Just to play Devils Advocate..
After reading about RTJ Jrs work, seeing all the recent threads on Oakmont, and from what I've read about penal golf course architecture, it got me to thinking.
I've read both in here and other various GCA books that the penal school of architecture is not preferred by many here. This got me thinking about Oakmont and the way the course is laid out. While I've never played it, I did go back and look at the aerials of every hole in the various threads on each hole and came up with the following.
11/14 - The number of holes, excluding par 3's, where the player must negotiate hitting into the fairway with bunkers flanking both sides.
12/18 - The number of holes where the player must negotiate an artifical looking hollow/ditch, (at least to me), that runs parallel to the line of the hole.
17/18 - The number of holes where the player must negotiate at least one bunker on each side of the green when hitting into the green.
While I won't even pretend to be an authority on GCA in any shape/manner/form, this seems to be penal architecture at its best or worst depending on how you look at it.
So for me the disconnect is, while guys like RTJ get dismissed/brushed away for thier work by many on this site, why does this course get so much praise, when it seems to be the poster child for penal golf course architecture?
P.S. I am in no way try to lessen George's work on this course as he presented every week, I think he did an excellent job.