This post is only intended to be a minor point of order, or more specifically a point of terminology order.
Let me preface:
I have never gotten or sent text messages on my cell phone until the last two weeks and now I have gotten two---both from Ron Prichard.
On the second and latest he asked me to put up a post regarding terminology on this thread.
Let me preface for a second time by mentioning that I have known and communicated with a lot of architects over the last fifteen years or so and of all of them, and throughout that time, I have always felt that Ron Prichard probably had the most interest as well as the finest sense of the history of golf and golf architecture of all of them. It seems to me he had it before it became quite popular in this perhaps twenty year renaissance that as been a dedicated part of golf and architecture during that time.
SO, he asked me to remind this thread----hold on, allow me to check this cell phone test message and arrow down-----
Ron says there are no longer such things as "tee boxes," and that that terminology was part of golf a long time ago that described teeing areas that were sometimes on legs and had actual boxes of sand that were used to tee balls on (apparently before wooden tees). What we have today are tees and tee markers.
Ron also reminds that we do not have a term in golf known as "green complexes." What we have is the "green" that is the whole of the golf course----eg hence a "greenkeeper." Therefore what he asked me to convey was that in his opinion (historically) what we have are putting surfaces or putting areas on that "green." Don't forget, it was not all that long ago that "putting greens" were defined in the Rules as that area within twenty yards of the pin sans bunkers and such. So in actual practice this was the only Rules distinction between approaches for instance and the putting surface or putting area (that involved such ramifications as the handling and hitting of the flagstick (not pin
).
Ron also says he is not a fan of some of these modern terms such as "shot values" which seems to be an opinon shared by the likes of Tom Doak and perhaps others. Apparently Ron feels this is an unnecessary and ancillary add-on to what should just be considered "golf" and golf shots on golf holes.
Again, Ron Prichard has a most interesting (read "pure") sense of the history of golf and architecture and apparently its terminology.
On a side note----if any of you have never heard Ron speak publicly on the subject of golf and architecture I encourage you to make a point of doing it if you hear he may be speaking somewhere. He may be speaking at one of the get-togethers (The Shreiner get-together) during the ATT Aronomink Tournament in Philadelphia during the July 4th week. Try to make it! I plan on being there as well and don't for a minute think I won't egg him on in this particular vein!