Wayne, congrats on the valuable work you, Tom and Craig are doing at Shinnecock. Please compare the Front Nine on these two courses regarding existing design
Short par 4s
Par fives
approach shots
green surrounds
variety
routing
Mark,
Having played both (Shinny more frequently), a cursory examination would yield a few interesting thoughts.
Short Fours: Sebonack's front contains the best, 1 & 5, on the course. #1 and 8 at Shinny are certainly very good holes, but hardly have the width of options found closer to the Bay. Neither at Shinny are drivable and their green movement, while challenging, is shy of the complexity found over at Sebonack,, That said the use of subtle doglegs to effect sensitivity to driving areas are approximately equal.
Long Fours: Absent the wonderful #2 at Sebonack, Shinnecocks' #3,6 & 9 are vastly superior.
Par Fives: A slight nod to Shinny #5. It is a better design than Sebonack #9 with more visual deceit off the tee and greater demand on the approach and green strategy.
Par 3's: No question, Shinny hands down. Not even close.
Approach shots: More aerial orientation at Shinny, especially on its front side. Great diversity of ground options at Sebonack. After that, its impossible to quantatively differentiate further. Both have tough greens that demand precise shot making.
Variety: Maybe a nod to Sebonack, but only because the front loop of 1-3 is so entertaining and fresh. Wind plays a greater role on those three as well. Shinny is no slouch though and while the back nine has a much greater variety than the front, its still damn fine.
Routing: After that 1-3 loop, routing is taken inland and falls just a wee bit short on 7-9. Shinny is marvelous as it takes you down, back, and across the prevailing wind. It should be noted, though, that Sebonack faced far many more constraints on it and its resulting routing than Shinny had to face and Tom should be congratulated for finding that much fun within such boundaries.
Just my humble opinion!