Nicklaus says golf is too slow, expensive, and difficult

[A.G._Crockett]

That quote was enough to gag a dog. While R.T. Jones Sr. was the Typhoid Mary of golf architecture, Jack Nicklaus was the AIDS virus. Over the many years, I have played and rated 29 Nicklaus courses and with one lone exception (Mayacama), they are indulgent, arrogant and abusive towards the average player. The New Course at Grand Cypress doesn’t count because Jack was trying to build a homage St. Andrews - although even his Road Hole has a bias to the high cut.

If I want to be horsewhipped, there are plenty of S&M bars all over San Francisco. Given the popularity of Nicklaus courses, there must be an insatiable demand for self-flagellation, where middle-handicappers stand in line to pay 200 bucks a fuck to have the greatest player who ever lived urinate on them 18 times in a row. Last time I endured Pasadera, we played behind a group of cigar-smoking 30-something imbeciles who insisted on “playing the whole golf course” - which meant a six hour round in a hurricane where not one of them broke 100.

Naturally, because I’m a snarky prick, I asked them in the bar how they liked the course and their rousing endorsement cemented my view that nobody ought to play from the back tees unless they can show a handicap card of five or less. Even a five handicap is iffy. Dove Mountain was the final straw - after which I announced my retirement from electroshock therapy on my 55 year-old testicles.

The event is called “Golf ‘Till You Drop” - the object being to play as much golf in 2 1/2 days as possible. The venue moves every year and my coterie and I normally average 45 holes a day, stopping only for beer and a sandwich between rounds. At Dove Mountain - and we do not suck in the skill department - after 27 holes everybody looked like abused dogs in an animal rescue shelter. If reasonably good players are exhausted and frustrated from the 6500 yard tees, who did Jack think was going to play this golf course? Yes, there was a PGA Tour event there, but what about the other 99.99% of the rounds?

We can all thank C&C, Doak, Eckenrode, DeVries, Neal and the rest for helping chase the creature back into the lagoon where he belongs. Maybe the economic downturn of golf will force some sanity back into the game. I don’t want to hear any bullshit about owner expectations and demands, Emperor Tommy and I went out to Rustic Canyon late yesterday and nobody is going to tell me top quality golf cannot be obtained for a fraction of the usual wasteful madness.

The Superintendent (who does a fabulous job) uses almost zero chemicals and a bare minimum of water. The place makes money hand-over-fist with green fees so cheap I thought the pro shop was being nice to me because I’m a rater (I never accept freebies on cheap public tracks). For $39 I had an absolute blast. The whole mess mirrors what is happening in my other life. Studios cannot even imagine a legitimate feature film like ours made for less than eight figures - yet indie filmmakers consistently produce terrific movies for a fraction of the cost.

Yes, land costs vary - but I stumbled across one of the best courses I’ve played in years (Ridge Creek- John Fought) in the middle of downtown Dinuba. For $46, I played a wonderfully creative golf course that could easily hold its own in Bandon. Not hyperbole, I mean that - yet construction costs were modest and the place turns a healthy profit for Kemper every year. Given the same piece of land, can you imagine what kind of monstrous bucket of phlegm Jack or (shudder) Rees would have coughed up?

Jack, Rees and Fazio (although his courses are not generally too difficult for the average player) richly deserve the firehose of criticism they get for turning golf back into a rich man’s sport. Like everything else, the market is starting to correct itself - and perhaps the current generation will have the opportunity to remodel all these indulgent disasters into courses that serve the game instead of designer egos.        

I can't remember a post on GCA.com that I've liked as much as this one, ever.  Wonderful, and thank you.

[Carl Rogers]

At a personal level, I want to be a flexible golfer when it comes to the relationship between price point, expectations and experience.

I see less than $40 golf as one type of expierence which I can enjoy if the greens are puttable and the pace of play is good ....

