Rory VS Brooks

The warfare is carried out. Brooks were given the PGA Player of the Year whilst Rory got the PGA Tour Player of the Year.

However, the dialogue is simply beginning.

I desired to take a short take a look at this somewhat sudden flip of activities -- even Rory is on document as expecting Brooks to take both awards. Still, I assume this 'split selection' is just a demonstration of how difficult it is to mention one participant is actually higher than some other. I'm not positive that both participant have to have won each of these awards but I assume that is an indication that gamers are beginning to impeach what is certainly crucial of their careers.

Before we move on, let's get one aspect clear. The PGA Player of the Year is decided by a factor device while the PGA Tour Player of the Year is determined via player vote. Some are suggesting that the players may also have voted on persona or reputation, and that the point system is therefore a extra goal technique. But I agree with you can make the opposite case as nicely -- specifically, that the participant vote suggests that now not everyone concurs on whether the points are being given for what's surely important.

That being said, permit's compare Brooks and Rory's seasons and try and understand why the awards had been cut up.

First, let's tackle the elephant in the room: Majors. Part of the discussion says that Rory's win devalues the importance of finishes in the majors. Brooks finished T2-1-2-T4 while Rory finished T21-T8-T9-MC. Brooks clearly played better and had one major VS Rory having none.

But the World Golf Hall of Fame has to be taken into consideration here. According to the standards at their website, the WGHoF gives THE PLAYERS identical weight to a major:

A [male] player ought to have a cumulative general of 15 or greater legitimate victories on any of the authentic contributors of the International Federation of PGA Tours (PGA TOUR, European Tour, Japan Golf Tour, Sunshine Tour, Asian Tour and PGA of Australasia) OR as a minimum victories a number of the following occasions: The Masters, THE PLAYERS Championship, the U.S. Open, The Open Championship and the PGA Championship.

Two PLAYERS carry the same weight as any two majors. So whether you call it a major or not, the WGHoF considers a PLAYERS win as having equal value and that has to be taken into account. Clearly, many players did so.

Each participant received 3 occasions. Giving equal weight to their 'majors' this season, allow's examine the other two wins:

• Brooks: CJ Cup & WGC-FedEx St. Jude Invitational
• Rory: RBC Canadian Open & TOUR Championship

Analysts are saying that players gave more weight to the PGA Tour 'majors' -- that is, THE PLAYERS and the TOUR Championship -- but my guess is that there's a bit more at play here.

The CJ Cup really doesn't carry the weight of a WGC, the TOUR Championship or a long-running national championship like the Canadian Open, which is the third-oldest continuously running tourney behind the OPEN and the US Open, respectively.

In fairness, the RBC is also the only PGA TOUR-run national championship. But you can still make an argument that Brooks's two non-majors are slightly less 'valuable' than Rory's.

In terms of consistency:

• Rory played 19 events with 14 Top10s and two missed cuts
• Brooks played 21 events with 9 Top10s and one missed cut

In terms of money:

• Brooks won the money list by nearly $2mil over Rory

But Rory did win the TOUR Championship, finishing #1 while Brooks could only finish #3 after leading the FedExCup points list nearly all season.

I don't know that any of this is conclusive proof that one player is better than the other. In the end, Rory was more consistent and 'showed up' much more often than Brooks. Conversely, Brooks played better in the majors than Rory and you can chalk up his money list win almost entirely to those four finishes, because those events paid the largest purses.

Ultimately, that's the crux of the argument as it is being framed.

Not being mentioned in any of this, however, are three other awards Rory won this season:

• the FedExCup champion (that is an award for season-long excellencee)
• Vardon Trophy (for best scoring average, minimum 60 rounds)
• Byron Nelson Award (for best scoring average, minimum 50 rounds)

And perhaps these three -- the FedExCup award, the Vardon Trophy and the Byron Nelson Award -- are what finally tipped the scales for Rory. The fact that Rory won all three despite how Brooks played in the majors is a statement of sorts. The big argument for Brooks is the majors -- and yes, he had a monumental year there -- yet he didn't play sufficiently well to beat Rory for any of these awards.

Rory's three awards are the definition of dominance, and that may have been enough to sway the PGA TOUR players to give Rory their POY award.

In the end, I'm glad both men won a POY award. Those awards were given on the basis of different criteria and both Rory and Brooks had 'best of' years, depending on which criteria are most important to you. But that isn't going to stop the debate over whose year was THE best.

And that's probably as it should be. I'm not sure sports fans know how to enjoy a sport they can't argue about.