GB2508850A - An online golf competition between players at geographically separate courses - Google Patents

Abstract

An online golf competition between a plurality of players (not shown), at least two of whom play at geographically separate golf courses, requires players scoring a two at any hole to submit score data to a server 3, and the server enters those players into a pool from which one is selected as the winner of a prize. The players may be required to submit additional score data, e.g. their score on the hole they scored the two, or a total score for the round, with players being entered into the pool only upon fulfilling additional criteria based upon the additional score data. The server may use further additional criteria to determine which players to enter into the pool, e.g. the hole index of the hole on which a two was scored, or the golf course played. The player may be entered into one or more pools based on categories such as handicap, age or gender. Players may submit score data using a client device such as a PC 5, laptop 7, tablet 9 or smart phone 11. In preferred embodiments the prize is a monetary award funded through entry fees paid by players.

Description

tM:;: INTELLECTUAL !. .*. PROPERTY OFFICE Application No. 0B1222382.2 RTM Date:22 Fcbruaty 2013 The following terms are registered trademarks and should be read as such wherever they occur in this document: PayPal Intellectual Properly Office is an operaling name of Ihe Patent Office www.ipo.gov.uk "A method of operating an online golf competition"

Introduction

This invention relates to a method of operating an online golf competition. More specifically, this invention relates to a method of operating an online golf competition that combines the elements of skill and chance.

Amateur golfers are well known to enjoy and partake in various bets relating to their round of golf. These bets often help to keep their interest alive in an otherwise poor or mediocre (score-wise) round of golf, and in other cases can be the icing on the cake in a good (score-wise) round of golf. Typically though, these bets are limited to the golfer and their playing partner(s).

For example, one particularly popular bet entered into by golfers is known as a "Nassau".

A "Nassau" is a type of bet in which there are three components and three separate prizes: a front nine (holes) component, a back nine (holes) component, and an overall, eighteen holes component. There is a separate prize for each of the front nine, back nine and overall eighteen holes components. A wager such as $5 may be placed each of the front and back nine components as well as on the overall eighteen holes component.

The golfer that has the best score on the front nine wins the front nine component and his playing partner(s) each pay him $5 for winning the front nine component. The golfer with the best score on the back nine wins the back nine component and his playing partner(s) each pay him $5 for winning the back nine component. Finally, the golfer with the best overall eighteen holes score wins the overall score component and his playing partner(s) each pay him S5 for winning the overall eighteen holes component.

It can be seen therefore that if a golfer is playing in their regular Saturday morning fourball with three other golfers and one golfer should win all three of the front, back and overall components, they will receive S45 in total ($15 each) from their playing partners.

In reality, what normally happens is that one golfer will win the front nine component, another golfer will win the back nine component and one of those golfers or indeed a third golfer in the group that has been consistent throughout the entire round will win the overall component. In this way, the prize money is spread more evenly amongst two or more of the golfers. Importantly though, even if a golfer has a poor or mediocre front nine, their interest is kept alive by having the back nine and the overall components still to play for.

Another popular bet entered into by amateur golfers is known as a "Skins" game. In one variation of a Skins" game, each player in the group places a bet of a nominal amount on a golf hole, for example, $1 and each players wager is placed into a pot. If one player in the group has a lower net score on that hole than all the other players in the group, they win the "skin" and they collect the money in the pot. If no player wins the hole outright, the money remains in the pot and is carried over to the next hole whereupon each of the players place another $1 into the pot and play for the enlarged, rollover pot.

The pot continues to rollover until one person in the group wins the hole outright at which stage they collect the pot.

For example, if there are four players in a group, each player places $1 into the pot. If one of the players has a lower net score on that hole than all the other players in the group, that player will collect the money in the pot, in this case $4. If however, none of the players wins outright, the $4 is carried over to the next hole. Each of the players will then put another $1 into the pot so that there is now $8 in the pot. If one of the players should win the current hole outright by having a lower net score than all of their competitors in the group, they collect the $8 in the pot. If none of the players wins the hole outright, the $8 is carried over in the pot to the next hole whereupon each of the players will place a further $1 into the pot. This rollover process continues until the pot is won. Once the pot is won, a new pot is created and the play continues for the 18 holes.