And I can see $200 golf as a fundamentally another type of golf experience for which I have a far more demanding set of expectations which usually the course fails to meet.  (another shameless plug for Riverfront .... intersection of price point curve & experience curve)

[Randy Thompson]

This statement is of no surprise coming from Mr. Nicklaus. He built a huge sucsessful firm by Martketing his name, going where the sun shines and following the latest trends without creating any individualism and therefore leaving the door open for the likes of Doak, Coore and now Hanse. When i first entered this site in 2007 I started a thread on how I felt the signatures firms should brace themselves for a huge drop in demand in the upcoming years. Most all that particpated in that discussion disagreed. At that time Nicklaus had eighty courses in different phases of development and the internal employee structure to support those eighty courses. I don´t have the inside connections to his organization now, to know what the current numbers are to date but in both departments I am sure it is a fraction of what it was eight years ago. The public has been or is being educated, the market has reacted and he is trying to react like he always has and follow trends and jumps on the wagon that puts golf round decline blame on pace, cost and difficultly, while at the same time looking into the camera and saying, who me! The battle is lost as far as I am concerned and he can do as many interviews like this and its not to recupérate what he had!

[Sean_A]

People keep hammering on about expensive golf when the price diver for a lot of courses is the market, not construction cost and land prices.  I am not saying courses can't be built cheaper, regardless, people work/invest and want a wage/return.  Its very difficult to have it both ways with excellent design on good terrain, in  good location for less than $50.  There is a reason this site focuses on about 150 courses in the world...and why folks go ga ga over the odd gem which fulfills most of what the cream 150 do for significantly less money....the thing is nearly all of these ga ga courses are old and don't have the steep overheads.  Even so, many of these oldies still charge a green fee as if they did have the overheads because they can.  

Ciao

Sean,
I think you are right except for the last sentence.  It often cost more to maintain than people realize.  I like using cars for analogy.  If a city police force were to go to the Mercedes dealer to purchase police cars would the local newspaper be saying " Police cars are now too expensive"?  No, because the city would know to go to the Ford or Chevrolet dealer and once there he would not be buying the "Eddie Bauer" edition because the purchasing agent would realize that the basics were the same in all and he would end up with a good solid police car.    The purchasing agent also realizes that the Ford or Chevy he purchased can be maintained for significantly less than if he had acquired the Mercedes.   Now in this economy you may notice that Mercedes has been designing and selling smaller cheaper models in order to attract a market segment that used to not be there.  The signature golf guys are doing the exact same things.  When many of these signatures let their staffs out to pasture, the staffs went into the world thinking a golf course had to be built a certain way with several layers of middlemen that many of us never had and the mindset has permeated the industry.  There are maybe 75 guys that can actually design and build a good economical golf course and know how to do it.  You can call them architect, designer, builder or whatever.  Many of the signature trained and office trained will look down at this segment much like an Ivy League dude looking at an Alabama grad.  Do you think Toro and Rainbird spend so much money on supts and the ASGCA in order to sell quick couplers?
IMHO The other main reasons we are in this expensive golf thing are housing and member owned clubs.  There would have never been the signature archie if RE had not sought it out for branding.  And the industry would not have expanded unless they had known the cost could be absorbed via the RE branding side and not the green fee or dues.  The other thing is the subsidizing factor that is in most private country clubs.  A five million dollar rework cost a 500 member club $10,000 each and if divided over 10 years it is an easy sale.  And so many of the older members are silently subsidizing the rounds played at tour private courses and as they leave people are waking up.  And because so many of the decision makesrs in country clubs, and municipalities don't know what they don't know and because the bully pulpit belongs to the signatures we will continue with expensive golf.  

Yes, asking what it costs to maintain a course is like asking how long is a piece of string. To me, what most on this site are really bitching about is the cost of golf that they want to play.  Most are unhappy with the $50 course either for design or maintenance reasons.  These reasons and pace of play/tee availability are the main reasons for joining a club.  You don't have to convince me that too much is spent on maintenance, too much is spent on design and too much is spent on construction.  But you will have to convince that me there isn't good golf to be had in most US places for less than $50.  Perhaps I was spoiled, but I didn't have many complaints about the public offerings around Detroit/Ann Arbor given the green fees.  This site is a warped reality dealing in the ultra elite of golf courses.  

BTW - I don't seek out Nicklaus (RT Jones or Fazio) designs mostly because my bag is really more about the intimate routings of classic courses, but for all you Nicklaus haters, I think the Governors Club in Chapel Hill is pretty good.  Whether or not it is good enough to demand the monthly dues and joining fee is something that is a very personal call.  

