Futhermore, Kyle, I believe that perhaps the primary reason architects can't or don't get maximum routing use out of golf course sites and their natural topography is because always in the back of their mind is the question of "balance" or what might be more appropriated termed "par balance".
I can tell you that on really interesting topographical land this can become both maddening and a real pain in the ass.
The fact is "par balance" just might not fit with the topography of a site or vice versa.
Seemingly "par balance" is very important to architects and golfers but how important should it really be if one type of par hole leads to the next naturally topographically?
Frankly, when I hear a top architect like Tom Fazio say that he knows that golfers will not put up with back to back par 3s or par 5s it basically makes me sick.
Why would he say something like that if he wasn't fixated on "par balance" or if he didn't think golfers are fixated with it? What if, in a routing the topography led from one beautiful par 3 landform to the next beautiful landform par 3 on the next hole? Should and architect avoid that because it was lacking in "par balance"? Some might even start all over again given something like that.
I hope you understand what I mean.
Bill Coore taught me one very important thing about routing and that is sites that have a ton of interesting topography and/or natural features are a whole lot harder to route than flat bland featureless land.