From JudgeNet Sat Dec 4 06:38:09 1993 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Who's Who We've gained a lot of new subscribers lately, so I figure its time to post the subscription list again. As usual, send corrections to judge-request at synchro.com. - Chuck Cox - SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ################################# ## ## ## JudgeNet ## ## the beer judge digest ## ## ## ## subscriber list ## ## ## ## (addresses prefaced with ## ## '#' are relayed) ## ## ## ################################# # ### Federation of Amateur Wine and Beer Guilds (FAWBG) - NL # # Master Wine Judge # victor.reijs at surfnet.nl (Victor Reijs) # ### National Guild of Wine and Beer Judges (NGWBJ) - UK # # Examiner # g.a.cooper at qmw.ac.uk (Geoff Cooper) # ### Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) - USA # # Co-Director # att!drutx!homer (Jim Homer) # # Associate Director # stroud%gaia at polaroid.com (Steve Stroud) # # Committee Representative # rad_equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu (Russ Wigglesworth) # # Master Judges # chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) digest at hopfen.synchro.com (Mike Fertsch) hersh at expo.lcs.mit.edu (Jay Hersh) # # National Judges # steved at longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steve Dempsey) judge-relay at semantic.rsi.com (Bob Gorman) isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov (John Isenhour) glo at lanl.gov (Gordon Olson) darrylri at microsoft.com (Darryl Richman) # # Certified Judges # tony at spss.com (Tony Babinec) baughmankr at conrad.appstate.edu (Kinney Baughman) beebed at ere.umontreal.ca (Dwight Beebe) bickham at msc.cornell.edu (Scott Bickham) bronson at iexist.att.com (Edward Bronson) lcarter at claven.idbsu.edu (Loren Carter) devine at cs.berkeley.edu (Bob Devine) brewnews at aol.com (Phil Doersam) gummitch at techbook.com (Jeff Frane) hall at buffa.enet.dec.com (Dan Hall) mlh at cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov (Michael Hall) stevie at spss.com (Steve Hamburg) charris at u.washington.edu (Craig Harris) doug at techbook.com (Doug Henderson) korz at iepubj.att.com (Al Korzonas) slamb at milp.jsc.nasa.gov (Sean Lamb) malodah at pacbell.com (Martin Lodahl) larrylf at taligent.com (Larry Lynch-Freshner) afmccaul at ilstu.edu (Tony McCauley) rhreed at icdc.delcoelect.com (Rob Reed) reeves at sstcx1.lanl.gov (Geoff Reeves) resch at craycos.com (Dave Resch) ross at mscf.med.upenn.edu (Andy Ross) aaswr at asuvm.inre.asu.edu (Steve Russell) strasser at raj5.tn.cornell.edu (Tom Strasser) westemeier at delphi.com (Ed Westemeier) boskoduck at aol.com (Julian Zelazny) # # Recognized Judges # bradley at adx.adelphi.edu (Rob Bradley) busch at daacdev1.stx.com (Jim Busch) calen at vnet.ibm.com (John Calen) gcb at fc.hp.com (Glenn Colon-Bonet) lynnd at ihs.com (Lynn Danielson) u52983 at uicvm.uic.edu (Roger Deschner) 8260pe at indy.navy.mil (Paul Edwards) jimme at ahpcrc.umn.edu (Jim Ellingson) tee at cray.com (Tony Ernst) nfarrell at charon.ppco.com (Norman Farrell) 71064.1725 at compuserve.com (Chris Folta) #brew at devine.columbiasc.ncr.com (Jim Griggers) jdg at grex.ann-arbor.mi.us (Joshua Grosse) cush at msc.edu (Cush Hamlen) ech at ac.dal.ca (Ed Hitchcock) holton at donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Greg Holton) melkor!rick (Rick Larson) jelj at cornella.cit.cornell.edu (John Lenz) ligas at mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca (Michael Ligas) edl at tekig5.pen.tek.com (Ed Lingel) tedm at hp-pcd.cv.hp.com (Ted Manahan) r.mcglew3 at genie.geis.com (Ray McGlew) pmiller at mmm.com (Phil Miller) scott at gordian.com (Scott Murphy) andnator at genesis.mcs.com (Andrew Patrick) piatz at cray.com (Steve Piatz) garyrich at qdeck.com (Gary Rich) simpson at rb.unisys.com (Mark Simpson) skeel at fcrfv2.ncifcrf.gov (Alison Skeel) kurt.swanson at dna.lth.se (Kurt Swanson) wrs at gozer.mv.com (Bill Slack) gdtms at garlic.lcs.mit.edu (Greg Troxel) # # Apprentice Judges # atkinson at unt.edu (Sam Atkinson) jack at wubios.wustl.edu (Jack Baty) dbeedle at rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Dave Beedle) jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu (Jeremy Bergsman) jeffbean at aol.com (Jeff Biegert) michael at wupsych.wustl.edu (Mike Biondo) bliss at convex.com (Brian Bliss) embreed at