Ciao

[Jason Way]

This is slightly off-topic, but since I have been taking JN to task, I also want to give him credit when it's due. 

I just came across Thomas Dunne's article in the USGA's U.S. Open preview magazine re: American Lake Golf Course.  This course, which specializes in serving veterans, is opening a new 9 holes designed pro-bono by JN.  His quote: "I've always had a great respect and admiration for our military...Any way that I can help, I want to try."  This course will be disabled-friendly, and certainly not "championship".

I don't take back what I said about JN's hypocrisy, but this does go to show that he is motivated by more than money at times.  I suppose that hope springs eternal that he will find the motivation to devote some of the resources of his business to addressing the problems he listed.  You never know, he might just be able to find a new profit center in it while simultaneously doing good for the game that has given him so much.

[Kris Shreiner]

Jack was SLOW when he played....was WAY overpaid...designed often for the shots that HE played....NOW complains about the state of the game HIiS greed parlayed... Into the mess he and some other selfish bastards made!
I respect his record as a player., and he's better than some... but Jack's  taken FAR more from the game than he ever gave back.
His " charitable" efforts are a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of millions he takes in...helping MIGHTILY to fuel all he laments about.
Where is the apology AND. vow to make amends?
We are waiting Jack ....

K

[Doug Siebert]

This statement is of no surprise coming from Mr. Nicklaus. He built a huge sucsessful firm by Martketing his name, going where the sun shines and following the latest trends without creating any individualism and therefore leaving the door open for the likes of Doak, Coore and now Hanse. When i first entered this site in 2007 I started a thread on how I felt the signatures firms should brace themselves for a huge drop in demand in the upcoming years. Most all that particpated in that discussion disagreed. At that time Nicklaus had eighty courses in different phases of development and the internal employee structure to support those eighty courses. I don´t have the inside connections to his organization now, to know what the current numbers are to date but in both departments I am sure it is a fraction of what it was eight years ago. The public has been or is being educated, the market has reacted and he is trying to react like he always has and follow trends and jumps on the wagon that puts golf round decline blame on pace, cost and difficultly, while at the same time looking into the camera and saying, who me! The battle is lost as far as I am concerned and he can do as many interviews like this and its not to recupérate what he had!

I think this is wishful thinking.  Nicklaus doesn't have less business in signature courses today because the "public has been educated", it is because in 2007 golf course construction was in the midst of a bubble fueled by the real estate bubble.  If the real estate market went crazy again so would the market for golf courses.  And Nicklaus would be fielding a lot more calls than would Doak or Coore.

[Randy Thompson]

This statement is of no surprise coming from Mr. Nicklaus. He built a huge sucsessful firm by Martketing his name, going where the sun shines and following the latest trends without creating any individualism and therefore leaving the door open for the likes of Doak, Coore and now Hanse. When i first entered this site in 2007 I started a thread on how I felt the signatures firms should brace themselves for a huge drop in demand in the upcoming years. Most all that particpated in that discussion disagreed. At that time Nicklaus had eighty courses in different phases of development and the internal employee structure to support those eighty courses. I don´t have the inside connections to his organization now, to know what the current numbers are to date but in both departments I am sure it is a fraction of what it was eight years ago. The public has been or is being educated, the market has reacted and he is trying to react like he always has and follow trends and jumps on the wagon that puts golf round decline blame on pace, cost and difficultly, while at the same time looking into the camera and saying, who me! The battle is lost as far as I am concerned and he can do as many interviews like this and its not to recupérate what he had!

I think this is wishful thinking.  Nicklaus doesn't have less business in signature courses today because the "public has been educated", it is because in 2007 golf course construction was in the midst of a bubble fueled by the real estate bubble.  If the real estate market went crazy again so would the market for golf courses.  And Nicklaus would be fielding a lot more calls than would Doak or Coore.

Doug,
Developers have paid two three times going market rate for JN designs and 3 times the cost of construction in comparrison to the current big three. In my opinión, they often signed with him to overcome marketing fears and a guaranteed certain level of quality in relation to playing conditions. Today, you will get almost that same instant marketing by signing one of the current big three. I agree the genral public has a way to go but the public of developers have been educated. If your going to invest 10 to twenty million dollars on a development, you will mostly likely do your homework and investigate and these investigations in most cases will favor the big three but there all boutique firms and most likely will turn down more work then they accept. In that scenario, if a developers gets turned down he may feel JN is his next best choice. JN top wáter fishes, as do the big three and he has lost market share on the top water and is trying to fiqure out how to get it back!

