Regarding Masters Snubbing Active Major Winners (and Other Players)

[club ho]

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.

[MattyMFC]

I'm not sure I agree. If they're active but not in form in the slightest, why should they deserve to go? Gotta earn the right to be there, regardless of previous major wins.

[Rick Martin]

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.

[Nemicu]

Els is not playing? He still has an exemption.

[iacas]

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.

A) Ernie is playing. He just won the British Open.

B) He wasn't very competitive a few years ago when he didn't get invited. He wasn't top 50 in the world and he qualified under none of the other criteria.

C) If you took every player that won a major in the last 30 years you could easily have 90+ players still playing. That's not cool.

Els is not playing? He still has an exemption.

Yes, who knows what the OP was saying.

[Rick Martin]

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.

[iacas]

Els was not invited in 2012 and went on to win the next major that year (The Open).

The U.S. Open comes before the British Open, which is contested three months after the Masters.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/56465/should-ernie-els-get-a-masters-invitation

And for all we know, the Masters snub motivated him to do well the rest of the year.

[Rick Martin]

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

[iacas]

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

Maybe.

Doesn't change the fact that he wasn't good enough three months earlier (or the many months before that) to qualify for the Masters. Should David Duval get to play because he once won a major?

[Fourputt]

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.

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.

[mvmac]

C) If you took every player that won a major in the last 30 years you could easily have 90+ players still playing. That's not cool.

And if that happened then we'd have someone start a thread complaining they waste a bunch of spots for guys that don't have a chance of winning.

[k-troop]

In any poll of favorite majors, the Masters always ranks near the top of the list.

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?

[mvmac]

At least in the top 4.

So based on the OP's criteria, who is "left out" this year?

Ben Crane.

Did you mean Ben Curtis?

[MS256]

That one had me flipping back through my memory for a second wondering when the Hell Crane won a Major. ;-)

[k-troop]

Did you mean Ben Curtis?

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

[club ho]

Els is not playing? He still has an exemption.

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

Maybe.

Doesn't change the fact that he wasn't good enough three months earlier (or the many months before that) to qualify for the Masters. Should David Duval get to play because he once won a major?

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.

[iacas]

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

Two years ago. Use Google or something. [quote name="club ho" url="/t/73704/regarding-masters-snubbing-active-major-winners#post_972415"] 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. [/quote] I disagree. Duval hasn't deserved to play. Nor has Daly (no "e").

[dennyjones]

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