It can be seen that in this way, a competitor can win a pot having up to $72 in it (including $18 of their own money used to seed the pot) if none of the first 17 holes were won outright and they win the 18th hole outright.

Although both of the above games helps to keep a golfers interest alive during an otherwise mediocre round of golf, they are limited in a number of ways. First of all, the game is limited to the two or more participants that are playing a round together at that time. Secondly, the prize funds tend to be quite small and therefore there is a limited attraction to the games. Thirdly, the game requires the golfers to have sufficient cash on their person to allow them to settle their debts in the event of them losing the bet and fourth, not all parties in the group may wish to play.

There are other subordinate competitions that are organised by a club or society running a standard stableford or strokes competition that allow golfers to place a wager with other competitors in the standard competition that are not limited to their own immediate grouping. For example, one subordinate competition that is commonly organised by clubs in tandem with their normal weekend stableford or strokes conipetition is a so-called twos" competition. In a "twos" competition, one or more of the participants in the stabletoid or strokes competition will place a small wagel, for example $2, that they will score a two on at least one hole of the golf course during their iound. All of the wagers aie placed into a pot and the pot is divided amongst all of the entrants that scored a two during their round. Although this type of wagei is more attractive due to the potentially largei pot and the potential to keep the player's inteiest alive until the final par-3 hole is completed, there are shortcomings with this format of competition. Most importantly, the field is still relatively limited and the prize funds tend to be relatively insignificant.

Furthermore, there is little or no transparency regarding the prize fund and usually the players will have no idea as to the size of the pot available to them. This dissuades many golfers fioni participating in the subordinate competition thereby reducing the pot size furthei. Most golfeis interested in placing a bet would fai prefer the chance to win a greater amount having had the good fortune and skill to have scored a two during their iound.

There aie competitions that are iun on a larger scale wheieby the prize fund or a guaranteed minimum prize is known in advance. These competitions have proven to be quite popular with competitors and many golfers are willing to pay a greater amount to enter these competitions due in part to the transparency with which the competitions are run. For example, monitored hole-in-one competitions are becoming increasingly popular, particularly in vacation resorts. One such system and method is described in US Patent Application Publication No. US2006/0166734 in the name of Gaites. Although popular, these systems suffer the potential drawback that they require recording equipment and other apparatus which can be unsightly and expensive to provide.

Accordingly, these systems tend to be used on a temporary basis at golf courses at certain times during the year, such as duiing a fund raising drive during open week.

Furthermore, holes-in-one are quite rare and there is a reluctance by many to enter due to the unlikelihood of them winning a prize.

There are other known methods of operating a golf competition that are run between competitors located at different courses. One such method is that described in granted US Patent No. U56,571,143 in the name of Mallamo. This method allows competitors in separate locations to compete with each other in a golf skills challenge such as a driving accuracy competition or in a round of golf. Another method that allows competitors in different locations to compete against each other is that described in granted US Patent No. 6,321,128 in the name of Costin IV, et al. This patent describes a method of normalising two competitor's rounds of golf played at two different courses. The method entails calculating an estimated score for each of the competitors on a tournament course and comparing the estimated scores of the competitors to determine which of the competitors had the better round. These methods do not however provide a mechanism by which the competitors can bet on the outcome with each other or indeed with a larger group or competitors. Therefore, they do not satisfy the golfers desire to enter a competition where there is a chance of winning a significant prize based in part on their skill as well as chance.

It is an object of the present invention to provide a method of operating an online golf competition that overcomes at least some of the problems with the known methods. It is further an object of the present invention to provide a method of operating an online golf competition that combines the elements of skill and chance. It is another object of the present invention to provide an alternative choice to the consumer.