[Tom_Doak]

I think this is wishful thinking.  Nicklaus doesn't have less business in signature courses today because the "public has been educated", it is because in 2007 golf course construction was in the midst of a bubble fueled by the real estate bubble.  If the real estate market went crazy again so would the market for golf courses.  And Nicklaus would be fielding a lot more calls than would Doak or Coore.

Randy:

Sad to say but I agree with Doug.

The key is that he said "if the real estate market went crazy again".  The bulk of Jack's work, like most signature designers, was not about golf.  It was about pre-selling real estate [and/or, sometimes, memberships].  Coore & Crenshaw might be able to take over some of that business, if they wanted to, because Ben's name goes pretty far, too; but Bill Coore alone, or I, never would.

But the other part of it is, we don't aspire to take over that business.  Building twenty courses a year will never be part of my business plan, and I'm pretty sure the same is true of Bill and Ben. 

Building courses that aren't about golf will never be in the cards for me, either.  I don't want to go there, even if I could -- and I doubt I could.  Meanwhile, for Jack and Arnold and Greg Norman and others, that's their core business.  If you want to beat them at it by getting developers to understand the golf construction business ... good luck with that amigo! 

[Jud_T]

Tom Doak/Rory McIlroy  

Seriously- what's the most number of days Jack's ever spent on site?  Why is this surprising to anyone?

[Tom_Doak]

Seriously- what's the most number of days Jack's ever spent on site?  Why is this surprising to anyone?

Jud:

Counting the number of days someone spends on site is a fool's game.  The guys who would score highest are the guys who would otherwise be unemployed.   

Jack spent more time at Harbour Town than he has on the great majority of his own designs, because he had fewer contracts in 1968.

The bottom line is how much thought you put into the design, and the quality of the help you bring with you.

[Randy Thompson]

I think this is wishful thinking.  Nicklaus doesn't have less business in signature courses today because the "public has been educated", it is because in 2007 golf course construction was in the midst of a bubble fueled by the real estate bubble.  If the real estate market went crazy again so would the market for golf courses.  And Nicklaus would be fielding a lot more calls than would Doak or Coore.

Randy:

Sad to say but I agree with Doug.

The key is that he said "if the real estate market went crazy again".  The bulk of Jack's work, like most signature designers, was not about golf.  It was about pre-selling real estate [and/or, sometimes, memberships].  Coore & Crenshaw might be able to take over some of that business, if they wanted to, because Ben's name goes pretty far, too; but Bill Coore alone, or I, never would.

But the other part of it is, we don't aspire to take over that business.  Building twenty courses a year will never be part of my business plan, and I'm pretty sure the same is true of Bill and Ben. 

Building courses that aren't about golf will never be in the cards for me, either.  I don't want to go there, even if I could -- and I doubt I could.  Meanwhile, for Jack and Arnold and Greg Norman and others, that's their core business.  If you want to beat them at it by getting developers to understand the golf construction business ... good luck with that amigo! 

Tom,
I understand and agree with you. My only comment is in relation to the last sentence. I don´t think its about beating them but trying to stay competitive. I also don´t think its about educating developers to understand the construction business. I understand large pieces of good land near high populations áreas are expensive and sometimes difficult to make the numbers work when you have to give up 150 acres for golf. As a result the trend seems to be moving towards more remote locations and thus the justified marketing scare. I understand the importance of velocity of sales for developers and making their numbers work. Its an important factor in the overall equation, as is design cost and final construction cost.  The couple of million you could save by going non signature, you could purchase some pretty good marketing but granted there just doesn´t seem to be any sure fire proven marketing schemes when it comes to remote locations, other than what Mike K and now Steamsong seems to be doing but are disqualified for being non housing. The key is developing a strong marketing program without the signature attachment.

