From JudgeNet Fri May 8 17:30:02 1992 Subject: 2nd Round Judging I just received my entry forms from the 1st round judging at the AHA nationals. One sentence in the cover letter intrigued me: "Generally, the highest scoring 12 beers in each round move on to the second round" My understanding is that 3 from each region get moved on to the 2nd round, rather than the "top 12". Regional and invididual judging preferences might cause some region's scores to be higher or lower than the others; elmiminating a beer because a regional judge scores uniformly low seems inappropriate. I favor the "N beers from each region" system, rather than the "M top scoring beers" system. I just spoke to James Spence at the AHA about this issue and he assures me that the 3 top beers from each region did, in fact, get moved on. The AHA cover letter is apparently incorrect. Can anyone independently verify the system used? Does anyone else have any supportive or contridictary opinions? -- Mike Fertsch Internet: mikef at synchro.com Wortnet: mikef -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat May 9 16:12:49 1992 Subject: Re: 2nd Round Judging Mike Fertsch asked: > I just received my entry forms from the 1st round judging at the AHA nationals. > One sentence in the cover letter intrigued me: > > "Generally, the highest scoring 12 beers in each round move on to the second > round" > > My understanding is that 3 from each region get moved on to the 2nd round, > rather than the "top 12". Brook Ostrom spoke with Karen Barela about this very issue while the first round was in progress, and she said something slightly different that may explain the wording of the cover letter. It seems that the number of entries transferring from any region depended on the proportion of overall entries to that class coming from that region. So Out West, where we had 760 or so entries overall, we had a proportionally greater share of the transfers. Sometimes three, occasionally four, possibly five. But those transfer numbers were worked out after the total number of entries in each class in each region were known, but before just a whole lot of judging had been done, precluding the "nationwide aggregate" scoring system. Rest assured ... = Martin A. Lodahl Pacific*Bell Systems Analyst = = malodah at pbmoss.Pacbell.COM Sacramento, CA 916.972.4821 = = If it's good for ancient Druids, runnin' nekkid through the wuids, = = Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! 8-) = -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sun May 10 23:29:36 1992 Subject: Re: ANALysis of NE Regional Mike Fertsch writes: > For those of you with Inquiring Minds, here are some stats from the February > 29th NE Regional held in Westport, Mass. Generally, the average scores were > pretty low. The standard deviations seem to vary considerably from style to > style, too. > > Are these numbers typical of large regional competitions everywhere? Is 27.63 > a reasonable average? Or are New England's judges stingy with their scores? > > Overall: > ::::::::::::::::::::: > Categories: 18 > Average 27.63 > St. Dev. 5.42 > High 41.33 > Low 13.00 > Entries 282 > Unrated 1 > Club 198 > Nonclub 84 Before I make any comments at all, let me state that one would have to taste all of the beers to really know whether these scores were or were not reasonable. However, with that caveat, my comments are: 1. I find it hard to believe that out of 282 entries, no one scored above a 41.33. I judged at Boulder, and I gave out two scores higher than that (a 42 and a 43) for some wonderful melomels. I judged about 50 beers. 2. What's the deal with the fractional scores? Are you really that accurate? I thought that the head judge at the table was supposed to write down an "overall" score that was not necessarily the average of all of the judges at the table. Of course, your software may have just reported a straight average, which is different from the actual overall score placed on the coversheet, in which case...nevermind. 3. The standard deviation within a category is only an indication of the spread between the good and bad beers. I wouldn't even calculate the number. 4. All in all, I would say that your scores *seem* a little bit low, but nothing to worry about. Prost, Mike Hall hall at lanl.gov -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Mon May 11 11:16:59 1992 Subject: Passing Beers Subject: Passing Beers Time:7:32 AM Date:5/11/92 The impression that I got from the folks in Boulder when I spoke with them was that they were making up the final flights with the top 3 beers from each region plus an overflow from the areas which had a larger response in a particular category. In SF we sent on 5 stouts (#9), 4 each in #4,5,6,7,10,16,& 23; and 3 in all others. This allows a minimum of 3 entries from any one region and additional entries to cover the disproportionate regionalization. This may make the final flights larger in some categories. Depending on the size of the regional differences this can make for unwieldy flights and give unfair advantage to regions with small showings in some categories. The final flight ought to be made up of a representation of the regions category size. I'll take this opening to move beyond this year's National and propose my current "ideal". First, final flight sizes should be decided on first. They also ought to be matched to the category characteristics. Is it fair to judge 12 barleywines (or some other "large" beer) in one sitting? Should categories with normally large numbers of entries (like stouts) be allowed to expand their final flight size? We had complaints here in SF because we kept panels the same in both AM and PM sessions AND had them judge the same category all day. The intent was to get the beers judged more uniformly by utilizing the same palates as much as possible. The guys who went through the stouts were the loudest complainers, and they didn't have more than 14 beers in any flight. In retrospect I agree they suffered from "palate fatigue", something we diddn't anticipate. Anyhow, once the final flight sizes are agreed to they should be maintained. Deciding who those final entries will be must also be modified. I'd like to see a two tiered regional where the entrants send in 2 bottles to one of several sights which will judge a total of about 400 entries (not to exceed 500). The first scoring will take place in the same way we do it now. Then we take the top 12 - 14 scores in each category and have a single panel decide the top 2 (or however many) which will be passed along to the next round at the conference. 