Regarding Masters Snubbing Active Major Winners (and Other Players)

I believe that any active former major winner who is under 50 years of age should be allowed to play in any of the majors. By active I mean still playing on either the PGA or European tour. To me having multiple major winners like Ernie Els or Paddy Harrington not being able to play is wrong.

I agree with you 1000% if the player is showing that he's very competitive on the tour (Euro or American).  And the past Master's champions need to be cut back  little unless they're somewhere in the top 10-20 on the Champions' Tour money list. Of course, Bobby Jones wanted it a certain way, but the tournament's field doesn't have all the best golfers on the planet as it should.

Els is not playing? He still has an exemption.

Els was not invited in 2012 and went on to win the next major that year (The Open) - kind of proves the point that the best players in golf don't always get invited to the Masters and the winner of the Masters isn't necessarily beating ALL of the best players on the tours. It has always been one of the most freq criticisms of the Masters as a major - weakest field.

most likely not because winning The Open requires no motivation other than the fact that you're winning THE OPEN.

Which really hasn't got much to do with anything.  They have a list of criteria which qualify players to enter.  If the player doesn't meet the criteria, and hasn't done anything recently to garner a special invitation, then I don't see why they should just automatically be included.

Many feel that the British is the weakest of the majors because of its dependence on weather to defend most of the courses against ridiculously easy play.  For a long time the PGA was poorly run for a major championship because the courses played were set up no different from a normal Tour stop and offered no particular challenge to bring the best players to the top of the heap.  Although that has changed over the last couple of decades, I still have a hard time getting excited about that 4th major.

In any poll of favorite majors, the Masters always ranks near the top of the list.  That is in part because the course itself is up to the challenge of a major.  It is a severe test of skill, especially for short game and putting.  In my opinion, what makes a major championship is the challenge the players face.  It is a course that the best players know pretty well because they play there almost every year, yet few have have been known to beat the course.  Those who have stood up well to the challenge of Augusta National are generally ranked among the best in the world.  That is what makes it a major championship.

At least in the top 4. :-) So based on the OP's criteria, who is "left out" this year? Ben Crane. John Daly? Does he even have active status? Lucas Glover. Michael Campbell. Shawn Micheel. YE Yang. Paddy Harrington. Darren Clarke. That list is a guess--I'm sure there are more. How many of those dudes really "deserve" a Masters invite? Conversely, would the field really be hurt by including another dozen or so (relative) hacks?

Yeah that's him. They're basically the same dude for purposes of this conversation. They're both ranked in the 300s.

I believe Els does qualify this year. He did not qualify last year I believe it was. I find it funny that the Masters allow any previous Master winner

If david duval has an active PGA card and is under 50 then yes. The same holds true for John Daley. The key here that that have an active PGA or European card. That is what the OP was meant to convey.

The field would be watered down considerably if all past winners were allowed to play.    I think the current system is best.