[Tom_Doak]

The couple of million you could save by going non signature, you could purchase some pretty good marketing but granted there just doesn´t seem to be any sure fire proven marketing schemes when it comes to remote locations, other than what Mike K and now Steamsong seems to be doing but are disqualified for being non housing. The key is developing a strong marketing program without the signature attachment.

Randy:

I agree with you here.  The reason the signature designs succeed in gaining attention is because in addition to the design fee, the developers also budgeted six or seven figures for marketing ON TOP OF THE FEE, which they would never do for the likes of you and me.

I've found my own ways of marketing projects, and that's one reason I've had success.  But I think every architect should understand the marketing side better.  If you had a real, detailed marketing plan to present to a potential client that only spent 1/3 of the difference between you and the big-name designer, I think you might turn a few heads.

[Randy Thompson]

The couple of million you could save by going non signature, you could purchase some pretty good marketing but granted there just doesn´t seem to be any sure fire proven marketing schemes when it comes to remote locations, other than what Mike K and now Steamsong seems to be doing but are disqualified for being non housing. The key is developing a strong marketing program without the signature attachment.

Randy:

I agree with you here.  The reason the signature designs succeed in gaining attention is because in addition to the design fee, the developers also budgeted six or seven figures for marketing ON TOP OF THE FEE, which they would never do for the likes of you and me.

I've found my own ways of marketing projects, and that's one reason I've had success.  But I think every architect should understand the marketing side better.  If you had a real, detailed marketing plan to present to a potential client that only spent 1/3 of the difference between you and the big-name designer, I think you might turn a few heads.

Tom,
You can´t put yourself in the same catagory as myself. I am a small snow ball that barely fits in my hands. You and your company are a six foot snow ball rolling down hill with lots of sticky snow in the path. The common South American golfers may not be familar with the three, hot, non signature firms but the developers yes. I think these developers know, anything these three firms get involved with will come with a lot of eyes and publicity, which is free marketing. I also feel that it´s enough to tip the scales in favor of these three firms. There are currently three different signature projects in development in Argentina today and two of three projects contacted one of the three non signatures first and after being turned down for what ever reason, they ended up going the signature route. The third project, has state and federal funds behind it, therefore was political and well, nothing more need to be said!

[Jeff Bergeron]

This is a great thread! Very enjoyable and insightful reading. As I get older I realize that how people view their personal legacies (including myself) sometimes deviate from the harsh reality of when those legacies were created. (1) Jack was embarrssingly slow. Watching the replays of the JN/Trevino playoff at Merion were painful.  (2) Jack worked on many difficult sites that required tons of earthmoving to create an acceptable result for his client. This is very expensive. (3) Jack's clients often wanted very difficult courses. Difficult ratings to attract tourists. The 'Bear' in Traverse City MI is a classic example.
Suffice it to say if you chase the almighty dollar to a fault you are going to have to work with bad clients. Bad clients generally mean bad results, poor economics, and a miserable experience for you and your people. It's true of almost any business. The lesson; choose your clients wisely and life is a dramatically better experience.

[Randy Thompson]

Jeff,
You wrote,
Suffice it to say if you chase the almighty dollar to a fault you are going to have to work with bad clients. Bad clients generally mean bad results, poor economics, and a miserable experience for you and your people. It's true of almost any business. The lesson; choose your clients wisely and life is a dramatically better experience.

That hits the nail on the head but the tricky part and where most of us fail, is getting into the Luxurious position of being able to choose your clients. The road is long and a whole lot of things need to go right with little room for error and little room to live and learn from your mistakes.
 

 
 
 

[Greg Tallman]

Tom Doak/Rory McIlroy  

Seriously- what's the most number of days Jack's ever spent on site?  Why is this surprising to anyone?

Do you have any idea what you are talking about or just spouting more GCA fueled BS?

[Jason Topp]

That quote was enough to gag a dog. While R.T. Jones Sr. was the Typhoid Mary of golf architecture, Jack Nicklaus was the AIDS virus. Over the many years, I have played and rated 29 Nicklaus courses and with one lone exception (Mayacama), they are indulgent, arrogant and abusive towards the average player. The New Course at Grand Cypress doesn’t count because Jack was trying to build a homage St. Andrews - although even his Road Hole has a bias to the high cut.