6 regional sights ought to be able to do the job (provided the size of the comp remains the same). Each site would award ribbons to the top x# of beers for making it so far making the regionals a little more rewarding than they are at the moment. The cost of entering the comp would be increased to $10 per entry to cover the new awards. What do you think? Russ Wigglesworth CI$: 72300,61 |~~| UCSF Medical Center Internet: Rad Equipment at RadMac1.ucsf.edu |HB|\ Dept. of Radiology, Rm. C-324 Voice: 415-476-3668 / 474-8126 (H) |__|/ San Francisco, CA 94143-0628 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Mon May 11 11:37:01 1992 Subject: Re: Re- ANALysis of NE Regio Reply to: RE>Re: ANALysis of NE Regional Mike Hall Asks: >2. What's the deal with the fractional scores? Are you really > that accurate? I thought that the head judge at the table > was supposed to write down an "overall" score that was not > necessarily the average of all of the judges at the table. > Of course, your software may have just reported a straight > average, which is different from the actual overall score > placed on the coversheet, in which case...nevermind. Since you judged in Boulder's National First round you can answer this. Were you instructed to decide a consensus score for the first round judging? This had been mentioned to me in a conversation I had while formulating the software. It seems crazy to me to start "awarding scores" in a first round where one panel isn't tasting all the entries for a category. What's wrong with a simple numerical average? Certainly when the final round is at stake I can see the need to designate the winner at the judges table, but when you are just qualifying entries to pass along to another level what is the point? RW... -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Mon May 11 17:26:00 1992 Subject: Re: Passing Beers to 2nd round Russ suggests: >Deciding who those final entries will be must also be modified. I'd like to see >a two tiered regional where the entrants send in 2 bottles to one of several >sights which will judge a total of about 400 entries (not to exceed 500). The >first scoring will take place in the same way we do it now. Then we take the >top 12 - 14 scores in each category and have a single panel decide the top 2 >(or however many) which will be passed along to the next round at the >conference. 6 regional sights ought to be able to do the job (provided the size >of the comp remains the same). Each site would award ribbons to the top x# of >beers for making it so far making the regionals a little more rewarding than >they are at the moment. The cost of entering the comp would be increased to $10 >per entry to cover the new awards. > >What do you think? I think......not. Seriously, (speaking for most of Wort Processors, who did all of the unpacking, paperwork, and most of the judging) the last thing we would want to do here on the East Coast is to have to unpack and judge even more beer (in a second round), as well as decide on 1/2/3 rankings, plus make up ribbons to hand out. I understand that SF had a good judge turnout and lots of help from the host brewery (Anchor). We, on the otherhand, had a poor showing from East Coast judges and got more aggravation than help from our host brewery. There was no way that we could have handled a second tier of judging this year. Rather than have an intermediate round, I would suggest that we lobby the AHA to: 1) Increase the number of categories (i.e rather than have all stouts bunched together under various subcategories, make separate categories with separate ribbons, so that dry, sweet, and foreign extra/Russian Imperial stouts are all judged separately with separate ribbons). This would help the judge/burnout factor considerably since each category would have fewer entries. This could and should be done in all of the big categories. 2) Increase the number of sites to six or more to decrease the load at each site. 3) Look at the calendar before they schedule the weeks allotted for 1st round judging. Easter/Passover fell right in the middle of the judging schedule and effectively forced the majority of the judging to take place on one weekend. The AHA should have seen this coming. and (here's a heretical one) 4) Drop the herb/specialty/fruit categories. My feeling is that these categories tie up a lot more judges' time than is necessary. The judging in these categories generally comes down to the judges' taste preference, and then they always get thrown out at BOS anyway no matter how good they are, just because the judges can't ever find it in their hearts to give the award to a style-less beer. Let the brewers concoct these beverages to their hearts' content and give them to their friends, but get them out of National Judging. So..........what do YOU think? Steve Stroud PS - I am forwarding all discussion of this subject to Charlie P., perhaps he will join in. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Mon May 11 17:52:00 1992 Subject: Re: Re- ANALysis of NE Regio Russ Wigglesworth writes: >Mike Hall Asks: >>2. What's the deal with the fractional scores? > >Since you judged in Boulder's National First round you can answer this. Were >you instructed to decide a consensus score for the first round judging? Well, yes, we were (and we were last year too). There is a coversheet that goes on top of all of the judges' forms which is to be filled out by the "head" judge (usually the one with the most experience). This sheet doesn't have much info on it, just the entry number and category, and the overall score. In all of the cases when I have judged at the 1st round nationals, the judging team came to an agreement on what overall score to give an entry, guided by the head judge. Also, we were told this year that the scoring of "apprentice" judges were not supposed to count in the overall score. In practise, however, they were taken into account, but just not weighted as heavily as BJCP judges. Also, if there are multiple BJCP judges, more weight is given to the higher-ranked judge's score. For example, consider the following scenarios: Score Possible Overall Score National Judge 35 35 Recognized Judge 31 Recognized Judge 37 Score Possible Overall Score National Judge 35 33 Recognized Judge 31 Recognized Judge 32 Score Possible Overall Score Recognized Judge 28 32 Recognized Judge 33 Apprentice Judge 34 But the main idea is that you can't just look at the scores and determine an average...I realized that in making up these examples that I kept wanting to qualify the overall scores by saying that if the head judge felt strongly that the beer should get a score closer to the one he gave it, or that he was a little too harsh on (or generous to) the beer, or whatever, then they could change the overall score to reflect that. I have done this as both a follower and a head judge, and I think that it works very well. Usually, the decision is made as a group. >Certainly when the final round is at stake I can >see the need to designate the winner at the judges table, but when you are just >qualifying entries to pass along to another level what is the point? The answer is that qualifying entries to go on is exactly like awarding 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. places to the entries that you have. We were instructed that (especially in small categories, where we knew we had all the entries in one flight) we were to make sure that there was a clear 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place entry. I guess that it really isn't a big deal (whether to average or to come to a consensus score) but I really liked the ability to move the number around a little bit at the end in a direction that I thought was appropiate. Is this part of some BJCP policy, or is it okay for methods to vary slightly from location to location? Mike Hall hall at lanl.gov -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue May 12 12:44:10 1992 Subject: BIG categories I concur with Steve that maybe the really BIG categories like Stout, Porter, Pale Ale, etc, should be split up and the subcategories should be made categories themselves. Another reason for this is that, as in the case of Stouts, where there are three medium-powered subcategories and one high-power subcategory (Imperial), the high-power category has a slight edge. I know that when I was judging bocks in the BOSS competition two weeks ago, I conciously had to keep reminding myself that I must judge this Traditional German Bock as a Traditional German Bock and judge