Two thoughts come to mind. (1) - I tend to look at the organic nature of the layout when it comes to rating certain holes.
And by "organic" - I'm speaking more specifically to the natural topography of what the architect had to work with, versus the man-made and fabricated aspects of going out of his way to invent risk-reward aspects. Alister MacKenzie didn't have to dig a huge hole around the 12th green at Augusta and fill it with millions of gallons of water to create drama. He simply designed an average-sized green, allowing the natural contours of the land just beyond a small creek to decide whether or not a player had executed a shot well enough to avoid disaster.
(2) the other point worth noting - a huge part of what makes the 17th at Sawgrass so intriguing is where it lies in the layout itself. If Mackenzie had designed the layout at Augusta to make the 12th hole at Augusta the 17th hole... there would be an even greater increase in drama and excitement imo. Yet despite where the par3 at Augusta resides in the back-nine layout - it doesn't take away from the drama and excitement whatsoever. Just as many tournaments were won or lost on the 12th at Augusta as there have been on the 17th at Sawgrass.
I guess I'll summarize by asking this: If the par3 12th at Augusta was the 17th hole, and the par3 17th at Sawgrass was the 12th hole - would the par3 12th island green at Sawgrass hold the same dramatic value as that of the par3 17th at Augusta?
I don't think it would.
But this is a really good discussion nevertheless... lots of arguments to be made to support one's thoughts. I just tend to support the organic nature of the design of a hole above and beyond the man-made features added to make a hole "great."