It surprises me that Tom Doak would fall on the side of thinking that lesser-name winners indicates a weakness of the course, at least for the Olympic Club: "From my standpoint, even Plympic's record as host to major championships is indicative of its weaknesses. Disagree? Okay, you take Fleck, Casper, and Scott Simpson; I'll take Hogan, Palmer, and Tom Watson." (p.64)
The question for those on that side of the debate is: if it is true that weak courses produce weak champions, how does it happen? The only explanation I've seen offered up until now is that when luck plays too big a part (Carnoustie '99) anyone can win, but even there I'd contend Carnoustie is a very strong course but with a poor set-up in 1999. So how do weak courses produce weak champions?
For me, the single biggest factor in the success of the every-day touring pro at the PGA is that more pros believe they can win the PGA than any other major. This probably has something to do with the setup (low-, high-, long-, and short-ball hitters all seem to have a chance; so-so putters can get hot or make up for it tee-to-green where at the Masters and US Open they can't; etc.) and something to do with the fact that the PGA is the least prestigious major (who among us dreamed of winning the PGA and not the Masters, British or US Opens?). So while the pressure is still high, no life dreams are hanging in the balance, and more guys think they have the game to contend than at the other three.
Plus, what special shots do you have to practice for the PGA? Tour guys prepare for weeks leading up to the Masters, hitting specific shots and trajectories and preparing for unreal greens; they do the same for the US Open and even put new clubs in the bag (all the 7-woods this year); and they practice lowering the ball flight, hitting run-ups, etc., for the British Open. At the PGA, it seems like you can play your normal game and have a chance.
Maybe you could argue that a weak course set-up produces a weak winner, but not a weak course itself.