Am going to re-read applicable sections this weekend, but here are a few thoughts: (sorry for colored type)
* Early British inland courses stunk because they failed to preserve the charming, natural features of the seaside links. Many early builders of inland courses in America committed the same mistakes, with "hideous" militaristic construction featuring systematically dug, trench-like traps and straight-faced mounds. Thankfully, modern architects had begun to rediscover the "subtle features of strategic architecture."
Pretty standard mid century stuff railing against the geometric look. Still the dominant thought in GCA, although Pete Dye is quoted as saying RTJ did all curves, and when he saw a straight ditch at Prestwick 18, he realized that is how he could differentiate his style. So it influenced modern architecture in a few different ways.
* The goal of modern architecture is "to create a balanced hole for the various classes of golfers... the majority of whom are average golfers punished far out of proportion to their playing skill (on most courses of the past)."
Yes, and the next few points flesh this out a bit.
* Fairway traps under 200 yards from the tee offer little challenge to the crack golfer, while they punish the average golfer. Traps at short distances should be moved to make play for the average golfer less punishing without spoiling the character of the course or playing value for the expert.
Agreed. Why add bunkers if the shot length left to the green already prevents you from reaching, penalizing you one stroke? Occasional "fore" bunkers work for many reasons, but aren't such a good idea that you would use them religiously.
* A problem with the old "penal" school of architecture occurs near the green, where the surfaces are flat and "surrounded by a maze of clam-shell traps with a bottle-neck entrance" such that the golfer "had no choice other than to hit a perfectly executed shot to the green." The average golfer was "doomed before he started" on such courses. Jones instead favored diagonally-oriented traps that allowed weaker players to set up an angle of approach that was in their ability while the strong player could play strategically and situationally manage the risk and reward of such a bunkering scheme.
I wonder if the narrow entrance and clam shell bunker reference was as shot at Robert Bruce Harris? In any case, he did believe in defending par at the green with big contours and multi sectioned greens, and usually, not always, left run up areas. The rolling greens almost sound like the Doak mantra, and were and still are valid, albeit with green speeds flattening contours in general. I generally agree with this, but also wonder (like others) how much his fame as Open Doctor got him thinking more of the championship venue side of his creations, possibly with his clients egging him on, as we see later with Dye, etc. Everyone wanted a harder/better course than his last. In those days, harder and better seemed to be synonymous.
* Another problem with the old penal school: A player could hit a shot only slightly off-center and catch a "deep, ugly trap" while a shot badly missed would avoid trouble and enable a simple up-and-down. To correct this, Jones advocated for mounding that offered some forgiveness to slight misses and repelled more substantial misses.
Actually a pretty logical defense of fw side and green back containment mounding........
* "Certain traps should have real penal value while others only a psychological effect so that a hole often plays more easily than it would seem at first glance."
Agreed, as variety is the spice of life. I don't recall any too deep bunkers on the RTJ courses I have played. IMHO, he and Wilson started the "more is better" and "shallow to moderate depth mitigates the sheer number of bunkers we use" theory. I have always thought one hole per course (or so) ought to have just one truly terrifying bunker, another a lot of bunkers, and most somewhere in between. I also think in terms of the "master bunker" the one that is deeper that really needs to be avoided, even as there are other, more cosmetic, bunkers on the hole.
And while speaking of variety, I think the biggest weakness of the 1950's era was all tree and lawn panel golf courses, no ragged areas, and the reliance on sand and water as the sole hazards. Certainly, the Ross grass traps and mounds, and the expanded fairways around the greens from Scotland couldn't have been totally forgotten. I guess they just wanted to place their own stamp on design or separate post WWII design, but they sure missed some good themes that might have made their designs better. (I still recall a 1966 or so HH Wind article in Golf Digest wondering where the Ross style chipping areas went in GCA......)
* Surfaces of greens should be undulating in character and with a harmony between the lines of the framework of the green (any mounding and shaping surrounding) and the green surface. The environs should have a natural appearance.
Hard to disagree, but again, his sheer volume of work led to some repetition, and seeing the same bunkering pattern over again takes away any notion of natural.
* Fairways should be at their narrowest where the strong players' drives land, and wider for the weaker player.
Again, hard to disagree, in general. The longer players statistically hit it straighter, too, so a hole with a narrow LZ at 270-310 and wider under 260 yards allows one course to play well for both good and poor players. But agree again that over and over again it can get boring. Certainly designing those championship courses seemed to take away the emphasis on any cross bunkers and carry hazards changed from sand to water only under RTJ. I know many here love fw width, but the game because about accuracy for championships. Ultra wide fairways just require too much defense at the green for top players, and thus some kind of balance of tee shot challenge and putting challenge supplemented the difficulty of angles of approach in their minds as the best approach. Especially if they varied the tee shot challenge for average golfers and allowed some measure of forgiveness at the approach shot. You know, as hard as I try to agree with the "width is the be all, end all of golf architecture" I come to more of the balanced approach conclusion as being best, too.
* Strategic design is the ideal, as opposed to penal design. For his example of strategic design, Jones used the Long hole at St. Andrews and described how bunkers and trouble challenge the shortest routes to the hole while weaker players can tack and plot their way around the hazards with smart play.
Again, hard to disagree, but harder to see it in his work. His courses are generally hard, for reasons already discussed. There are just so many more tee shot strategies out there to use a few times per course than pinching the LZ on both sides. While I am sure that stereotype is now overplayed as our memories of RTJ and his work fade a bit, he did it enough to create the stereotype (although, I could make the case that Dick Wilson, and then his protégés Joe Lee, etc. did more of the bracketing than even RTJ.)