this Doppelbock as a Doppelbock. It takes a considerable amount of concentration. If I recall correctly, a Helles Bock took 1st, a Doppelbock took 2nd and a Helles took 3rd. In the Midwestern Regional, I judged Porters on Friday evening. There were four flights of around 10-14 beers each. Each flight picked the three best beers and from those, the three destined for the second round were picked by the most experienced four Porter judges in a "mini-second round." It worked very well, I think. The beers were kept chilled between the two judgings. No scoring was done in the "mini-second round." I think it was fair because all the beers suffered equally, but it certainly would have been much better if there were two bottles of each entry. This method would not address the problem Steve described in the Eastern Regional -- namely the shortage of judges. There is a problem with having six regionals: if each sends three beers to the second round, then they have 18 beers for the second round... too much for a single flight which is the best arrangement. Can you round up more judges? Can you sponsor classes to train potential judges for the BJCP exam? I can't see many beer lovers turning down this offer: "Hey... pass this exam and several times per year you get to drink some of the best beer in the world FREE and get a free lunch!" I would prefer a splitting of categories and a two-tiered first round. Maybe more time to judge the first round would take some of the burden off the regions with judge shortages. There is already a long gap between the first and second round. Maybe more of this gap (which I would like to see shortened) be used for the first round judging. Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue May 12 13:06:59 1992 Subject: BJCP exam I would like to see questions like this added to the BJCP exam: - List three possible sources for sour flavors and how to avoid them. - Give two suggestions for increasing body. - Suggest two possible ways to increase head retention. - List four sources for hazy beer and how to avoid them. This type of knowledge is important for judges and it is not tested. Comments? Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue May 12 13:08:00 1992 Subject: Re: Re- Passing Beers to 2nd Reply to: RE>Re: Passing Beers to 2nd ro Hmmm... Well I admit that we have a unique situation here in San Francisco. Not only do we get lots of access to Anchor, but we managed to form a coalition between the San Andreas Malts, the Gold Country Brewers Asso., and the Sonoma Beerocrats to organize the event. The Malts supply all the volunteers for the unpacking, which we do over the three week arrival period, in the evenings. The GCBA arrange the judges and cellar staff and the Beerocrats supply the head steward. All the clubs provide judges. I'll also admit that if we didn't have some key people (Brook Ostrom, Martin Lohahl, and (I guess) myself) things wouldn't go as well. I enjoy the thing so much and feel it deserves to be the best competition that I put a lot of energy into it. I too think this year was poorly timed, we lost all the southern California judges because they had a homebrewers festival and a major competition of their own to deal with on either side of Easter Weekend. The fact that we estimated a 15% growth and got almost 50% was also a factor, however who could have foreseen that? Perhaps the answer is to first find six sites which emulate Anchor in size and support (AHA's responsibility). Then find at least two clubs to share the duties. Only one club need be at the site, and they can take care of the unpacking. The other club can take care of the staffing of judges, etc. since that's all done by mail and/or phone. A budget increase for the sites is also a must so that food can be catered if there isn't a nut like me around who will run to Costco each week to lunch and breakfast. As far as the two tier plan, I firmly believe that if the sites are right and the entry numbers are manageable judging could be done over 2 days. I took this year's numbers for SF and reduced them to a total of 442 entries. The breakdown works out to 11 categories of 27 flights (none over 14) which require multiple panels. The remaining 15 categories have 14 or fewer entries so only need to be judged once. One full day of judging with 14 panels in the AM and 13 in the PM (42 judges) will take the 11 large categories down to flights of 14 or lower. The second day would require 39 judges to do 13 panels in both AM & PM. If the site facility is willing this could be done over one weekend. By increasing the entry fee the additional costs of ribbons would be covered, and the AHA would provide those, not the locals! Long range planning is needed as well as better estimates of the region's total entries. Knowing the plan in advance would allow the AHA to negotiate with the supporting facilities to allow the kind of access needed to bring off the event. The staff in Boulder seems to be much more in tune with the future than has been the case in prior years. Karen is a great asset to the conference and the competition. I hope she is well treated so we don't lose her. As far as changing categories, I'd support that if you trade the fruit/herb/etc. for the new, expanded ones. I don't think going beyond the current 26 is smart. You need 3 more judges for every additional category. I also question the need to keep the NEW sake/cider categories (or mead for that matter). They might be better served in a separate comp. So, enough for now. Let's hear more from the rest of you. PS; I'd like to get the regional registrars together for a meeting in Milwaukee. Sort of a debriefing and planning session for the future. It looks like Wednesday AM is the best time since nothing official starts until after Noon. I'll try to find a room which we can use and notify all involved. If others are interested in attending let me know via E-mail. (Jim Homer - I don't mean to step on any toes here, I already mentioned this to Karen. I hope she mentioned it to you.) RW... -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue May 12 15:23:59 1992 Subject: Re: Re- Re- ANALysis of NE R Reply to: RE>Re: Re- ANALysis of NE Regi Mike Says: >>Certainly when the final round is at stake I can >>see the need to designate the winner at the judges table, but when >>you are just qualifying entries to pass along to another level >>what is the point? >The answer is that qualifying entries to go on is exactly like >awarding 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. places to the entries that you have. >We were instructed that (especially in small categories, >where we knew we had all the entries in one flight) we were to >make sure that there was a clear 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place entry. Sorry, I don't agree. Qualifying when all the beers in a category are not judged by the same panel of judges is not the same as awarding "places". Unless it has been agreed to in advance (not the case here) that the first and /or second place beer from each panel (or flight, for that matter) will make the cut to the next round, there is no benifit to paying attention to places. Yes, when you have all the entries in a category in one flight, they should be treated as the second round will be, and ranked by the judges. It seems that there is a lot more authority given to the head judge in Boulder. As far as I understand it is a matter of being mediator and monitor. Checking to see all the info is written down and that the 7 point spread is adhered to. I don't