Now then, my point wasn't specifically a criticism of JN. To a lesser extend you could apply the name of any famous golfer and the same would apply. "This course must be good because Peter Aliss designed it" is not an uncommon thought process on this side of the pond, certainly amongst a certain demographic. A friend of mine that I happened to once work with at what was supposedly an Aliss course has just returned from a trip down to St. Mellion, a trip undertaken in the pretence of work as he has chaperoning a group of club members. Anyway, my friend was quite certain that the Nicklaus course was not even the best course at the resort but try telling that to the members. Firstly, the Nicklaus course was immaculately groomed and obviously that was what all the comments were about. But secondly, as far as the members were concerned, they were there for the Nicklaus course and therefore, just so long as the conditioning was as expected, the layout was always going to be given the thumbs up.
This is fair enough Paul. It's really just simple economics. A "name" adds some brand recognition to any product. However, it does seem like the former players who build brand names as architects do so because they also build decent courses, if not very excellent ones.
Nicklaus may receive little love here, but he's built some truly outstanding golf courses with very good playing qualities. His aesthetics aren't my taste, although I reserve judgment until I see Dismal River as it looks wonderful in photos. There's little doubt, though, that he builds good courses even if they aren't anything architecturally game-changing. Ben Crenshaw does pretty good courses that are pretty well reviewed, and I don't think it's all just because he won a couple of majors. The Palmer courses I've played have all been pleasant - nothing special, but generally quite good. The Norman courses I've played are generally more middling, and his reputation as a designer is also more middling. There may be a few suckers who get excited to play an Alliss or Tom Watson course, and I'm happy that they are happy even if no one else is particularly impressed. It's not like those guys have turned out a ton of profitable junk courses - they mostly have built courses that receive lukewarm reviews and haven't built particularly lucrative careers in the field. There are only enough suckers to support a few junky courses from former PGA players, as there should be.
As for conditioning, that's the primary thing that matters to most golfers. It's hard to fault them for preferring courses that meet their top priority. We can certainly look down on them for the priorities they have and their unrefined tastes. In fact, thinking less of people because they have shitty taste is one of my favorite hobbies. But you can't suggest that it's the Nicklaus name that's swaying them when it's actually the conditioning. Put a retail golfer on a Nicklaus course in crappy shape, and they'll complain just as loudly as they would about any other.