Statements of Invention

According to the invention there is provided a method of operating an online golf competition in which there are a plurality of competition entrants, each of which plays a round of golf at one of a plurality of disparate, geographically spread golf courses, at least one competitor playing a round of golf at a first golf course and at least one other competitor playing a round of golf at a second golf course, the method comprising the steps of: at least some of the competition entrants submitting their qualifying score data electronically to a central competition server, the qualifying score data comprising confirmation that the competition entrant scored a two on one of the holes of the golf course during their round of golf; the central competition server entering the competition entrants that submitted their qualifying score data electronically into a pool of potential competition winners; and the central competition server selecting one of the competition entrants from the pool of potential competition winners that scored a two during their round of golf as the winner of prize.

Competition entrants that have been selected as winners can have their scores verified by means of the central competition server gaining access to a relevant central scorecard database where the entrant's scores are stored. Alternatively, where this is not possible, competition entrants that have been selected as prize winners may be required to submit their signed scorecard to the organizer. If considered necessary, the submitted card must also have been stamped by the club where the competition was played.

By having such a method, the golfers may enter a competition that is not limited to the playing partners in their group or indeed to the members of their club or society competing in the same competition but instead the competition can be open to entry by golfers playing at two or more different courses spread apart geographically. This will significantly increase the pool of potential competition entrants and will increase the pot sizes, thereby making the game more attractive to the entrants. Furthermore, this format will allow a guaranteed pot to be stated in advance of the competition which is desirable to the competition entrants and will promote participation. Finally, no intrusive equipment will be required on the course and due to the fact that the competitors chances of qualifying for the prize are relatively good (all that is required is a two on their card), there is a greater chance that they will wish to participate.

In one embodiment of the invention there is provided a method of operating an online golf competition further comprising the step of: the competition entrants that submit their qualifying score electronically to the central competition server including in their electronic submission additional score data relating to their round, the additional score data including at least one of:; (i) their score on the hole following the hole on which they scored their two; (ii) their gross score for their round of golf; (Di) their net score for their round of golf; and (iv) their aggregate score for two or more of the par 3 holes on the golf course scored during their round of golf; and in which the step of the central competition server entering the competition entrants that submitted their qualifying score data electronically into a pool of potential competition winners further comprises the step of: the central competition server only entering those competition entrants that scored a two and whose additional score data satisfies a further qualifying criterion into the pool of potential competition winners.

In this way, additional criteria may be placed on whether a score qualifies for the main prize. For example, it may be a requirement that the competitor scores a net par on a following hole of the golf course in order to qualify them for entry into the pool of potential competition winners. This will allow variations of the game to be enjoyed by the competitors.

In one embodiment of the invention there is provided a method of operating an online golf competition further comprising the step of: the competition entrants that submit their qualifying score electronically to the central competition server including in their electronic submission the hole index of the hole on which they scored the two in their round of golf.

In one embodiment of the invention there is provided a method of operating an online golf competition further comprising the step of: the competition entrants that submit their qualifying score electronically to the central competition server including in their electronic submission identification of the golf course on which they played their round of golf.

In one embodiment of the invention there is provided a method of operating an online golf competition further comprising the step of: the competition entrants that submit their qualifying score electronically to the central competition server including in their electronic submission the hole number of the hole on which they scored the two in their round of golf.

In one embodiment of the invention there is provided a method of operating an online golf competition in which the method comprises the additional step of: the central competition server grading the submitted qualifying score data according to the hole index on which the two was scored; and the step of the central competition server entering the competition entrants that submitted their qualifying score data electronically into a pool ot potential competition winners further comprises the central competition server only entering those competition entrants that scored their two on a hole having an index equal to or less than a predetermined index into the pool of potential competition winners.

In this way, the index of the hole, which is a measure of the hole difficulty to a scratch golfer relative to all of the other holes on the golf course, can be used as a way of sorting the qualifying entries into the competition. For example, in one embodiment of the invention it may be determined that the lowest hole index on which one or more competitors achieved a two was a hole given index 3 on the course card. Any competitor that scored a two on an index 3 hole qualifies for entry into the pool of potential competition winners. Similarly, if there is a particularly large number of winners in a given week, only those competitors that scored a two on a hole having a hole index of 9 or lower (for example) may be entered into the pool of potential competition winners.