sfovmic1.vnet.ibm.com (Emily Breed) bli at psuvm.psu.edu (Jeff Brendle) jbunn at seanews.akita.com (John Bunn) akcs.chrisc at vpnet.chi.il.us (Chris Campanelli) cave at psc.org (Jim Cave) sysop at partyline.com (Jami Chism) nchoksi at erenj.com (Neelan Choksi) dalton at mtl.mit.edu (Timothy Dalton) psd1 at midway.uchicago.edu (Pratik Dave) jdecarlo at mitre.org (John DeCarlo) tdenny at rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Tom Denny) donham at super.enet.dec.com (Perry Donham) 73627.3144 at compuserve.com (David Elliott) jelliott at hop.qgraph.com (John Elliott) darren at ua1vm.ua.edu (Darren Evans-Young) p00739 at psilink.com (Charles Ewen) efarrell at ossi.com (Liz Farrell) # bruce.feist at f615.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Bruce Feist) frobeen_h at sandoz.com (Harmen Frobeen) 76702.764 at compuserve.com (Robin Garr) rgarvin at btg.com (Rick Garvin) rgarvin at access.digex.net (Rick Garvin) jason at gibson.sde.hp.com (Jason Goldman) # polly.goldman at p2.f615.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Polly Goldman) goss at aol.com (Todd Gossett) agrant at mta.ca (Andrew Grant) green at hpmtaa.lvld.hp.com (Bob Green) sunilg at access.digex.com (Sunil Gupta) joseph-judge at joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us (Joseph Hall) hilliard at zookeeper.zoo.uga.edu (Steve Hilliard) dhholscl at rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (David Holsclaw) mri10 at mfg.amdahl.com (Mike Inglis) spj at aol.com (Steve Jackson) keinert at iastate.edu (Fritz Keinert) kitchwa at bongo.cc.utexas.edu (Bill Kitch) jal at techbook.com (Jim Larsen) mol at jyu.fi (Mika Latokartano) trl at photos.wustl.edu (Tom Leith) jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu (James Liddil) ktl at kittyhawk.aero.rmit.oz.au (Katie Lord) v-ccsl at microsoft.com (Scott Lord) magee at helix.mgh.harvard.edu (John Magee) klm at gozer.mv.com (Kevin McBride) tim at mtl.mit.edu (Tim McClure) wtm at gr.cs.utah.edu (Tom McCollough) daniel.f.mcconnell at med.umich.edu (Daniel McConnell) berniem at microsoft.com (Bernie McIlroy) tmitchel at bbn.com (Tom Mitchell) cm199 at cleveland.freenet.edu (Thomas Moore) morgan at spectra.com (Mike Morgan) munyon at 4j.eugene.or.us (Pat Munyon) bmyers at uclink.berkeley.edu (Brian Myers) rcm at col.hp.com (Rick Myers) koconnor at lor.syr.edu (Kieran O'Connor) akbpaluz at idbsu.idbsu.edu (Jim Paluzzi) raudins at galt.b17d.ingr.com (Glenn Raudins) u2102952 at csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au (Phil Reichert) roody at necsc.enet.dec.com (Greg Roody) roy.rudebusch at travel.com (Roy Rudebusch) lennart at btjsys.btj.se (Lennart Sandberg) p00644 at psilink.com (Phillip Seitz) wseliger at chinet.chi.il.us (Bill Seliger) shaver at cirr.com (Dave Shaver) smerage at icbr.ifas.ufl.edu (Jeff Smerage) 73044.2016 at compuserve.com (Michael Snyder) jimsnow at aol.com (Jim Snow) 70740.1107 at compuserve.com (James Spence) gak at wrs.com (Richard Stueven) envkas at sn634.utica.ge.com (Karl Sweitzer) spencer.w.thomas at med.umich.edu (Spencer Thomas) jefft at hpcvcal.cv.hp.com (Jeff Tobin) tuecks at mathematik.uni-kl.de (Markus Tuecks) mark_wallace at crd.lotus.com (Mark Wallace) walter at lamar.colostate.edu (Brian Walter) weaver at spdc.ti.com (Tyler Weaver) swh at ll.mit.edu (Sarah White) zamick at yoko.rutgers.edu (Jonathan Zamick) # # Relay Sites # beer.judge at f615.n109.z1.fidonet.org (The Enlightened Board) ### -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Dec 8 06:12:07 1993 From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: 1994 AHA Categories Hi all, I just received the latest Zymurgy and glanced through the new rules and style changes. I for one am glad to see the Dubbel and Triple reappear in the Belgian category instead of lumping them into the catch all, Belgian Strong. Lambics also finally get the recognition they deserve - there is now a separate lambic category. I haven't searched for the changes in hopping or gravities, but I was disappointed to see that there is still no American IPA category. And finally, what will be much to the chagrin of the organizers next year, only one bottle per entry is required in the first round. As we found out last time, that makes it a little difficult to narrow down as many as 50 entries in each category to the top three. Auf ein