One other thing I always try to ask myself if I think a hazard is unfair: What if it was water?
If that was a little pond, if would be a completely different argument, but people generally accept water hazards as necessary to a golf course. At least the “double hazard” of sand and trees is still playable. A pitch-out is better than a drop in my book.
I doubt many would feel a little pond in that location would be a good idea in any way. I think it was Mac who wrote that man made features usually look puny in comparison to nature, and in this case, a swimming (maybe even wading) pool pond next to the ocean would really prove that point.
I looked at Spirit of St. Andrews a minute ago to see if he mentioned those trees. I found this more general quote:
"Groups of trees are the most effective way of preventing players from reaching the green after playing their drives the wrong direction. No bunkers guarding a green seem to prevent them from doing so." Did he really mean from the middle of the fw? BTW, he otherwise supports using trees on inland courses, giving a few examples. We have to believe what from this single quote? Hitting the middle of the fw is the wrong place? In reality, my GUESS is that they were just too pretty to cut down and he made his exception to his own general rules, which of course, is his right as gca. Also, he had commented on not being criticized much for CP (i.e., even he thought it "got a pass" and always liking some holes that people criticized. Perhaps 17 was his opportunity.
So, while I don't think they are the best designed hole he ever did, I didn't say to change it. I understand that the bunkers were probably removed after years of experience playing the hole, and it is always an interesting debate of what should rule. Original intent is fine measure, but decades of playing experience have a role, too. I doubt any architect gets it right 100% of the time, and time always tells.
I also agree with Matt Cohn that he probably didn't envision players getting anywhere close to those trees. Look at where the player in the photo is aiming, and the front edge of the tee. They seem to be clearly aiming golfers farther left than the tree clump.
Still, I don't think the short route is wide enough to really tempt any players. Yes, there were no statistics like we have now that tell us players need "X" yards wide to risk hitting the tee shot. I have to believe golfers intuitively knew what was too dangerous. It would be interesting to do a divot count on the right over the years to see how often that right side was used.