In one embodiment of the invention there is provided a method of operating an online golf competition in which the method comprises the additional step of: entering those competition entrants that scored their two on a hole having an index greater than a predetermined index into one or more additional pools of potential competition winners.

In this embodiment, those competitors that achieved their two on an easier hole (i.e. a hole with a higher hole index) are entered into a second pool for minor prizes.

In one embodiment of the invention there is provided a method of operating an online golf competition further comprising the step of: the competition entrants that submit their qualifying score electronically to the central competition server including in their electronic submission one or more of: (v) the course rating; (vi) the slope rating of the course; and (vU) the standard scratch score for the golf course.

In one embodiment of the invention there is provided a method of operating an online golf competition in which the method comprises the additional step of: the central competition server grading the submitted qualifying score data according to one or more of: the course rating; the slope rating of the course; and the standard scratch score for the golf course; and the step of the central competition server entering the competition entrants that submitted their qualifying score data electronically into a pool of potential competition winners further comprises the central competition server only entering those competition entrants that satisfy a grading criterion into the pool of potential competition winners.

In this way, the complexity of the course as indicated by one or more of the course rating, the slope rating or the standard scratch score can be taken into account for selection of the entrants to the pool of potential competition winners. Similarly, in the event of a tie, the course rating, the slope rating or the standard scratch score which is a measure of the difficulty of the particular course on a given day calculated based on the results of all competitors that played that particular course on that day, can be used to settle the tie.

In one embodiment of the invention there is provided a method of operating an online golf competition in which: the competition entrants that submitted their qualifying score data electronically to a central competition server are divided into categories according to at least one of: (viii) their playing handicap; (ix) a course difficulty measure; (x) their age; (xi) their gender; and (xii) their geographic location, the method comprises the steps of: the competition entrants being entered into one or more pools of potential competition winners according to their category; and the central competition server selecting one of the competition entrants from each pool of potential competition winners that scored a two during their round of golf as the winner of a prize in that category.

By providing such a method, the number of winners can be increased and different players in different categories can be chosen to provide a more enjoyable game experience.

Detailed Description of the Invention

The invention will now be more clearly understood from the following description of some embodiments thereof given by way of example only with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:-Figure 1 is a diagrammatic representation of a system in which the method according to the invention may be performed.

Referring to the drawing, there is shown a system, indicated generally by the reference numeral 1, in which the method according to the present invention may be carried out.

The system 1 comprises a central competition server 3 having accessible memory 4, a plurality of competition entrants' devices, represented here by way of PC 5, laptop 7, tablet 9 and smartphone 11. Each competition entrant may have access to one or more different devices 5, 7, 9, 11 however for the purposes of this example, each competition entrant is understood to operate only one of the devices 5, 7, 9, 11. The competition entrants' devices 5, 7, 9, 11 are all remote from the central competition server and are temporarily connected to the central competition server from time to time over a communication network, in this case, the internet 13. The central competition server 3 may comprise a web server delivering a website accessible by the devices 5, 7, 9, 11 over the internet. In addition to the above, there is preferably provided a remote central scorecard database 15 accessible by the central competition server 3 through the internet 13.

In use, each of the competition entrants enters the competition by accessing the central competition server 3 over the internet 13 using their device 5, 7, 9, 11 prior to commencing their round or prior to the cut-off time announced by the organiser. The competition entrants submit their identification details and pay a fee for entry into the competition, which is preferably a nominal sum, such as $5. The fee may be paid in a number of ways including, but not limited to, a pie-paid account, a credit card payment, a debit card payment and a PayPal account. If desired, the competition entrant may enter multiple competitions simultaneously, for example, the next four weekends competitions and they will be able to pay in advance for each of the next four weekends. In such a case, a discount on the entry fee may be conceded.

