Anyone who has played these courses realizes Barker was not a good router of a golf course, he was brilliant.That is easy to say and hard to prove. Brilliant for what kind of golf? I maintain that almost all of us on this site, except for superintendents at their specific courses and the architects who post on this site, are incapable of knowing how brilliant a routing really is, especially compared to other possibilities that were options available to the architect.
How many routings have you done, Tom MacWood? How much did you study the overall land and the site (not just the course) in considering other possible routings? Please tell us in what ways Barker was a brilliant router. That statement on its own is not persuasive. Just because a course is great and thoroughly enjoyable, doesn't mean that the routing is the best one available and that would vary depending upon what sort of course was being called for.
Is there a routing you know that cannot be improved upon? For you to answer that question, you would have to take a lot of time to study courses, many days worth. That isn't unique to you, it applies to all of us. We overestimate our understanding of what is a great routing...except for Pat and crossovers, then he underestimates
I suspect the number of courses where you have done extensive analysis of the course and its surroundings is very small. How much time did you spend on each site on Long Island? At Columbia? At Mayfield? At Druid Hills? Just what sorts of attributes are required for you to consider a routing brilliant?