was very surprised to hear you insist on #13, the par three.  That was one of the holes I liked the best from early on.  There IS an awkward transition involved, because of a big road and then a power line we had to get past in the routing ... you have to do the same between #16 and #17.  But, the tee for #13 is pretty close once you get past those things; I didn't really think I was stretching to get to it, although I'm sure it feels much different today in a built-out environment.  The sixteenth and seventeenth were really the only holes on the back that I would label "transition".  Sixteen was a give-back to the development [we had to give them more marsh frontage on that end of the course somewhere]; seventeen was awkward because there was only a narrow belt of trees along the marsh, and we had to keep the hole narrower than the rest if we wanted to save any of the trees to the left side of the hole and not make it completely open.

I was going to say #6 as well, but I wasn't sure. That hole must have been a real odd one to design since it seems to be at one of the lower parts of the property, at least among the inland holes. And given that, it always plays wet (at least when I've been there) because the whole community basically drains there it seems. I would assume that is why you have a seemingly out of place pond there? And I only noted that I thought that #13 was a transition hole because it has good holes before and after, yet the walks to and from that hole are among the longest on the course. The hole itself is good, but getting to it is no cake walk. Thats why I thought it was a filler hole. 16 and 17 I wouldn't have guessed. I would have liked to have played 16 prior to them building the condo's right up to the left side. Was that originally planned? I am thinking not because they had to rework the cart path in order to build them between 16 green and 17 tee. One other question-did you ever consider having a tee for #4 on the opposite side of the marsh, right behind #3 green? Maybe its just the maniac in me who likes pain, but that seems like it would be a good hole.

[Scott Warren]

Many of my least favorite transition holes are at the beginning or ending of a round where you have to tie in the clubhouse with the rest of the course.

Great point.

I can think of quite a few courses in the UK where the 1st and 18th holes transition between the house and the good golf land: West Sussex, Walton Heath (Old), North Berwick (West), Royal Wimbledon, Baltray...

It has been my experience that great opening holes and great finishing holes are few and far between here, often because they seem to be laid out over the poorest of the land.

Of mid-round transition holes, I'm growing increasingly convinced that none do it better than 14 at The Addington.

[John Moore II]

Many of my least favorite transition holes are at the beginning or ending of a round where you have to tie in the clubhouse with the rest of the course.

Great point.

I can think of quite a few courses in the UK where the 1st and 18th holes transition between the house and the good golf land: West Sussex, Walton Heath (Old), North Berwick (West), Royal Wimbledon, Baltray...

It has been my experience that great opening holes and great finishing holes are few and far between here, often because they seem to be laid out over the poorest of the land.

Of mid-round transition holes, I'm growing increasingly convinced that none do it better than 14 at The Addington.

Interesting observation. I would say this may be the opposite of many American clubs built recently. Often times now, the clubhouse and surrounding developments are based on the higher, good land, while the golf course is sort of pushed away into the less desireable land on the property. So then, the 1st and 18th holes might be some of the better holes on the golf course because they had the better views, better drainage, etc.

[Tom_Doak]

One other question-did you ever consider having a tee for #4 on the opposite side of the marsh, right behind #3 green? Maybe its just the maniac in me who likes pain, but that seems like it would be a good hole.

I would have loved to build a tee there, but there wasn't really any room to do so with the setbacks from the marsh on both sides of the little finger of land where the path comes up to the bridge.  Plus, it would have made for a very awkward flow of traffic if the course got busy and play was backed up.


Pete:  Your point about clubhouse locations sometimes requiring transition holes is an excellent one.  And it's not always just the UK courses.  Anytime the clubhouse is an existing building, or the client insists on having a big practice facility near the course with returning nines, you may be forced into a situation where you can't use the best golf holes and have to bend them to make them fit the available space.

[archie_struthers]

 


I don't know if there is a strict definiton of transition holes. and certainly a case could be made that you transition from hard to easy or medium hard as part of designing a golf course .  At least you do it if you are any good at this.

Tom Doak's analysis is logical in that often you bridge or transition from one area to another in the routing process. An excellent architect like Tom can take this dead area and successfully design thru it , a lesser architect might have a long cart path to get back to good ground. I did stray in that flow is so important to great design, and transition from hard to easy is so much a part of this.

 But what if the land is all pretty much the same....does that course not have a "transition " hole ?  I guess not.

 I've never played a really good golf course that has eighteen hard or spectacular holes. It's just too much sensory overload for the golfer.  Someone talked to me the other day about how "Old Head " had it all over Pine Valley and Cypress , Merion and the obvious "overrated" great courses on the top 10 list .  We agreed to disagree in that I've never visited Old Head but have known plenty of friends who have. They almost to a man said the views were unbelievable but the golf holes themselves were underwhelming as a whole.  We were in a fun poker game at the time and there was no need to be obstrerperous ( until after the flop LOL) 

Another interesting question ....is the quality of the transition holes at Pine Valley the reason the golf course is so highly acclaimed ? Even in a pantheon of great golf courses , it's probabaly the difference.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

Like you, I'm a little lost on what constitutes a "transition" hole.

Based on some accounts it could be any and every hole.

Could someone define a transition hole in the context of your response.

[Ed Oden]

Patrick, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I started this thread I was thinking of transition holes as being of the types described in parts (a) and (b) of Tom Doak's earlier post:

There are lots of transition holes on most courses, and they come in different types:

a)  transitions across the most difficult part of the property, where you have to find a hole even though there is no obvious choice;

b)  transitions between two great holes; and most importantly,

c)  transitions where you modify a green or tee location on a really good hole so that you can make the transition to the next seamlessly.

"Flow" is another topic, but the ability to smooth over the transitions so that no one recognizes them is one of the keys to a great design.

I see them as holes which serve the purpose of connecting other holes on the course.  I realize that all holes connect.  But the routing doesn't evolve in a moment of instantaneous inspiration.  Its a jigsaw puzzle put together in pieces which aren't necessarily found in the order in which they connect.  The pieces which are specifically designed to connect other pieces are transition holes.  Maybe a better term is "connector holes".  It seems implicit to me that the best routings in the world have transition or connector holes which are so well done that they can't easily be identified as such.

Ed

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()