Once entered, the competition entrant plays their normal round of golf in their club or society's competition at their designated golf course. If, during that round, the competitor should have the skill and good fortune to score a two, they will subsequently, after their round, contact the central competition server using their device 5, 7, 9, 11 and submit their qualifying score data electronically to the central competition server. Once all of the competition entrants have played their rounds and have had an adequate opportunity to submit their qualifying score data to the central competition server, the central competition server will enter each of the competition entrants that submitted their qualifying score data electronically into a pool of potential competition winners. The central competition server will thereafter select one of the competition entrants from the pool of potential competition winners as the winner of a prize.

The central competition server may select two or more competition entrants from the pool of potential competition winners and award a main prize to one of the competition entrants as well as a further lesser prize to one or more of the competition entrants that were also selected from the pool of potential competition winners.

In order to verify the competition entrants score, the central competition server 3 may access the remote central scorecard database 15 which contains an independently verified record of the competition entrants score for their round. In this way, fraud can be obviated. If it is necessary to verify the competition entrant's score and it is not possible to do so in this manner, then a signed and/or stamped version of the score card with the competition entrant's score verified by an authorized representative of the competition entrant's home club may be submitted to the central competition server operator. The organizers may at their discretion use any other method of scorecard verification that they deem appropriate such as speaking directly to club officials and/or other players.

By having the entries online and providing access to the central competition server, the potential competition participants can see in advance what the prize fund is or what the minimum prize fund is going to be prior to entering the competition. This provides greater transparency and encouragement to enter. Furthermore, the size of the prize fund is likely to be several times larger than those competitions run in individual clubs and societies. The potential entrants will be attracted by the greater chance of them qualifying for the prizes as well as the requirement of skill necessary to qualify.

Below is a description of two particularly preferred implementations of the present invention. Participants, on a regional or nationwide basis, pay a small amount (say $5) to enter the competition. Entry is done online via the internet using a web browser on one of the devices 5, 7, 9 or via a mobile phone application (app) on the device 11. The competition will be based on the participant's scorecard for an official club competition typically held on a Saturday or Sunday and for which he/she must be officially entered.

The competition could be run at different times and days if there will be a reasonable number of participants in the competition. All participants must have official handicaps registered with the relevant golfing body.

The entrance fees are collected automatically online and this creates a pool which is ultimately paid out, after allowing for the organizers expenses, in a variety of prizes to those players who qualify by scoring a "two" during their round and meet other predetermined criteria based on their scorecard for the same round. According to two particularly preferred embodiments, the predetermined criteria are as follows: (1) In order to qualify for the main prize, a player scoring a two must score a net par on the next hole, otherwise he "loses" his two; or (2) In order to qualify for the main prize, players scoring a two will be ranked according to the index rating of the hole on which they scored a two.

Players scoring a two on the lowest index (most difficult) hole will qualify for the main prize with lesser prizes being awarded in the order of the holes indices.

The predetermined criteria will preferably be chosen prior to the competition and are at the discretion of the organizer. It is envisaged that it will be important to notify the competitors of the criteria well in advance of the commencement of the competition.

After completion of their round, participants enter their details online using either their computing device 5, 7, 9 or their smartphone/mobile phone 11 and the competitors will tick a box or press a screen button indicating that they have scored a "two" during their round. The competition entrants will also enter the course name or a course identification number together with the hole number where they scored the two and information regarding which tees were used. This is all done online or via the mobile app. The competition entrants may then qualify for a prize according to the selection criteria listed in (1) or (2) above.

After all the various weekend club competitions nationwide have been completed, and all entries have been received within a specified time limit, a computerised evaluation of the competition entrant's scorecards will take place. Based on the criteria (1) or (2) chosen by the organisers, those players who qualify will be eligible to receive a prize.