neues, Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= From JudgeNet Fri Dec 10 17:58:31 1993 From: Steve Dempsey Subject: Re: 1994 AHA Categories Scott Bickham sez: *>I just received the latest Zymurgy and glanced through the new rules *>and style changes. I for one am glad to see [various refinements, *>new (sub)categories]... I know the NHCC spent a lot of time working on the category definitions since the conference this summer. These rules will probably always be shifting to accomodate various styles as they become popular. I think the only issue keeping the categories from expanding further is the BOS, and keeping it small enough for four judges to do with one bottle (yet another topic for debate). As for the hopping rates and gravities, these should not be taken as literally as they appear. One thing we talked about last year among the competition organizers is that we need to use the published specs as *guidelines*, emphasizing that they not strict limits. Too many judges pull out the chart and say "woah, this beer is probably 0.005 too heavy", (for a scottish heavy), etc. *>And finally, what *>will be much to the chagrin of the organizers next year, only one *>bottle per entry is required in the first round. There was much debate on this. All agreed that two bottles for round 1 would solve several problems. But there are really only a couple of hot spots where the number of entries is a big problem (Belgians, pale ales, stouts), and the rest are workable. Asking for 2 bottles where they are not needed creates an extra burden that some of us are not ready to take on just yet. We'll surely revisit this problem. One option we discussed was using 3 bottles in the final judging, and holding 2 final rounds plus BOS. This concentrates the extra work where it would be most effective. And with so many qualified judges available at the conference, I suspect this will be tried before 2 bottles at the first round. BTW, I'll be running the first round in Denver again this year. Anyone who wants to see something special happen there should let me know. I expect we'll hold a couple of weekday evening sessions to judge some of the smaller categories, then run the marathon session over one weekend like we did last year. ================================ Engineering Network Services Steve Dempsey Colorado State University steved at longs.lance.colostate.edu Fort Collins, CO 80523 ================================ +1 303 491 0630 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Dec 10 17:58:31 1993 From: btg!rgarvin at uunet.UU.NET (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630)) Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #644 (Dec 08, 1993) bickham at msc.cornell.edu writes: > I just received the latest Zymurgy and glanced through the new rules > and style changes. I for one am glad to see the Dubbel and Triple > reappear in the Belgian category instead of lumping them into the > catch all, Belgian Strong. Lambics also finally get the recognition > they deserve - there is now a separate lambic category. I haven't > searched for the changes in hopping or gravities, but I was disappointed > to see that there is still no American IPA category. And finally, what > will be much to the chagrin of the organizers next year, only one > bottle per entry is required in the first round. As we found out last > time, that makes it a little difficult to narrow down as many as 50 > entries in each category to the top three. Two steps forward, one step back. I disagree with the lumping of Export and Helles. It will promote the old prejudice against light beers over heavy beers. It makes just as much sense to throw Pils in there with them. Pils against Export is really a better fight. Hops against gravity. Helles against Export? Helles has a bit more of a malt balance, but Export has the extra gravity making for IMHO a higher "volume" of malt. Well, to stay at 24 categories AND add Lambic something had to go. a hard choice. Contest organizers will just have to make an extra effort during instructions for that category to offset any gravity prejudice. Cheers, Rick (Apprentice Judge? 