think the head judge's opinion need be given more weight just because he/she is in charge of the panel. Nor do I think that rank should be a factor. I'm not willing to surrender all to the BJCP. We have plenty of non-BJCP judges who are excellent (even superior to BJCP'ers) in the job. I also think that calling anyone who isn't BJCP ranked an apprentice is a mistake. The BJCP does not do enough to monitor the continuing education and skills of its ranked judges to be the only standard. None of this point determination stuff was expressed to the field people (at least not SF). We were determining the method as we felt it would best serve the entrants. As I said, the only discussion I had with Boulder that approached the subject of "awarded scores" was when I was doing the database programing and I had neglected to allow for them. RW... -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue May 12 17:23:35 1992 Subject: Re: Re- Passing Beers to 2nd The remarkable Russ Wigglesworth said: > Hmmm... Well I admit that we have a unique situation here in San > Francisco. Not only do we get lots of access to Anchor ... A major plus. We've had more support from them than we had any right to expect. Hard to imagine a better sponsoring brewery. > ... but we managed to form a coalition > between the San Andreas Malts, the Gold Country Brewers Asso., and > the Sonoma Beerocrats to organize the event. Practical in part because the members of all three clubs live within a 100-mile radius ... > .... I'll also admit that if we didn't have > some key people (Brook Ostrom, Martin Lodahl, and (I guess) myself) > things wouldn't go as well. I couldn't let this pass unremarked. Russ, you're allowing modesty to overcome accuracy. I'm sure Brook would agree with me that you're the only one of the three who couldn't be replaced without a MAJOR impact on the competition! > I enjoy the thing so much and feel it deserves to be the > best competition that I put a lot of energy into it. And capability, and judgement, and experience ... > I too think this year was poorly timed, we lost all the > southern California judges because they had a homebrewers festival > and a major competition of their own to deal with on either side > of Easter Weekend. Plus there's the consideration of travel. One of the things I like best about the concept of a larger number of smaller first-round sites is that reducing the distance that judges must travel will probably make judges more available. And consider this: though it would cost more in shipping, why not allow judges who are also entering to enter their beer in some other region? That would certainly simplify MY job, I'll tell you ... > ... The fact that we estimated a > 15% growth and got almost 50% was also a factor, however who could have > foreseen that? In our case, that interacted with the limited number of judging opportunities to create a pretty tight situation. > .... A budget increase for the sites is also a > must so that food can be catered if there isn't a nut like me around > who will run to Costco each week to buy lunch and breakfast. An excellent idea! The food was good, though ... - Judge Director Martin = Martin A. Lodahl Pacific*Bell Systems Analyst = = malodah at pbmoss.Pacbell.COM Sacramento, CA 916.972.4821 = = If it's good for ancient Druids, runnin' nekkid through the wuids, = = Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! 8-) = -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue May 12 23:15:44 1992 Subject: Re: BIG categories Al says: > Can you round up more judges? Can you sponsor > classes to train potential judges for the BJCP exam? I can't see many > beer lovers turning down this offer: "Hey... pass this exam and several > times per year you get to drink some of the best beer in the world FREE > and get a free lunch!" How do you guys get a FREE lunch? We had to pay $8 each for our lunch buffet! (Beers were extra!) During the unpacking last year, we not only had to buy our own coffee, donuts, lunch, etc, but we had to take the trash home with us after the unpacking! Our friends at Sam Adams didn't have room in their dumpster for the AHA trash. I didn't help unpack during the main rush this year (I was in Belgium - drinking!). The solution it is _NOT_ to get more judges in the "program"; New England already has lots of judges (the Wort Processors alone probably have 15!). In 1991 we had lots of enthusiasm and lots of judges for the competition. Many local and out-of-town judges participatated. Many of us felt we got a raw deal in 1991 (mostly brewery schedule difficulties) and were less than excited about participating this year's judging. The problem is not training new judges, but rather motivating existing judges to show up for the competition. I estimate that fewer than 50% of the regional BJCP judges participapted in more than one day's worth of judging in this year's Nationals. After doing this two years now, most of us are burned out. Those that did judge this year (I did 6 flights over 4 days) did so as a favor to the local registrar and judge coordinator. In fairness to the coordinator, I must say that this year's judging was run much better than in 1991. We rented a hall, which allowed us to run the event at our schedule, rather than that of the brewery activities. Hopefully, word will get around that the situation is improving, and the judges will be back again for the 1993 competition. -- Mike Fertsch Internet: mikef at synchro.com Wortnet: mikef -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed May 13 08:27:17 1992 Subject: Re: BIG categories Mike Fertsch wrote: > Hopefully, word will get around that the situation is > improving, and the judges will be back again for the 1993 > competition. I forgot to mention that the Boston site registrar and judge coordinator have had it past the wazoo with the National competition and have refused to do it in 1993. So it's gonna be somebody else's show anyway! I wish 'em the very best of luck and sincerely hope they get a more cooperative brewery host than Boulder or Boston Beer Co.! -- Mike Fertsch Internet: mikef at synchro.com Wortnet: mikef -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed May 13 12:21:58 1992 Subject: Re: Re- BIG categories Reply to: RE>Re: BIG categories Regarding Free Lunch: In SF we managed to feed everybody on each Saturday breakfast (albeit simple, bagels, coffee, juice) and lunch (hot dogs, potato salad, green salad, soup, and strawberries) for about $120 a day. We didn't have much in the way of the budgeted expenses so I got Karen to allow me to shift funds around. I think we had just under $700 allocated in total for our site. Based on the Boston experience, it sounds like the AHA really has to negotiate for more in advance with the host facilities, or budget for rental space. I still think that if this is done well in advance the event will come off without overburdening the workers or judges. Certainly it is worth working toward. RW... -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu May 14 23:25:02 1992 Subject: The BJCP To those of you who want to skip this posting, at least read the end. I've inserted a new topic of discussion. (Search for NEW in caps). -MLH ------------------------------------------ Comments quoted from RW: > first round judging mercifully deleted :^) > I guess it really doesn't matter which one you do...my personal preference leans towards consensus scores, but that may be due to my past experience. > > It seems that there is a lot more authority given to the head judge in Boulder. > As far as I understand it is a matter of being mediator and monitor. Checking > to see all the info is written down and that the 7 point spread is adhered to. That's pretty much the way it is in Boulder too. When I was first starting out, I really relied on the judges with more experience...listening to what they had to say about what was important, etc. I guess *I* gave them more authority when I was an apprentice. > ... Nor do I think that rank should be a factor. > I'm not willing to surrender all to the BJCP. We have plenty of non-BJCP judges > who are excellent (even superior to BJCP'ers) in the job. I also think that > calling anyone who isn't BJCP ranked an apprentice is a mistake. The BJCP does > not do enough to monitor the continuing education and skills of its ranked > judges to be the only standard. Several things... 