After allowing for the organiser's expenses, the qualifying players will share the remaining pool or jackpot equally up to the maximum allowed for amateurs as determined by the various golfing bodies. For example if there are 2,000 entrants and the individual entry fee is 5. the pot would initially be worth 10,000. After deducting the organiser's expenses there could be an amount remaining of, say, 9,000! which would be split equally between those who qualify. As an enhancement to the competition, any participant achieving a hole-in-one or a two on a par four (i.e. an eagle on a par 4) or a two on a par 5 hole (i.e. an albatross on a par 5) automatically qualifies for a prize which will be set at a reasonably high value, say 250.

A further aspect of the preferred formats would be to award points to participants each time they enter the "twos" competition. Thus, over the course of a number of weeks or months they can accumulate points which can ultimately be converted into discount vouchers valid at various retailers such as, but not limited to, retailers of golfing equipment. This will be further enhanced by allowing participants with the required number of coupons or points to qualify for free entry into one or more alternative online tournaments offered on the organizer's website such as a virtual pro-am game as described in the applicant co-pending UK patent application filed on the same day as the present application or a scorecard prediction game as described in the applicant co-pending UK patent application filed on the same day as the present application.

It will be understood that many variants of the above competition could be implemented as well as or instead of the above embodiment to further enhance the enjoyment and experience of the competition entrant. Some of these variants are described in more detail below and it will be understood that other variants could also be envisaged that would fall within the scope of the claims.

Variant 1: In a first variant of the invention described above, the competitors would be required to enter their score for the hole following the hole on which they scored the two. Only those competitors whose score on the hole or holes following the hole on which they scored a two satisfied a predetermined criteria would qualify to be entered into the pool of potential competition winners. For example, only those competitors that scored a net par on the hole following the hole that they scored the two, would qualify for entry into the pool of potential competition winners.

If the last hole of the golf course is a par three and the competition entrant scores a two on the final hole of the golf course, special provision may be made for this scenario. For example, it may be determined that instead of having to score a net par on the following hole, the net par had to be scored on the preceding hole (the 17th hole) instead or alternatively, the entrant may carry over' their score to the next twos competition in which case he/she must score a net par on the 1s1 hole, thereby achieving a two followed by a par.

Variant 2: In a second variant of the invention described above, the competitors would be required to enter their gross score for their entire round. Only those competitors who scored a two and whose gross score for the round was at or below a predetermined level would qualify for entry into the pool of potential competition winners.

Variant 3: In a third variant of the invention described above, the competitors would be required to enter their net score for their entire round. Their net score is calculated by subtracting their handicap from their gross score. Only those competitors who scored a two and whose net score for the round was at or below a predetermined level would qualify for entry into the pool of potential competition winners.

Variant 4: In a fourth variant of the invention described above, the competitors would be required to enter their stableford score for their round. Their stableford score is calculated by calculating a points score on each hole depending on their net score on that hole, taking into account their gross score, their handicap, the holes index and whether or not they are allocated a shot on that hole. The points from all the holes are added together to provide their total stableford score for the round. The stableford points system is a well-known competition scoring format that would be well understood by the skilled addressee and further elaboration on the calculation of the stableford points is not deemed necessary here. Only those competitors who scored a two and whose stableford score for the round was at or above a predetermined points score would qualify for entry into the pool of potential competition winners.

Variant 5: In a fifth variant of the invention described above, the competitors would be required to enter their aggregate score for two or more of the par 3 holes on the golf course scored during their round of golf. The aggregate score for two or more part 3 holes could be their best two or more scores on the par 3 holes to count and could be their best gross scores, net scores or stableford scores. Only those competitors who scored a two and whose aggregate score for two or more of the part 3 holes was at or below a predetermined level (for gross or net score) or above a predetermined score (for stableford points) would qualify for entry into the pool of potential competition winners. It will be understood that similar permutations and combinations could be applied to one or more par 4 holes and/or parS holes on the golf course.

Variant 6: In a sixth variant of the invention described above, the competitors would be required to enter their score for the final hole of their round. Only those competitors whose score on the final hole satisfied a predetermined criteria would qualify to be entered into the pool of potential competition winners. For example, only those competitors that scored a two and scored a net par on the final hole of their round, would qualify for entry into the pool of potential competition winners.