If I want to be horsewhipped, there are plenty of S&M bars all over San Francisco. Given the popularity of Nicklaus courses, there must be an insatiable demand for self-flagellation, where middle-handicappers stand in line to pay 200 bucks a fuck to have the greatest player who ever lived urinate on them 18 times in a row. Last time I endured Pasadera, we played behind a group of cigar-smoking 30-something imbeciles who insisted on “playing the whole golf course” - which meant a six hour round in a hurricane where not one of them broke 100.

Naturally, because I’m a snarky prick, I asked them in the bar how they liked the course and their rousing endorsement cemented my view that nobody ought to play from the back tees unless they can show a handicap card of five or less. Even a five handicap is iffy. Dove Mountain was the final straw - after which I announced my retirement from electroshock therapy on my 55 year-old testicles.

The event is called “Golf ‘Till You Drop” - the object being to play as much golf in 2 1/2 days as possible. The venue moves every year and my coterie and I normally average 45 holes a day, stopping only for beer and a sandwich between rounds. At Dove Mountain - and we do not suck in the skill department - after 27 holes everybody looked like abused dogs in an animal rescue shelter. If reasonably good players are exhausted and frustrated from the 6500 yard tees, who did Jack think was going to play this golf course? Yes, there was a PGA Tour event there, but what about the other 99.99% of the rounds?

We can all thank C&C, Doak, Eckenrode, DeVries, Neal and the rest for helping chase the creature back into the lagoon where he belongs. Maybe the economic downturn of golf will force some sanity back into the game. I don’t want to hear any bullshit about owner expectations and demands, Emperor Tommy and I went out to Rustic Canyon late yesterday and nobody is going to tell me top quality golf cannot be obtained for a fraction of the usual wasteful madness.

The Superintendent (who does a fabulous job) uses almost zero chemicals and a bare minimum of water. The place makes money hand-over-fist with green fees so cheap I thought the pro shop was being nice to me because I’m a rater (I never accept freebies on cheap public tracks). For $39 I had an absolute blast. The whole mess mirrors what is happening in my other life. Studios cannot even imagine a legitimate feature film like ours made for less than eight figures - yet indie filmmakers consistently produce terrific movies for a fraction of the cost.

Yes, land costs vary - but I stumbled across one of the best courses I’ve played in years (Ridge Creek- John Fought) in the middle of downtown Dinuba. For $46, I played a wonderfully creative golf course that could easily hold its own in Bandon. Not hyperbole, I mean that - yet construction costs were modest and the place turns a healthy profit for Kemper every year. Given the same piece of land, can you imagine what kind of monstrous bucket of phlegm Jack or (shudder) Rees would have coughed up?

Jack, Rees and Fazio (although his courses are not generally too difficult for the average player) richly deserve the firehose of criticism they get for turning golf back into a rich man’s sport. Like everything else, the market is starting to correct itself - and perhaps the current generation will have the opportunity to remodel all these indulgent disasters into courses that serve the game instead of designer egos.        

While some Nicklaus courses meet this very entertaining description, I find his firm's courses to vary wildly in quality. CDS Ocean and May River are about as good as it gets. 

[Greg Tallman]

The couple of million you could save by going non signature, you could purchase some pretty good marketing but granted there just doesn´t seem to be any sure fire proven marketing schemes when it comes to remote locations, other than what Mike K and now Steamsong seems to be doing but are disqualified for being non housing. The key is developing a strong marketing program without the signature attachment.

Randy:

I agree with you here.  The reason the signature designs succeed in gaining attention is because in addition to the design fee, the developers also budgeted six or seven figures for marketing ON TOP OF THE FEE, which they would never do for the likes of you and me.

I've found my own ways of marketing projects, and that's one reason I've had success.  But I think every architect should understand the marketing side better.  If you had a real, detailed marketing plan to present to a potential client that only spent 1/3 of the difference between you and the big-name designer, I think you might turn a few heads.

Tom, Apart from accepting only prime sites and/or clients what is your marketing strategy? It's obvious that you deliver the goods but I am not clear as to what "found my own ways of marketing projects" means or entails... understanding that your answer could be as simple as "I deliver a product that markets itself".

[Jud_T]

Tom Doak/Rory McIlroy  

Seriously- what's the most number of days Jack's ever spent on site?

