"IMO his obscurity today is due to the fact he was only operating as a golf architect for a very short period, five or six years. He flew the coop in 1915 and was never heard from again, on either side of the Atlantic. Golf architecture in America blew up after WWI - it is understandible why his accomplishments were largely forgotten."
Uh, huh!?
Even on the face of it that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Let's look at someone else who had about the same lack of longevity.
What about George Crump? He only practiced architecture for about 5-6 years and in early 1918 he definitely flew the coop and on both sides of the Atlantic and in more ways than that and in more ways than Barker.
Why is Crump so well known in architecture and Barker isn't?
Was it about differences in those two men or was it about the differences in what they produced in architecture? Or perhaps something of both?
We can listen to somebody like Tom MacWood say that Mayfield was considered to be one of the few best courses in America back then but is that really true other than from perhaps a few (how many times did some of those critics like a Vardon or Jones say some course was one of the best they ever saw anyway?).
I think we all know just about everybody who knew anything about golf or architecture said that Pine Valley was probably the best in America or the world and even before it was finished, and they're still saying that today. Did even 1/1000 of that many people say the same thing about Barker's Mayfield (which was actually designed by Bert Way too)? Does anyone say that about Mayfield today? Why is that? Would anyone deny that generally speaking Mayfield was not looked at in golf the same way the likes of Myopia or GCGC or NGLA or Pine Valley or Merion or Oakmont were at that time?
On both counts, I don't think so. Why is that then? Of course another reason could be that despite his protestations to the contrary, Tom MacWood isn't even close to having his facts correct.
But even if he is right where was that recorded other than in one or two articles or so? Everyone who ever wrote anything about golf said wonderful things about those others.
Why was that? Was it because there was something we've never known about Barker and his type or was it really about the architecture?
Tom MacWood:
Yes, I know about the beginnings of the PGA and I have read Graffis' book (It might have been Hanse's or someone else I know around here).
What I've known about Barker basically is a result of knowing Arcola and Columbia, but those are two courses that have been so changed by others. Did Barker have talent? It's hard to say, but I would say if Barker had the opportunity to do golf architecture in the same way and given the same amount of time on a project devoted to it by the likes of Leeds, and Fownse, Emmet, Macdonald, Crump and Wilson, then Barker too likely would have done something as good or as great and the world of golf and architecture would have recognized him for it both back then AND today.