Variant 7: In an seventh variant of the invention described above, the competitors would be required to enter the course rating for their course. Alternatively, the competition entrants could enter the course name or other data suitable for identifying the course to the central competition server. In that instance, the central competition server could retrieve the course rating of that course from memory if the course ratings were stored in memory or the central competition server could retrieve the course rating from another remote source. Only those competitors whose score of two was achieved on a course with a particular course rating that satisfied predetermined criteria would qualify to be entered into the pool of potential competition winners.

The course rating is a measure of difficulty of the course to a scratch (zero handicap) golfer and is usually represented by a value rounded to one decimal point in or around the course par. For example, for a course with level par 72, the course rating may be 71.2 if the course plays relatively easily for a scratch golfer (or in other words, if you averaged the scores of a number of scratch golfer's rounds over time the result would be an average score of 71.2, better than the course par of 72). Similarly, for a course with a level par of 72 and a course rating of 73.8, this would be considered to be a particularly difficult course on which the average scratch golfers score would be 1.8 shots greater than the course par.

Variant 8: In a eighth variant of the invention described above, the competitors would be required to enter the slope rating for their course. Alternatively, the competition entrants could enter the course name or other data suitable for identifying the course to the central competition server. In that instance, the central competition server could retrieve the slope rating of that course from memory if the slope ratings were stored in memory or the central competition server could retrieve the slope rating from another remote source. Only those competitors whose score of two was achieved on a course with a particular slope rating that satisfied a predetermined criteria would qualify to be entered into the pool of potential competition winners.

The slope rating may be considered to be a measure of the relative additional difficulty of a course for a bogey golfer (a golfer with a handicap of 18). The slope rating is a number between 55 and 155 with 113 being the average slope rating value. The higher the slope rating value, the more difficult the course will be to the higher handicapper and the lower the slope rating, the less difficult the course will be to the higher handicapper.

Variant 9: In a ninth variant of the invention described above, the competitors would be required to enter the standard scratch score for the course on which they played their round. Only those competitors who scored a two and whose score was achieved on a course with a standard scratch score satisfying predetermined criteria would qualify for entry into the pool of potential competition winners.

The standard scratch score (663) is calculated by taking into account all of the scores ot all of the players of the course in the competition on a given day and comparing how the field as a whole fared relative the par of the course. For example, the par of the course, referred to as the course standard scratch (CSS), may be 72. However, in particularly benign conditions, the majority of the field may have scored well and beaten their handicap resulting in a standard scratch score (333) of 71 for the course for that particular day. Similarly, if the greens had been cut very closely and were very difficult or conditions were particularly bad due to wind and/or rain resulting in high scoring and the majority of the field faring worse than their handicap, the 663 for the course for that given day may be 73, greater than the 066 of 72.

Variant 10: In an tenth valiant of the invention described above, the competitors may be segmented into one or more groupings according to one or more personal characteristics including, but not limited solely to, their age. For example, only those competitors who scored a two and whose age was between certain limits (e.g. under 30s, between 30 and 50, over 50s) would qualify for entry into the pool of potential competition winners. There could be multiple pools for different age groups and competitors may be entered into one or more pools depending on how the groupings are made.

Variant 11: In a eleventh variant of the invention described above, the competitors may be segmented into one or more groupings according to one or more personal characteristics including, but not limited solely to, their golfing handicap. Only those competitors who scored a two and whose golf handicap was between certain limits (e.g. under 10, between 10 and 20, over 20) would qualify for entry into the pool of potential competition winners. There could be multiple pools, one for each different handicap range.

Variant 12: In a twelfth variant of the invention described above, the competitors may be segmented into one or more groupings according to one or more personal characteristics including, but not limited solely to, their gender. Only those competitors who scored a two and are female, for example, would qualify for entry into the pool of potential competition winners. It will be understood that a pool for women and a separate pool for men may be provided if desired.

