Mr. MacWood:
Regarding your post #38, I'm glad you posted it because it shows quite clearly the way you go about trying to analyze the architectural history of a course and the way I do and others do who I believe are so much better at historical analysis than you are.
The fact is there is a remarkable similarity in the way you have come at the subject of the architectural history of Merion and Myopia and now Westhampton.
1. You find an old article somewhere and depending on your own interpretation of what it says you automatically make the assumption that it must be right and that all other information, even from a club's own contemporaneous administrative records (I know what Merion's and Myopia's say but not Westhampton's or even if they still have contemporaneous administrative records of the creation of their course), must be wrong. Furthermore, you don't even know what a club has or what their records actually say before you make these pronouncements on here that their histories are wrong, that they glorify their supposed architects, and that you have proven them wrong. I believe anyone can see that is not a very comprehensive way of analyzing something like this.
2. You do all this without even bothering to go to these clubs at all or getting involved with their historical material.
3. When others suggest, as others on this thread have already done, other and more logical ways of analyzing the accuracy or credibility of some old newspaper article (which seems to be all you have when you begin these odd historical campaigns of yours), against other material at a club or whatever, you just tend to automatically dismiss it, ignore it or rationalize it away by claiming the club must be wrong due to some unfactual attempt to glorify their attributed architect, the fact that the history writer (such as Myopia's Edward Weeks) must be wrong, and/or that the club or its historian is trying to hide or distort something. Then it seems if that isn't enough you get into asking endless fairly trivial questions of everyone else.
It seems to me your primary purpose on here is to show yourself to be some kind of expert researcher who is better at historical architectural analysis than anyone else.
As I've said a number of times on here over the years I think you are a good raw researcher but you are truly illogical in your analyses of what research material means when taken together and analyzed in that light. This thread and this subject of Westhampton seems to be another example of that which is remarkable similar in method to what we've gone through with you with the likes of Merion and Myopia.
I think this has been a good thread because others have participated with suggestions of a proper and far more logical way or analyzing this kind of issue and subject. Then people such as George Bahto who arguably knows a lot more about Raynor, his courses and his career, than the rest of us, has weighed in with what he either has or what he may be aware of that will lead to a sensible analysis of who actually designed Westhampton's golf course.
There's no real beneficial purpose to this analysis in blaming me for pointing these things out under the guise that I'm criticizing or insulting you personally. All I've done is question your method of overall analysis of these questions because I believe it is both remarkably incomplete and slipshod. The way you've gone about these subjects (Merion, Myopia, Westhampton) happens to be remarkably similar and it is not being done well at all by you. I think it's about time you begin to listen to the suggestions of others about a better and more accurate way to go about this kind of thing, and stop deflecting those suggestions.
As to the central question----eg who designed Westhamption---we should all reserve that opinion until GeorgeB, the club, and any other available resource weighs in on what they have and what it means. Clearly you are not aware of what any of that might be and yet you conclude with assurance that you know Barker designed Westhampton and Raynor merely constructed it!
In my opinion, one who could be really helpful in this analysis would be Mike Rewinski, Westhampton's long time super who just may know as much or more than anyone about the architectural details of Westhampton's architecture and architect and its history.
Do you know him? I do. He used to be on this site some years ago and I was able to spend a couple of days there with him on that course some years ago.
My suggestion with Westhampton's architectural history and its architect, is that we allow it to go through this entire comparative information analysis rather than just taking the word of someone like you who is attempting to promote the story of this history off some magazine article from back then.
There is always a lot more to these kinds of analyses than the way you tend to come at them, Mr. MacWood. I realize you're trying to make a name for yourself but you will never get away with it the way you've been going about it with these courses and with the kind of people we have on this particular website.
Again, as I've said so many times before, if you want to do a real historical analysis of the architecture of a course it makes no sense at all to totally avoid the club itself as you have done with all these subjects and threads.