Mike,
I think both Tom and Jack wanted a difficult par 4 finisher at Sebonack.
Whether he was influenced by his immediate neighbor or just wanted a more benign finisher, Mike Pascucci opted for a softer par 5 at Sebonack.
Patrick:
You don't have that one quite right.
My original routing for Sebonack had the 18th as a long par-4. There were several reasons for that:
a) It played downwind,
b) It still wasn't clear where #1 green would go, and if there would be room to extend the hole on that end,
c) There was an environmental area behind the tee, so it couldn't be extended very far back, and
d) I had the impression that the client wanted a difficult course.
When we got to #18 on the first walk-through, Mr. Pascucci said that he would prefer the hole to be a par-5. Jack argued that it might be a weak finishing hole, mostly because it was downwind and couldn't be a very long par-5, but Michael said that was okay, he just didn't think the members wanted to walk off the 18th green with a double bogey. [Which is kind of funny, in retrospect, because he plainly doesn't mind if they make double bogeys on any of the previous 17 holes.]
So, we went back to the drawing board on items (b) and (c) above, and managed to figure out a way to have the hole as a par five that everyone was comfortable with.
The point I'm trying to make is that Jack and I [or certainly I, at least] were not necessarily locked in to having a difficult finishing hole. We were sure that was the best place to put the hole; we thought a par 4 fit better than a par 5; and we were trying to give the client what we thought he wanted. Once he told us differently, we re-grouped.