17 experience points since 1987!) Rick Garvin rgarvin at btg.com BTG, Inc. Navy Programs Division, Vienna, VA 703-761-6630 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Dec 16 06:18:38 1993 From: Kieran O'Connor Subject: Evaluating Beer Our club is thinking aobut getting a copy of "Evaluating Beer" in an attempt to educate potential judges. Any comments on this new book? is it worth the money? Kieran O'Connor E-Mail Address: koconnor at mailbox.syr.edu Syracuse, N.Y. USA -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Dec 17 04:32:54 1993 From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: Evaluating Beer I got a copy for myself. Looks quite good. Replaces a bunch of separate references I've been keeping in a file folder. I haven't finished reading it, though. Most of it is articles reprinted from a variety of sources, many of which are difficult of access to the average homebrewer. =S -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Dec 17 04:32:54 1993 From: "SIMPSON, Mark (x-4378)" Subject: Red Hook Characteristics Howdy Fellow Judges, I have often wondered just what it is in Red Hook ESB that makes it soooo good?! There is something in the aroma/taste profile that is very unique. I suspect that it is a yeast phenolic or ester. Anyone out there have a hunch? I don't want to make too many suggestions as it may skew the replies. I have brewed a couple batch and was able to match the color, gravity, hopping etc. and came very close but that special characteristic was missing. Thanks, Mark -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Dec 18 05:20:24 1993 From: mlh at cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov (Michael L. Hall) Subject: Red Hook ESB > I have often wondered just what it is in Red Hook ESB that > makes it soooo good?! Red Hook is known for having a high diacetyl concentration. You may experience this as a buttery or a butterscotch flavor/aroma. I've noticed it more in bottles than on draft. Mike Hall Los Alamos Atom Mashers -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Dec 18 05:20:24 1993 From: "Roger Deschner " Subject: That Special Something (was Red Hook Characteristics) I suspect what you are experiencing in Red Hook ESB (and I've experienced it in that beer too) is what could simply be referred to as "magic", for lack of a better term. This is something that is truly subjective. It is probably a combination of freshness, UTTERLY perfect balance, perfect serving temperature, and something from the Brewing Gods that we all know when we taste it, but we can never quite put our finger on. A beer in many categories can have that wonderful something special. It is a testament to extremely skillful control over ingredients, formulation, technique, and some good luck as well. When judging, these are the obvious 40+ beers, that get perfect scores for "Drinkability and Overall Impression". To taste an occasional beer with that magic something is one of the main reasons I put up with all this nonsense. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Dec 23 04:17:16 1993 From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: pride & clean bottles HBD recently has been having a discussion about the "bottle inspection" line on the AHA judging form. I suspect most of you have seen it. Since the Judge Digest traffic is pretty light, I hope you won't mind me sending this note to both HBD and Judge. I expect to get a different set of responses in the two different forums (fora?). Specifically, am I out of line as a judge on this point? And, why do we judge, anyway? =S] I was recently accused of submitting beer to contests because I'm proud of it. (I know I'm paraphrasing to make a point, so don't flame too hard, ok?) Well, certainly, there's some of that. I don't generally submit swill. (I inflict that on local brewclub members, instead. :-) But what I was getting at was this: any beer I send to a competition is SOMETHING I MADE. It's therefore a LITTLE PART OF ME, and the presentation REFLECTS ON ME. If I send a grungy bottle, that's as good as saying I'M A GRUNGY PERSON. (Sure, sometimes, but not usually in public.) Not to mention the implicit message it sends to the judges: "I didn't have the 5 minutes it would take to clean up this bottle, but I expect you to give the beer in it a thorough evaluation anyway." Someone else complained about how hard it is to clean bottles just to send in beer to a competition. My heart bleeds. Plan ahead. Soak the bottle for a day or two. I have yet to find a label that doesn't fall off of its own accord if you soak it long enough. The last