For those of us who are golfers, this past weekend was the dawn of a new age and the beginning of a critical dilemma.

What happened was that Phil Mickelson won the Masters golf tournament.

He not only won, but he did it in very un-Mickleson-like style. A player who normally hits it all over the place, being hyper-aggressive and then rescuing himself with a brilliant wedge or putt. But he's worked on his wild side and at the Masters he played beautifully steady golf. Seventeen straight pars, as his challengers fell by the wayside.

Having now won three majors out of the last nine played, he has served notice that after a half dozen years there is finally someone to REALLY challenge Tiger Woods and his dominance of the world of professional golf. There have been pretenders before: Sergio Garcia, Ernie Els, Retief Goosen. But this time the challenge seems legitimate.

Thus, our dilemma. Who do we root for in this epic battle? When the U.S. Open rolls around in a few weeks, these two will battle each other. It seems clear that the world of golf is headed toward a two-man confrontation. Maybe the kind of battle that golf has never seen before. How do we decide?

Tiger or Phil?

Let's take the champion first.

Woods is a black guy in what is still, basically, the sport of white men. Look at the tour and see how many faces of color you see. Not many. But Woods has brought lots of children and adults to the game that might not have ever given golf a thought.

He is a fiery competitor. When he hits a bad shot, he slams his club into the ground and is more than likely to utter a few not-so-well-chosen Anglo Saxon words that are often picked up by microphones.

He's a spectacular golfer. He does things that have never been done before, by anybody.

He's incredibly rich. He owns a yacht bigger than Vermont. He bought a $38 million estate in Florida, just so he could tear it down and build a bigger and better one on the land.

He is married to an absolutely gorgeous woman who used to be the nanny for another pro golfer. When he smiles, it splits his face and he positively glows.

Maybe the best thing about him is that he never, ever gives up. He keeps trying, no matter his score. Everyone can learn a lesson from that.

People who know him say that he's really friendly. While he's extremely focused on the course, in the locker room or clubhouse he will stop and talk about family and politics and he's always quick with a joke or a laugh.

Now, Phil. A much more complex story.

He's obviously got game. He always could play but now he can really play and control his game. No telling how many majors he might win in the next few years. He's the only one with an imagination like Tiger's on the golf course.

Mickelson has an unbelievable public image. The fans love him. Shots of his blonde children rushing to hug him with cries of "Daddy won," make all the newspapers and television news shows. He also has a pretty blonde wife, although she pales in comparison to Woods' wife.

When Mickelson misses a shot he holds the club in his hands and gets that lopsided smile on his face. Aw shucks! And on to the next shot where performs some miracle.

The problem comes when you consider the public versus the private Phil Mickelson.

In its latest issue, GQ magazine listed the 10 most hated athletes. Terrell Owens and Barry Bonds topped the list. Mickelson also made it. The magazine says he doesn't have a friend on tour and in private is full of ego and self-congratulation and has absolutely no ability to relate to other players.

A friend of mine, author John Feinstein, wrote a book called "A Good Walk Spoiled" about a year on the PGA tour. He described Mickelson as Eddie Haskell.

For those who don't know, Eddie Haskell was a character on the "Leave It To Beaver" television series. He was the suck-up, brown-noser in public, and a sarcastic bully in private. He was the classic split personality.

I tend to believe that's what Mickelson is. On the surface, he seems almost too good to be true. And you know what they say, "If it seems too good to be true, it probably isn't true."

Something inside just says Mickelson's a bit of a phony. And that's why I'm going to root for Tiger and against Mickelson.