Example? Were those holes bad? Could Doak have made them better? How?
Better? That is a matter of perspective/taste. I thought 17 at Sebonack was great (and for the record I don't know if it was Jack or Tom or Jim or Garrett or Mr. Pascucci who did the green...it simply reminds me of Dismal River greens A LOT).
If memory serves me correctly 15 had a similiar feel to 17 as well...but I might be mis-remembering the 15th green.
Regardless, the difference in the greens that I'd pick up on are how the contours of the green interact with the surroundings. For example, the greens that I know Tom did and/or his RGD team (on Sebonack and other courses) are that if you look at the hills, landscapes, valleys, and the like surrounding the green the flow together rather than seperately. Specifically, high points off the green (where water might run off of) flow in river/creek like fasion into valleys on the green and naturally blend into other valleys and/or hills. You would never see abrupt changes that disturb the natural flow of water or wind patterns.
UGH! I think I am doing an awful job of explaining what I am trying to say...but I hope I am getting the gist across.
On some non-Doak/RGD greens, I see hills where valleys should be and vice-versa. These inverted features would never be seen in nature. Now, that is not saying they don't make for interesting putts and/or approach shots. In fact, many do...but they look out of place.
Again, I might not be communicating effectively on this..apologies.