Matt & Adam - I've not played BT or Friars, so can't comment on C&C's use of different land forms within an 18 hole course, (though I've heard nothing but praise for both). In the case of CP, I don't ever get the feeling on the inland holes that I've left the seaside ground. A lot of that has to do with lack of altitude change. The sea air comes in; the flora doesn't seem to vary, and the sand waste areas continue.
Stone Eagle's land, I would argue, was a natural for a Doak masterpiece. The ground is in its own enclosed valley, and the only rock blasting needed was for the 6th fairway. One sees many of the holes from most of the holes (one of the essentials of great ground for me).
Sebonack's ground, in contrast to Stone Eagle's, is highly problematic, from my point of view, because it slopes downhill from west to east off a high bayside bluff, thus hiding the interior of the course from the bay. The holes at clubhouse level are marvelous; those below can't possibly match them. This is not to say that the owners haven't created a wonderful club - they have indeed. I'm only saying that I find Stone Eagle to be far superior ground and a better design. I suspect also that either Nicklaus or Doak might have done better by themselves on Sebonack. That we'll never know.