I have enjoyed looking back on this old thread about routing, but another 17 years of experience has me more convinced than ever that it's impossible to discuss in mixed company.
As an example, I am reflecting on the routings for Wild Springs Dunes, which has just been announced. I first did a 36-hole routing for it 2.5 years ago, and then for a year Bill Coore and I traded plans which overlapped each other, before they acquired more land where most of his course will go. Since I was tasked with routing the best 18-hole course possible, without consideration for the second 18, I wound up incorporating a handful of holes that Bill had suggested! [You can't unsee them, which is why a true routing comparison has to be double-blind.]
There are only a handful of the holes from my first 36 that have survived to the present, because that original routing was just done off the topo, and further knowledge of the site led us to avoid some areas [because of permitting issues], and steer toward others [because of views, or trees, or other reasons].
The funniest thing, and most telling to the process, is that the ONE hole which both Bill and I had on our initial routings is presently not being used for either course, because getting out of that corner inevitably resulted in a compromise we didn't like.
I suspect the same would be true of the two York routings, if you tried to analyze them here . . . the differences would not just be between the philosophies of the two designers, but more about how much time they'd spent on the site. And you'd have a very hard time judging what they were going to do with the holes that never got built! I saw the centerline for the 16th at Streamsong (Red) for months in advance, and I never imagined what Bill was going to do with it.