1. This competition was put on by the AHA. The BJCP is at least associated with the AHA, at most it is the AHA's sanctioned judge program (you tell me). I don't see anything wrong with giving more credence (within this competition) to judges in a program that is associated with the competition organizer. 2. Are there any other beer judge certifications besides the BJCP? I don't know of any (but there may be some out there). At any rate, I think that the BJCP, with all of its flaws, does at least rank judges according to knowledge and experience. You might question whether they measure the correct "knowledge", or whether they correctly measure experience, but you've got to give them credit for trying. I think it's okay to use them for a standard until a better one comes along. 3. I'm sure that you're correct in saying that there are some non-BJCP'ers who are "better" than "real" BJCP'ers. However, what if you used the same statement but inserted "medical students that dropped out" or "lawyers that didn't pass the bar" or "accountants that didn't take the CPA exam" or "PhDs that didn't finish their thesis"? I'm sure that would be equally correct, in some cases. My point is that there are times in life when you have to prove yourself, and saying that a person could have passed the test (whatever form it takes) if he had only tried is IMHO a cop out. Giving someone credit for achieving some sort of status in the thing being considered is normal and expected. 4. Calling a non-BJCP'er an apprentice is indeed a misnomer if the person is experienced but just doesn't want to go the BJCP route (for whatever reason). I don't have any problems with calling them "not BJCP-ranked" or, like the scoresheet says, "experienced, but not in the BJCP". In addition, I want to add that there was only a slight nod given to rank, and that the decision was mainly a group one. For instance, you might round the average in the direction of the more experienced judge. Having said all that (whew!) I want to add that this discussion has gone way beyond what I expected (or cared about). I didn't really think that it was a big deal. Let's get back to a more interesting topic. Okay, I'll throw one out: -------------NEW TOPIC------------------ The BJCP is an organization that accredits judges according to its definition of knowledge and experience. 1. How could it be improved? 2. Does it measure the right skills of a beer judge? 3. Should it make sure that judges continue to increase their knowledge/skill? 4. Is it necessary? (Do we need to have judges certified?) 5. Should it be distinct from the AHA? I have some opinions about this, but I'll shut up and let the rest of you have at it for a while. :^) Mike Hall hall at lanl.gov -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu May 14 23:25:02 1992 Subject: The BJCP To those of you who want to skip this posting, at least read the end. I've inserted a new topic of discussion. (Search for NEW in caps). -MLH ------------------------------------------ Comments quoted from RW: > first round judging mercifully deleted :^) > I guess it really doesn't matter which one you do...my personal preference leans towards consensus scores, but that may be due to my past experience. > > It seems that there is a lot more authority given to the head judge in Boulder. > As far as I understand it is a matter of being mediator and monitor. Checking > to see all the info is written down and that the 7 point spread is adhered to. That's pretty much the way it is in Boulder too. When I was first starting out, I really relied on the judges with more experience...listening to what they had to say about what was important, etc. I guess *I* gave them more authority when I was an apprentice. > ... Nor do I think that rank should be a factor. > I'm not willing to surrender all to the BJCP. We have plenty of non-BJCP judges > who are excellent (even superior to BJCP'ers) in the job. I also think that > calling anyone who isn't BJCP ranked an apprentice is a mistake. The BJCP does > not do enough to monitor the continuing education and skills of its ranked > judges to be the only standard. Several things... 1. This competition was put on by the AHA. The BJCP is at least associated with the AHA, at most it is the AHA's sanctioned judge program (you tell me). I don't see anything wrong with giving more credence (within this competition) to judges in a program that is associated with the competition organizer. 2. Are there any other beer judge certifications besides the BJCP? I don't know of any (but there may be some out there). At any rate, I think that the BJCP, with all of its flaws, does at least rank judges according to knowledge and experience. You might question whether they measure the correct "knowledge", or whether they correctly measure experience, but you've got to give them credit for trying. I think it's okay to use them for a standard until a better one comes along. 3. I'm sure that you're correct in saying that there are some non-BJCP'ers who are "better" than "real" BJCP'ers. However, what if you used the same statement but inserted "medical students that dropped out" or "lawyers that didn't pass the bar" or "accountants that didn't take the CPA exam" or "PhDs that didn't finish their thesis"? I'm sure that would be equally correct, in some cases. My point is that there are times in life when you have to prove yourself, and saying that a person could have passed the test (whatever form it takes) if he had only tried is IMHO a cop out. Giving someone credit for achieving some sort of status in the thing being considered is normal and expected. 4. Calling a non-BJCP'er an apprentice is indeed a misnomer if the person is experienced but just doesn't want to go the BJCP route (for whatever reason). I don't have any problems with calling them "not BJCP-ranked" or, like the scoresheet says, "experienced, but not in the BJCP". In addition, I want to add that there was only a slight nod given to rank, and that the decision was mainly a group one. For instance, you might round the average in the direction of the more experienced judge. Having said all that (whew!) I want to add that this discussion has gone way beyond what I expected (or cared about). I didn't really think that it was a big deal. Let's get back to a more interesting topic. Okay, I'll throw one out: -------------NEW TOPIC------------------ The BJCP is an organization that accredits judges according to its definition of knowledge and experience. 1. How could it be improved? 2. Does it measure the right skills of a beer judge? 3. Should it make sure that judges continue to increase their knowledge/skill? 4. Is it necessary? (Do we need to have judges certified?) 