I have long thought that if there is one major shortcoming of GCA's discussion group it is discussion -or lack thereof - of routing.
My belief is that it is possibly the hardest important golf architecture subject to discuss and some of the responses here illustrate this point. For example, John K asks what is so great about Riviera's routing and, at least thus far, nobody can answer. I am with John. Riviera is a fine golf course with some great holes, but I fail to see the "genius" in the routing. Was the famous 10th a routing accomplishment or really simply excellent design of an individual hole?
It is striking that of all people Tom Doak would hesitate to give examples of "routing genius". Here is a person who has studied the great examples of our favorite art form as much as anyone on the planet - perhaps as much as anyone in history - and even Tom can't (or wouldn't) quickly provide a list of candidates. That tells me something.
So why is it we can discuss bunkers or green or the merits of individual holes but we have such trouble with routing?
My best insight into this problem came in Cleveland during the construction of Sand Ridge Golf Club. Unfortunately, I didn't become involved until the routing plan had been finalized and construction had begun. But, I spent a lot of time on site and got exposed to the many routing plans that didn't make the final cut.
In truth, I do not believe the final selection was anything near the best or most interesting. Not even close. There were several that we're much better but were victims of environmental influence or restrictions.
That experience leads me to believe it is hard to declare a golf course "routing genius" unless, at a minimum, we understand:
1) what the property looked like before anything was done?
2) what restrictions were put on the architect?
3) what were the leading alternative routing plans considered?
4) restrictions aside, why did the architect select the final routing plan and reject the others?
5) what was "left on the table" - what holes were lost - due to the final routing selection?
I am sure many here could add to this list and our architect friends could point out how I have barely scratched the surface.
There is one other problem. Though I wouldn't call it world class, over the years I have accumulated a pretty nice golf architecture library. But, it is striking how little there really is written about routing. From the very beginning - purchasing Sports Illustrated's Best 18 Holes In America in 1966 - books tend to cover all sorts of things about golf architecture, but are silent on the routing subject for the most part.
Perhaps part of the problem is lack of documentation or belief on the part of golf architects that anyone would really be interested in the decision making process involved with routing. It is quite easy to believe that all anybody would care about is the final product. Geoff Shackelford's wonderful Cyress Point book illustrates this point. The documentation of the course on opening day is fabulous and Geoff's writing compliments it very well even with some mention of the trade offs Mackenzie faced (e.g., location for the 14th tee). But, still if you really want to know what Mackenzie was thinking when he laid out the routing, we don't have much, unfortunately.
Years ago I spent a day with Tom Doak at Stonewall before construction began on the second course. Tom showed where he intended to build a hole inspired by a hole at Royal Melbourne. Pretty cool, especially when I finally made it Down Under to see the inspiration.
But, there again, that is about an individual hole, not a complete routing.
So, good luck discussing "grnius routing". I doubt it will ever be an easy thing to do.