As I recall, Mr. Lavin's comments on a similar thread received a full endorsement from Bob Huntley, so I should be careful.
But are #6 and #7 at PBGL world class? They are certainly scenic, but difficult? Really? Is TPS #9 a less demanding hole than PB's #6? How about TPS 3 from Thursday's front tees vs. PB 7? Form over substance? Is there a hole in golf that's more one dimensional than PB #7? I know, Venturi talks about hitting 4-irons into 35+mph winds on that hole. Would he need a driver at TPS #3 in comparable conditions?
Are PB's #9 and #10 (are they not a bit repetitive?) greater than TPS's #4? Or as a combo, both heading south with the same left to right ground movement, are they better than TPS's #4 and #5 going in the opposite direction and rewarding different shot patterns?
Take the par 3s as a group, is PB #17 a more demanding hole than either TPS #11 or #16? Is PB #5 a better hole than TPS #3 or #8? I think not (though I have not played the new PB #5); not to say about the routing disruption it creates (the walk-back to #6 tee). Is PB #12 better than TPS #8, 11 or 16? I think not.
As for the par 5s, PB #14 is the best on both courses, primarily because of the green complex. No doubt that PB #18 is prettier than TPS #18, but is it really more difficult or strategic for the professionals? I don't have the figures, but I suspect that twice as many go for the green at TPS than at PB (wouldn't this make TPS's more strategic?). True, the pond can't match the Pacific visually, but what can? As noted earlier, I don't consider PB's #6 any more challenging or difficult than TPS #9, though PB once again gets the nod for aesthetics. The converted (to par 4s) holes, PB #2 and TPS #6 are at best a wash, with a slight nod perhaps to TPS.
How does PB compare in the par 4s? I concede that 8, 9, 10, and 16 are top shelve. But 1, 2, 13, and 15 are rather ordinary. Is the TPS group of #s 4, 5, 12, 14, and 15 a lesser challenge than the best PB can provide? I think TPS's #s 1, 2, 6, 10, and 17 are better than the second tier PB par 4s.
Three things are indisputable. One, PB is a superior site with much more immediate ocean frontage. Two, PB is much shorter, and, in some camps, short is beautiful, long is garrish and unnecessary. Three, as a collorary to two, PB's greens are smaller with more internal contouring. Additionally, much higher construction and maintenance budgets as well as the upscale surroundings make PB among the highest rated courses.
Unlike some others here, I don't find TPS boring or uninteresting. I would suggest that those who claim that there is no strategy at TPS perhaps don't understand what strategy is. Thus far, a lot of credit is being given to course setup. In my opinion, the fact that they don't have to trick-up the course to conduct the tournament speaks well of the design. TPS may not be PB, but it ain't chop liver either.
As to better utilization of the property closest to the ocean, where and how? I don't see that there's much stable ground that's usable, and if there is, I suspect that the CCC and Big Environment would have a few choice words to say about that.
BTW, how do I get one of those $42 rounds that the announcer talked about last couple of days?