The parade of great pieces about the remarkable life and career of Arnold Palmer - soon to turn 80 - keeps rolling.  USA Today has a piece today that profiles Palmer's career around the time when golf on TV started.  Former CBS Sports golf producer Frank Chirkinian weighs in on how Palmer's attitude and style made people connect with golf and borne Arnie's Army.

Of course, almost everyone agrees about Palmer's role in growing golf in the 1960s and basically saving the Open Championship's reputation.  The rub comes in how Palmer should be emulated in the 21st century.

What better man to turn to for a divisive opinion than Johnny Miller?  Take it away, Johnny!

Miller suggests, Palmer intuitively understood marketing: "He knew it was important to make friends with people, make eye contact, never turn down an autograph. Phil Mickelson has copied Arnie more than anyone else (on today's tour), and he's the guy other tour players should be copying, not Tiger Woods."

This has to be put into context, of course.  When it comes down to it, people watch golf today because of Tiger Woods.  They want to see the best player ever engaged in his craft - regardless of the outcome, even.  Mickelson is clearly the second biggest draw in golf because of his (what some would say is fake) personality and often daring, sometimes idiotic style of play.

Honestly, though, people want to see winners.  When Jack Nicklaus came along and overtook Palmer for supremacy in the sport, he was initially villified for taking the title of "best golfer" away from The King.  Woods did the same some 35 years later and was not considered a villain at all.  Rather, he was considered the savior of the sport from the canyon of mediocrity it found itself in during the Golden Bear's absence - not withstanding the dominance of Greg Norman.

So, my question is what takes precedence: winning or personality?

In my mind, it's winning.  I like watching Phil play.  He's a policitian in a golfer's skin.  He will probably turn out to be one in the future - and way better than Curt Schilling at it.  The human drama of his career is compelling only because of his massive and stirring failures.  If Phil only occasionally was an idiot, dropped a major, and blew it, then he would not be as interesting.  Having a record five runner-up US Open finishes will draw any man, even Hugo Chavez, a reputation as a lovable loser.

Tiger, tough, is better to watch - and to emulate - because he wins.  Bottom line.  As Woods himself espouses, winning does take care of everything.  That includes a fan base and making golf interesting.  The ratings for every tournament in which he has participated in this season shows it; doubling or tripling the prior year's ratings without him.

Once again, it appears that Johnny is wrong.  Perhaps for as much as some of us rag on Woods for his on-course antics, the whole package is what brings eyeballs and dollars to the sport.