Just a quick example for all to ponder. If I'm correct the much acclaimed champion Sam Parks
won the US Open at Oakmont. Does that mean that Oakmont is less of a course?
This is the same course that produced such winners as Armour, Hogan, Nicklaus, Miller, Nelson and Els. Not too shabby indeed!
I do believe that certain set-ups completely bastardize the pedigree of a course -- the classic example being Carnoustie a few years back when Paul Lawrie claimed the Claret Jug.
Take a look at ANGC as well. Look at the list of one-time champions -- Keiser, Wall, Mize, Coody, Aaron, et al. Does that make ANGC less of a course? Upsets in golf happen. It's a stretch to automatically assume that the triumph of a leeser player ipso facto means a poor course set-up or venue. Carnoustie is clearly one example where almost to a man the competitors believed the set-up had gone way beyond what should have been done.
Hazeltine isn't the most revered site in golf clearly, but in the PGA the course did what it was supposed to do -- weed out those who did not pay first rate golf. And, in the final analysis, the eventual champion earned his stripes against the #1 player in the world. End of story ...