Do you have any idea what you are talking about or just spouting more GCA fueled BS?

It's not exactly rocket science. The guy's designed 290 courses over 46 years.  He's also played in 480 professional tournaments around the globe over that same time period, shot a bunch of commercials, done corporate meet and greets, hosted a tournament every year since 1976, played a bit of silly season golf, practiced, made numerous television appearances, had a couple hip surgeries, travelled to all of the above and presumably spent a bit of time with his family along the way.  

[Marc Haring]

Quite a good article on golf's demise in recent years.
http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/print-view/the-death-of-golf-20150625

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's also not forget that Nicklaus was charging $ 1,000,000 design fees, which drove the cost of golf higher and higher.


Has he now reduced his fees to $ 100,000 and less to help lower the cost of golf ?

[Doug Siebert]

Let's also not forget that Nicklaus was charging $ 1,000,000 design fees, which drove the cost of golf higher and higher.


Has he now reduced his fees to $ 100,000 and less to help lower the cost of golf ?

How much a $1 million versus $100K design fee impacts the overall cost of golf on that course depends on how much else is going on.  If you have a relatively inexpensive construction like Dismal River Red, the impact of that fee is huge.  If you are moving as much dirt as at Shadow Creek, and building an over the top clubhouse with all the amenities, that $900K difference is lost in the noise.

People are hiring Nicklaus for jobs where their overall budget makes the design fee difference meaningless.  If he really wanted to change the cost equation, he'd refuse to take projects where he'll have to spend a lot to build the course, or where the cost of the land itself was really high (i.e., would the difference in combined design fees for Nicklaus and Doak of $5 or $5 million have made much difference in what Sebonack memberships go for?)

[Tom_Doak]

People are hiring Nicklaus for jobs where their overall budget makes the design fee difference meaningless.  If he really wanted to change the cost equation, he'd refuse to take projects where he'll have to spend a lot to build the course, or where the cost of the land itself was really high (i.e., would the difference in combined design fees for Nicklaus and Doak of $5 or $5 million have made much difference in what Sebonack memberships go for?)

Yes, I wish I had figured that all out before Mr. Pascucci asked me how much our fee was for our previous job   At some point afterward it dawned on me that what I thought of as a $7 million construction project was really a $100 million project where the quality of the golf course determined the success!


P.S.  Jack's fee was $1 million in the 1990's but $2.5 million the last I heard.  I believe he did design Dismal River for half his then-fee, but he was thinking he would make another design fee for the second course which didn't work out!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's also not forget that Nicklaus was charging $ 1,000,000 design fees, which drove the cost of golf higher and higher.


Has he now reduced his fees to $ 100,000 and less to help lower the cost of golf ?

How much a $1 million versus $100K design fee impacts the overall cost of golf on that course depends on how much else is going on.  If you have a relatively inexpensive construction like Dismal River Red, the impact of that fee is huge.  If you are moving as much dirt as at Shadow Creek, and building an over the top clubhouse with all the amenities, that $900K difference is lost in the noise.

Not really.
$ 900,000 is alot of money, especially when you consider the quality of the product.
People are hiring Nicklaus for jobs where their overall budget makes the design fee difference meaningless.  If he really wanted to change the cost equation, he'd refuse to take projects where he'll have to spend a lot to build the course, or where the cost of the land itself was really high (i.e., would the difference in combined design fees for Nicklaus and Doak of $5 or $5 million have made much difference in what Sebonack memberships go for?)

Perhaps, but, that's not the issue.
 
You can't complain about the high cost of golf when you've contributed to making the cost higher.
 
He can't have it both ways.
 
I find it hypocritical that he's now against slow play and high costs when he was one of the major offenders at slow play and a factor in making the cost of golf higher.
 
For the record, I think he's the greatest golfer that ever lived, but, he can't have it both ways when it's convenient for him.
 
I never heard him complain about slow play when he was a contestant and I never heard him complain about the high cost of golf when he was designing dozens of courses.
 
I realize that he's entitled to charge what the market will bear, but, like the women who kills her parents, she can't ask the court for mercy because she's an orphan.
 
He contributed to slow play and higher costs.
And, he never complained about distance when he was competing.