5. Should it be distinct from the AHA? I have some opinions about this, but I'll shut up and let the rest of you have at it for a while. :^) Mike Hall hall at lanl.gov -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri May 15 11:25:22 1992 Subject: Re: The BJCP Reply to: RE>The BJCP OK, I apologize for my verbosity in discussing the judging of the AHA Nationals. I have some very strong feelings about the event and how it could be improved so I tend to run on about it. I'll shut up on it for now except to say that I wouldn't elevate beer judges to the status of professions which require several years of formal education and an examination by a supervisory board. As for Mike's introduction of the review of the BJCP: If memory serves we opened this "net" with just such a discussion. I wish I had a copy of my comments from then, but disk space being what it is... The first suggestion I have for improving the BJCP would be to return the exams (including the 4 judging sheets) to the takers with comments as to where they are weak etc. Next is to have some sort of review on a regular basis where actual judging sheets are critiqued for appropriateness of comments, legibility, etc. I have seen several instances of long time judges who's comments on score sheets are very limited. Accurate they may be but they don't provide enough of the feedback to the entrant which is supposed to be the primary reason for the competition in the first place. I realize that this will require the program administrators to do a lot more work but most changes will do that. I don't think BJCP judges should be required to advance in rank, however I do like the idea that inactivity would drop you from the program. A judge who doesn't gain any points over a given period might be listed as "inactive". Yes, it is a good idea to certify judges. The program is a joint effort of the HWBTA and the AHA. Keeping it slightly outside of the AHA's total control is a good thing. Since beer judging is much more participatory than most of the other AHA functions it ought to be directed to some degree by the participants. If there were greater encouragement of involvement in directing the program by the certified judges there would possibly be more of those long time, experienced judges taking the exam. That's enough for now. RW... -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri May 15 18:18:01 1992 Subject: Re: Re- Passing Beers to 2nd > > Plus there's the consideration of travel. One of the things I like > best about the concept of a larger number of smaller first-round > sites is that reducing the distance that judges must travel will > probably make judges more available. And consider this: though it > would cost more in shipping, why not allow judges who are also > entering to enter their beer in some other region? That would > certainly simplify MY job, I'll tell you ... > My original suggestion to the AHA -- which at the time was completely rejected -- was that the country be divided into five regions, loosely based on the spread of entries from the previous year's competition. I think this would be much more manageable (my assumption, for the record, was that California would be a region all its own). Incidentally, I read someone's letter to the effect that the East Coast judges had to buy their own lunches, and take home the garbage. As far as I'm concerned, this is inexcusable -- it's hard enough to get judges to travel any distance and absorb all their own expenses, but not providing meals is ridiculous. The always-opinionated: Jeff Frane -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri May 15 18:41:45 1992 Subject: Re: The BJCP > The first suggestion I have for improving the BJCP would be to return the exams > (including the 4 judging sheets) to the takers with comments as to where they > are weak etc. It would also be a big improvement if the examinees could get the results back in a more timely fashion. They are more likely to be able to recall what beers they tasted, and be able to complete the feedback loop of what taste/smell went with what descriptive phrase. > I don't think BJCP judges should be required to advance in rank, however I do > like the idea that inactivity would drop you from the program. A judge who > doesn't gain any points over a given period might be listed as "inactive". Yes, but there are special cases, like a fellow I was talking to whose parents live in Ottowa, but he lives in Belgium. He's been put on the inactive list because he can't get to any local AHA/HWBTA competitions. But, he's setting up a judging program in Belgium. --Darryl Richman -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri May 15 20:23:41 1992 Subject: Archive site at cygnus >If memory serves we opened this "net" with just such a discussion. I wish I had >a copy of my comments from then, but disk space being what it is... I had them laying around, so I decided to set up an archive site. (Your comments are in there under BJCP, Russ.) Here's the "official" announcement: I have decided to put together some old issues of the JudgeNet that have archival value. They are up to date as of 5/15/92, but I make no claims as to when I will update them in the future. I have separated them according to topic, rather than chronologically. You can access these files by anonymous ftp from cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov (128.165.144.121). I would like to limit the use of this anon ftp archive to members of the JudgeNet list, so please do not post this archive site to any other lists (but feel free to give these files to anyone you want to). Enjoy... Mike Hall BTW, the files are in the directory /pub/judge on the archive site. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue May 19 19:25:45 1992 Subject: Those Wonderful Stewards I wonder if we could address the equitability of the judge/steward point system. I know that there is a certain stigma attached to being "only" a steward, but after my experience this weekend I wanted to speak on their behalf. I supervised the Oregon State Fair brewing competition for the third time on Sunday. My head steward has volunteered to help me each year and as usual, he ended up with brand-new stewards. In a relatively short time, he got them all lined up, ducks in a row, and they kept the beer coming without a hitch, to the judges. The fair isn't a big event, only 123 beers this year, but with 12 categories and 22 judges it's important to keep everything straight. We started the actual tasting a little before 11 a.m. Everyone was done, lunch had been served and eaten, and the mess was all cleaned up by 2:00 p.m. The stewards poured the beers, kept track of them, sorted the empties, cleaned the glasses and attended to the judges' needs. The bare truth is that without the stewards able assistance, the judging would have taken twice as long and probably been full of screwups. I wouldn't have traded a single one of them for another judge -- they were just as valuable to me as any one of the judges. Is it fair to continue to give people fractions of points because they're "only" stewards. Wouldn't I be more likely to get and keep good stewards if they were rewarded with the same points as a judge? (I already pay them the same $25 honorarium). Comments? --Jeff Frane -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue May 19 22:53:58 1992 Subject: passing beers revisited I was doing some cleanup in my hb directory and re-read Russ' posting on passing beers. I'd like to comment on a few points. >Subject: Passing Beers >The impression that I got from the folks in Boulder when I spoke with them was >that they were making up the final flights with the top 3 beers from each >region plus an overflow from the areas which had a larger response in a >particular category. In SF we sent on 5 stouts (#9), 4 each in #4,5,6,7,10,16,& >23; and 3 in all others. This allows a minimum of 3 entries from any one region >and additional entries to cover the disproportionate regionalization. This may >make the final flights larger in some categories. Depending on the size of the >regional differences this can make for unwieldy flights and give unfair >advantage to regions with small showings in some categories. The final flight >ought to be made up of a representation of the regions category size. No. I don't think so. Remember, only three beers will gain awards... 