It is what it is, I think -- a demanding long iron par 3 to a tiny target.  Aside from the challenge of the shot, there's not a lot of drama in the hole, as the ocean is both out of play and (truthfully) not all that visible from the tee to begin with.

There are a few ways the hole might be improved, but I don't think opening up the green to accept a run-up cut shot is one of them -- where the green is situated, the ocean should not be in play at all, even for a cut shot.  An obvious "improvement" would be removing the back middle bunkers, widening the middle part of the green, and raising the back middle so that you could more realistically swing shots from the front to the back of the green.  But that change also takes away the only real unique aspect of the hole -- the hourglass shape.

Another possible change is moving the green site entirely, making it closer to the cliff.  The current front left bunker could actually be made a right hand bunker.  But this would make the green extremely susceptible to erosion, and would effectively eliminate the back tee that is behind the road (the one they use for US Open play).  

Here comes some blasphemy, but since you ask, I would abandon the entire green complex and create a new one right up against the ocean where the current championship tee is for the 18th and move the tee forward on 18 making the 18th a shorter par-five.

No this hasn't been settled before.

First off, regarding the green's shape. The aerial is somewhat mis-leading. The cut out apron, in front of the front right section looks like greensapce, but isn't. Look closely and you can see the slight color difference. The green does slope from back to front, on both sections. Since the greens location is out on a point, the water is all around you. So, the putts dominate breaking direction is towards Point Lobos(?) across the Carmel bay. However, On 17, that influence is hardly ever in play due to the smallish natue of the green and the side slopes coming off the bunkers.

It is hard to imagine what the original version of the hole looked like. I assume just a hell of a lot more sandy scrub, based on the few photos I can remember from the hallways in the Lodge. But, as is with most of Pebble Beach, the aerial approach shot is repleat throughout. So, Changing this hole to allow for more ground game options, on the left side, is incongruent with the remainder of the course.  

I assume alot of people would want to raise the teeing ground inorder to alleviate the blindness of the putting surface. This idea is so poor, it's what I would call a freshman mistake. Therefore, It has a high degree of probability to be instituted by management.

Adam,  I don't mind blind shots.  In faact I generally like them.  It is like playing ball over a house like I did when I was a kid.  I like the excitement of going over a hill and seeing where the ball is.  I love the dell at Lahinch.  But 17 iat PB is such a demanding shot into the green that I would recommend raising the tee a bit.  On TV it appears that the tee is raised, so I was surprised to find that it wasn't the case when I played it.  I'm not sure how much to raise it but a better look at the green would help the hole.
I don't regard myself as a freshman, but who knows.

Sean,

I'm not surprised this topic has been covered, but couldn't find it on search.

Aaron,
Can't say I agree the hole lacks drama.  I remember thinking "wow, here we are, 17 and 18 at Pebble"  Isn't the thought of playing the hole where the historic shots by Nicklaus and Watson won US Opens dramatic for us mere mortals?  If you mean strategic drama, it seems to me the hole offers lots of ways to make par, or triple-bogey--doesn't that create a potential for "drama" at least in the player's imagination?  
And I recall that walking from the somewhat sheltered 16th green across the road to the regular blue tee offers a clear sense of returning to the ocean from the more inland 11-16 holes.

I like your idea of moving the green east--seems like Pebble with their resources could find a way to engineer it.

I think its too steeped in history to change dramatically. I think the green could be made 4 or 5 yards deeper, which I would call 'evolution'.
From the tee the view is just sky and the flagstick, but it is what it is. Its certainly not a great hole in my opinion, although when you are on the green the view of the bay its pretty wow.

Eric,

It's this mindset that has disfigured an incredible number of  good golf holes and golf courses ?

Why the need to attempt to improve a great hole at the risk of lessening or ruining it ?

Green Chairman all across the country are lathering, if not slobbering, at the thought.  Today # 17 at PB, tomorrow, every hole in golf.

Leave it alone.

Adam Clayman,

If anything, I'd prefer to see the tees as low profile as possible.

Never mind that you would have to raise the 4th tee box as well so you could have the US Open tee on that shared tee box.  

No one has even mentioned the actual shot Jack was refering to and the famous footage that is oft re-shown.

From the rear of the green angle, the ball looks extremely odd in it's characteristics. It's so odd it looks fake. It's hard to tell that it hit the stick, and it's impossible to tell that it would've exited green back, if it hadn't.

Sean Leary, Don't forget about the road to the Beach Club. That's why I asked TW if raisng everything was in "the plan".

Asking the best players in the world to hit that target on their 71st hole of the US open, is not unreasonable. Even back in 1972.

It's hard to imagine changing the hole just because of the history.

However, nobody enjoys getting their artwork bashed on here quite like I do, so...

On the other hand, if Nicklaus and Watson had both hit their balls 4 inches left or right of where they did, would people be upset about upgrading #17? (assuming it was generally agreed, like #5, that the new hole would be an upgrade).

Jon, Any chance you could show us the picture you're recalling?

When I get a couple of books back from Dave Stamm, I'll scan in the photos.