The interesting thing is that as far as I can tell from reports (public and from the few insiders I know) is that Gil won mostly on giving a 5 Star presentation, while the others were so-so. I have heard that a few pros who interviewed kind of mailed in their presentations, figuring they were shoo ins because of their reputation.
While Gil did have a few high powered references, too, they probably felt he was both well qualified and the most sincere, i.e. a guy they would like to work with. In other words, from my perspective, it seems he won for all the RIGHT reasons, not the wrong ones.
Gary said he felt confident upon exiting. News flash, we all do, win or lose in these things. It is very rare for outright hostility or indifference from a committee, and they are at the very least, interested in what you have to say, since that is what they had you travel a long way to do. Its a big decision, and the finalists were sure all qualified to some extent. Given the expense you have gone to on their behalf, they are usually unfailingly polite. But, you can't confuse that with the central premise that only one of you goes home a winner!
I have interviewed in Florida, where they film all such things, as they did here. You can order the film. After a loss, I paid an expert to view the films, and without knowing the result, he told me exactly who won. If you view these things, you find five firms who sound exactly alike and boring, and one who stands out head and shoulders. They always say its a tough decision, but it rarely is ever even close.
While I haven't seen the films of this one, and am going by things I hear, I can tell you (from that experts and other post interview reports I have heard) that one of the biggest presentation killers is exactly spending the first 20 minutes talking about how great you are and your past history. They already know that, or you wouldn't be a finalist. They only want to hear what their golf course is going to look like.
Even as hard as Tom Doak worked to get it, I recall thinking from his comments here that somehow, he stated many things, while somehow, Gil made many points in his presentation. A very subtle difference, of course, but the results show Gil was better and more convincing in that interview room. I am sure all talked about the environment, or whatever issues there were, but sometimes, one firm doesn't just say they will address the environment, they give concrete, understandable examples the committee understands, and perhaps in just the right words they want to hear. (Side note, I have from time to time, tried to repeat things in their exact same words. You think they would "catch on" but somehow, they rarely do, as human nature just loves the attention of someone agreeing with you.....)
Gil just nailed it, pure and simple. A perfect 10 in Olympic competition.
I have read that you have exactly 17 seconds before you lose your audience for the rest of the presentation. I sense Gil started with that and kept going, addressing their concerns and turning them into highlights as he went. Gary probably spent the first minute telling them about some tournament win 20 years ago and lost right there.
For those who touch the edges of this biz, like Ron Whitten, Brad Klein, Tommy N, etc., learning to deal with rejection is about the hardest thing, at least from what they tell me. It's easy to blame politics, some underhandedness, or whatever, but 9 times out of 10, they just don't get a good vibe about you in that interview room. I told the story in Golfweek last week about not liking Larry Packard because of how often he beat out my mentors for jobs. We always suspected that something was afoot. Then, I met him after an interview one day and he was so nice and gracious I figured "Holy smokes, no wonder he gets hired so often!"
From that day on, I tend to do something very unusual in the design profession - blame only myself when I don't get a commission I would love to have or seem clearly suited for. Believe me, that seems very, very rare in the design biz.