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Granted, the difference between a beer with a score of 45 and one with a score of 46 (from the same region) is really negligible -- depending on 2nd round judge preferences, the first-round 45 could win 1st in the second round and the first-round 46 could win 2nd. Thus, it may be true that the 4th place beer from a region can win an award, but the increased numbers of beers at the 2nd round make it that much harder for the judges. If each region supplies their top three beers, then even if the three best stouts in the whole competition are from *ONE* region, then those three will win the awards in the second round. If only two are sent from a region, there is the possiblity that the 3rd place stout from a region (the one that didn't get to go to the 2nd round) is better than all the stouts from the other regions. > >I'll take this opening to move beyond this year's National and propose my >current "ideal". > >First, final flight sizes should be decided on first. They also ought to be >matched to the category characteristics. Is it fair to judge 12 barleywines (or >some other "large" beer) in one sitting? Should categories with normally large >numbers of entries (like stouts) be allowed to expand their final flight size? There's a snag here. In the first round, there is more time to judge. The second round (I feel) needs to be a single flight for each category, both for reasons of time and consistency. The size of the 2nd round flights (as you suggest) must be a reasonable size, but to make sure that each region has a shot at the awards, the minimum number from each region needs to equal the number of awards (as I've illustrated above). >We had complaints here in SF because we kept panels the same in both AM and PM >sessions AND had them judge the same category all day. The intent was to get >the beers judged more uniformly by utilizing the same palates as much as >possible. The guys who went through the stouts were the loudest complainers, >and they didn't have more than 14 beers in any flight. In retrospect I agree >they suffered from "palate fatigue", something we didn't anticipate. Anyhow, >once the final flight sizes are agreed to they should be maintained. The modification you mention below, (I feel) would solve the "palate fatigue" problem you mention above. > >Deciding who those final entries will be must also be modified. I'd like to see >a two tiered regional where the entrants send in 2 bottles to one of several >sites which will judge a total of about 400 entries (not to exceed 500). The >first scoring will take place in the same way we do it now. Then we take the >top 12 - 14 scores in each category and have a single panel decide the top 2 >(or however many) which will be passed along to the next round at the >conference. 6 regional sites ought to be able to do the job (provided the size >of the comp remains the same). Each site would award ribbons to the top x# of >beers for making it so far making the regionals a little more rewarding than >they are at the moment. The cost of entering the comp would be increased to $10 >per entry to cover the new awards. > >What do you think? I think your modified first round is a *great* idea (including the additional awards), but increasing the number of regions to 6 (while maintaining the three beers from each region) would cause the 2nd round flights to be 18 beers! Way too big even for small beers. I'd support your proposal whole-heartedly if it stayed with the current four regions and three beers from each. > Russ Wigglesworth > Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed May 20 12:29:54 1992 Subject: Paying stewards and judges? Jeff Frane says: >Is it fair to continue to give people fractions of points because >they're "only" stewards. Wouldn't I be more likely to get and keep good >stewards if they were rewarded with the same points as a judge? (I >already pay them the same $25 honorarium) Huh? What $25 honorarium? You _PAY_ your judges and stewards? Steve Stroud -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed May 20 13:03:25 1992 Subject: Re: Those Wonderful Stewards Reply to: RE>Those Wonderful Stewards I'll second the motion! If we didn't have able stewards at our competitions we'd never get through the beers! I think the points should be equal, tho I don't know if it will mean all that much to people who always steward with no eye toward judging and the BJCP. It will certainly facilitate using judges to steward when there is a surplus of judges on hand (yes, we have had this happen once or twice). Where do you find the $$$ to pay $25 to each steward/judge? RW... -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed May 20 13:05:41 1992 Subject: Re: passing beers revisited Reply to: RE>passing beers revisited OK Al; I'd support your plan of each region entering a number of beers equal to the final awards as long as there is a two tier system in place for the preliminaries. Without this there is no way to be sure that the three sent along are actually the top three since (in many cases) all the beers are not judged by the same panel of judges. As far as maintaining the number of regions, I can see your point. However I think it is unlikely that the best three final beers will actually come from one region. As long as all regions are on equal footing from the start it shouldn't matter what the numbers are. The problem with keeping the sites at 4 is that they will certainly be over-burdened by the sheer number of entries (especially if the thing continues to grow as the AHA projects). My experience is that 400 - 500 entries per site is optimum. This thing will only work if there are people willing to do the job in the field. If we want to keep those people from year to year we need to make their job as easy as we can. Boston is a good example of what will happen if things are not arranged properly in advance. We're lucky that San Francisco was the hardest hit this year since we clearly have the best supporting facility as well as plenty of judges in the neighborhood. However, even in San Francisco there is a degree of burnout (no pun intended). There has to be a system designed to distribute the load equitably around the country. If that system results in only 2 beers from each site being passed along, so be it. RW... -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed May 20 13:07:41 1992 Subject: Re: Those Wonderful Stewards Jeff, I strongly back you on questioning the inequity of point awards between stewards and judges. I have been against the inequities in point awards since the first competition I organized back in 88. I agree that good stewards are very important to the staging of a well run