Tim
Nobody I know (particularly me) has said on this thread or this site that Yale is "good enough." I have just agreed (theoretically, since I have never played Yale) with people wuch as Tom H and Scott and Geoff Childs when they say that despite its neglect, architectural butchering and dodgy maintenance it is still a fun, challenging and instructive track which is very much worth playing. You have played there. Do you disagree? Did you and Tommy N waste your time and money being there? Each of you seem to imply that the way to get Yale back to its past and potential glory is to vilify the curent management and suggest that we boycott it lest some unknown people might be misled into thinking that this hugely influential collective body known as GCA thinks that it is "good enough?" This seems to me to be a stragtegy which is self-centered and, more importantly, likely to fail. I think that the work of people like Geoff and George, hard going as it may be, is probably the best way to go.
tonyt
Your fantasy about 2100 is just that. As I'm sure you know from following this DG, the trends today are in fact the opposite of your scenario. Many of our greatest courses (e.g. Pine Valley, Oakmont, Merion, Valley Club, Cpypress Point, Camargo, etc.) are going back to their roots, partricularly in terms of clearing out trees, restoring old green sites, changing mutated bunker shapes, etc. Not all these efforts have met with 100% success, but the trend is very much towards the classical rather than the modern. As you should know, too, I am very much a classicist, as I play most of my golf on "golden age" (and earlier) courses, including one of trhe most repsected of the "Top 100." I do argue for open-mindedness, diversity and a sense of humnor from time to time on this forum which leads those who don't read what I say carefully to try pigeon-hole me as not being on the side of the angels. That is just not true.