Variant 13: In a thirteenth variant of the invention described above, the competitors may be segmented into one or more groupings according to one or more characteristics including, but not limited solely to, their geographic location. For example, only those competitors who scored a two and who live in the state of Florida would qualify for entry into the pool of potential competition winners. There could be multiple pools for different areas such as states, regions, countries or continents (e.g. Florida, East Coast of the United States, United States of America, North America) and competitors may be entered into one or more pools depending on how the groupings are made. It is envisaged that the larger the area, the greater the prize may be.

Variant 14: In a fourteenth variant of the invention described above, the competitors may be segmented into one or more groupings according to one or more course characteristics including, but not limited solely to, a course difficulty measure or a hole difficulty measure, the most common of which is known as the hole index. The course difficulty measure may be the course rating or the slope rating. For example, only those competitors who scored a two and whose round was played on a course with a course rating between certain limits (e.g. under 71.5, between 71.5 and 72.5, over 72.5) or those scoring a Iwo on a hole of index 6 or lower would qualify for entry into the pool of potential competition winners. There could be multiple pools for different course difficulty or hole difficulty measures and competitors may be entered into one or more pools depending on how the groupings are made.

Variant 15: In a fifteenth variant of the invention described above, the competitors may be segmented into one or more groupings according to one or more course characteristics including, but not limited solely to, the course type. The course type may, for example, be a coastal links course, an inland links course or a parkland course. The course type is a descriptor of the characteristics of the course and could be used as a rough indicator of the difficulty of the course. For example, only those competitors who scored a two and whose round was played on a parkland course would qualify for entry into the pool of potential competition winners. It will be understood that a separate pool for each of the different types of course may be provided if desired.

Variant 16: In a sixteenth variant of the invention described above, the competitors may be segmented into one or more groupings according to a combination of two or more of the variants ito 16 described above.

It will be understood that the method according to the present invention will be performed largely in software and therefore the present invention extends also to computer programs, on or in a carrier, comprising program instructions for causing a computer to carry out steps of the method. The computer program may be in source code format, object code format or a format intermediate source code and object code.

The computer program may be stored on or in a carrier, in other words a computer program product, including any computer readable medium, including but not limited to a floppy disc, a CD, a DVD, a memory stick, a tape, a RAM, a ROM, a PROM, an EPROM or a hardware circuit. In certain circumstances, a transmissible carrier such as a carrier signal when transmitted either wirelessly and/or through wire and/or cable could carry the computer program in which cases the wire and/or cable constitute the carrier.

It will be further understood that the present invention may be performed on two, three or more machines with certain parts of the computer-implemented method being performed by one machine and other parts of the computer-implemented method being performed by another device. The devices may be part of a LAN, WAN or could be connected together over a communications network including but not limited to the internet. Many of the method steps could be performed "in the cloud", meaning that remotely located processing power may be utilised to process certain method steps of the present invention. Accordingly, it will be understood that many of the method steps may be performed remotely, by which it is meant that the method steps could be performed either on a separate machine in the same locality or jurisdiction or indeed on a separate machine or machines in one or several remote jurisdictions. For example, the central competition server 3 and one or more of the competition entrant's devices 5, 7, 9, 11 may be in different jurisdictions. The central competition server 3, the accessible memory 4 and the competition entrant's devices 5, 7, 9, 11 may all be in different jurisdictions or where one or more parts of the system are located in the same jurisdiction with other parts of the system in another jurisdiction. The present invention and claims are intended to also cover those instances where the method is performed across two or more machines or pieces of apparatus located in one or more jurisdictions and those situations where the parts of the system are spread out over one or more jurisdictions.

In this specification the terms "include, includes, included and including" and the terms "comprise, comprises, comprised and comprising" are all deemed totally interchangeable and should be afforded the widest possible interpretation.

The invention is in no way limited to the embodiment hereinbefore described but may be varied in both construction and detail within the scope of the appended claims. -21 -