competition. The only potential catch in increasing the points for stewards is that a lot of folks who steward aren't necessarily interested in moving up in the ranking system. We have many folks like this in the East. They typically do it for the ability to taste good beers and the fun of the competitions. Of course for those who are interested but can't judge if there are too many judges, or simply choose not to judge but want to earn some points it would be nicer if the difference between judging point awards and steward awards was smaller. JaH -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed May 20 15:38:31 1992 Subject: BJCP Exams While the subject of BJCP exams and organization is still fresh, we should discuss the length of time to get score reports back to the examinees. I took the exam at Rochester 3 weeks ago where we were told not to expect any results for at least 3 months! I realize that Paul Dickey is very busy, but we didn't pay $40 to have someone sit on the completed exams for such a long time. So even though I expect to score in the 80's, I will have to wear my scarlet A (for Apprentice Judge) until sometime in the fall. It also played a factor in my decision not to go to Milwaukee, since an apprentice judge would not get a chance to taste any of the wonderful beers that get past the first round. And finally, the combination of the poor testing conditions in Rochester and this incredible delay in getting back the scores has made one our club members swear to never have anything to do with the AHA ever again. It's really a shame, because he had the potential to become a very good beer judge. Auf ein neues, Scott |--- | bickham at msc.cornell.edu (| St. Louis | bickham at crnlmsc2.bitnet |-T- Cardinals | _|___) Forever! | Clark Hall, Cornell University |____ | Ithaca, NY 14853-2501 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed May 20 18:32:39 1992 Subject: Re: Those Wonderful Stewards > > Reply to: RE>Those Wonderful Stewards > I'll second the motion! If we didn't have able stewards at our competitions > we'd never get through the beers! I think the points should be equal, tho I > don't know if it will mean all that much to people who always steward with no > eye toward judging and the BJCP. It will certainly facilitate using judges to > steward when there is a surplus of judges on hand (yes, we have had this happen I almost had to ask judges to help out as stewards, since I was initially short of the latter. As it turned out, I was able to recruit several stewards at the last minute -- and had four or five no-shows from the judges! I ended up judging myself just to fill in. > once or twice). > > Where do you find the $$$ to pay $25 to each steward/judge? The event is sponsored by the Oregon State Fair, which not only pays me a salary (blush) but provides money for honoraria, meals, advertising, etc. It is a cushy gig. --Jeff -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu May 21 11:34:14 1992 Subject: Stewards and Apologies BJCP Judges and Apprentices, Please accept my apologies for posting messages on the network that should have been reserved for private communications to the co-directors of the AHA and/or BJCP. About stewards: I agree that they perform a valuable service, but why not just give them gifts as one would the attendants at a wedding? This was done in Kingston, where the stewards recieved Corsendonk bottle openers and the judges were given Corsendonk glasses. These gifts are much more in line with the spirit of the AHA Competetions and are much more likely to donated by sponsors than $25 checks. Auf ein neues, Scott -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu May 21 18:52:25 1992 Subject: Re: Stewards and Apologies > > BJCP Judges and Apprentices, > Please accept my apologies for posting messages on the network > that should have been reserved for private communications to the co-directors > of the AHA and/or BJCP. > About stewards: I agree that they perform a valuable service, but > why not just give them gifts as one would the attendants at a wedding? This > was done in Kingston, where the stewards recieved Corsendonk bottle openers > and the judges were given Corsendonk glasses. These gifts are much more in > line with the spirit of the AHA Competetions and are much more likely to > donated by sponsors than $25 checks. > I'm sorry if I get a little testy about this, but we are currently in the throes of a nasty argument at work about why non-union people should be treated differently than union people -- my emotions tend to slop over. But at any rate, giving gifts is nice and appropriate and I certainly agree that gifts like you describe are more likely to be donated than $25 checks. But why did the stewards get bottle openers and the judges glasses? My point is that the stewards' contribution to the competition was as valuable as the judges' -- I feel they should be rewarded in an equal manner. As someone else has pointed out, there are times when judges need to be recruited to act as stewards; giving stewards equal treatment would not only be fair, but it would facilitate this. --Jeff -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu May 28 04:08:45 1992 Subject: BJCP Exams Reguarding some comments by Scott Bickham >I took the exam at Rochester 3 weeks ago where we were told >not to expect any results for at least 3 months! Twelve weeks is the maximum time to send results back. The grading of exams is done by three people. The delegate (Paul Dickey in the Rochester exam) will grade the exam and send it on to the Co-director who authorized the exam (Pat Baker). After Pat has finished he will send them on to a Associate director (Steve Stroud). Pat and Steve will then discuss the scores and come to agreed scores. The exams are then sent on to the administrator, who will notify the participants. The grading process is set up to maintain the consistency of grading. The delegated exam givers are allowed to grade the exams only for their own personal experience. The final grading is based on the grading done by the two directors. It is set up so that Pat or myself grade all the exams given. The second grading by the Associate director is to find any errors we might have made and balance out any bias we might inadvertently place in the grading. The process of having three graders and the administrators handle each exam gives us an interval for sending out results within twelve weeks. We plan two weeks for each grader and the administrator and one week for each mailing. This comes to eleven weeks and one more is added for slippage. Many exams are sent out in less than twelve weeks. Note that all graders are volunteers, and have to work their program work in with their other responsibilities. The twelve week interval is consistent with other certification programs. The Colorado state Professional Engineers Exam took 3 months to get results back. I spot checked several exams and found, for 4 exams the results were mailed out in 7, 7, 9 and 6 weeks. >finally, the combination of the poor testing conditions in Rochester >and this incredible delay in getting back the scores has made one our >club members swear to never have anything to do with the AHA ever again. Please note that the BJCP is sponsored by the AHA and the HWBTA. Both organizations share in the credit and the responsibilities for the program. I have sent the first posting about the Rochester exam to Pat Baker. We will be discussing what action to take. Jim Homer BJCP Co-director att!drutx!homer --------------------------------------