competition I judged, 5 judges decided for one reason or another not to show up. The rest of us spent 6 hours, judging 2 flights (typically >10 beers) each (and then the 6 of us who had any stamina left mass-judged the 8 beers in the barleywine category). And you can't spend 5 minutes cleaning your bottle. Foo. So, if it's such a painful experience, why do I judge? Foremost, probably because it helps me improve my own brewing and my appreciation of good beer. Also, I'm giving something back to the brewing community. And, when you hit that one perfect beer of the competition, it's worth all the infected ones. And, it's fun (at least for the first 10 or so:-). =Spencer P.S. Does any of this relate to the discussion about "language" in the HBD? PPS I'll be on vacation, reading HBD only sporadically, until the new year. If I don't respond to your counter-flames, that's probably why. (And cows can fly:-) -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Dec 28 04:46:17 1993 From: "Bill Kitch" Subject: Certification by Catagory: Am I naive? As a relatively new and uncertified judge I have what may be a dumb question. Why isn't there a system for certification in specific styles in addition to the general BJCP? There are a tremendous number of beers and styles out there. It only makes sence to me that one concentrate on a style or group of similar styles and learn it well. I bring this up because of my interest in Belgian ales. I have lived in Belgium and enjoyed many different Belgian ales. I have heard Belgian style homebrews severly criticised at competitions for having what I consider quintisential Belgian characteristics. Of course I've also heard homebrewers say "Brewing Belgian ales is easy. If it's infected or has strong off-flavors I just call it Belgian." Perhaps the Belgian catagories are the most problematic because of the tremedous diversity of beers brewed in Belgium. However, I can see judging in all the AHA catagories benifiting from judges more familiar w/certain styles. Am I crazy? WAK -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Dec 29 05:05:30 1993 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Re- Style Certification Subject: Re: Style Certification Time:7:25 AM Date:12/28/93 Bill Kitch asks: >Why isn't there a system for certification in specific styles in >addition to the general BJCP? This suggestion has been made several times and discussed at various gatherings of judges and BJCP officials. The general feeling is that this is an idea with merit but is too ambitious for the current BJCP system. My own feelings are that this is an inevitable step in our attempts to quantify the judging skills of our participants. Exactly how it would be implemented is still under consideration. I'd like to see a test project which would focus on meads as a unique style certification. It seems to be the logical test case. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Dec 29 05:05:30 1993 From: malodah at pbgueuze.scrm2700.PacBell.COM (Martin Lodahl) Subject: The BJCP's Non-Specificity In JudgeNet Digest #653, Bill Kitch asked the musical question: > As a relatively new and uncertified judge I have what may be a dumb question. By no means. > Why isn't there a system for certification in specific styles in addition > to the general BJCP? There are a tremendous number of beers and styles > out there. It only makes sence to me that one concentrate on a style or > group of similar styles and learn it well. It makes perfect sense, in fact, and there has been a lot of recent discussion along those lines. I'd be very surprised if there weren't a process of this sort in place within the BJCP within the next three years. I don't know for sure why there wasn't such a thing from the beginning, but some possibilities come to mind. First, participation in homebrew contests grew _very_ rapidly. The stories that seem so appalling now, of pressing the UPS deliveryman into service as a judge, reflect just how far "behind the curve" development of an adequate judge pool really was. The one-size-fits-all approach was a sort of "Wizard of Oz" solution, which would seem reasonable in the context of the RDWHAHB approach of the early contests. It certainly doesn't fit the present level of sophistication of either brewers or judges. A related factor is that the first contests I participated in had very few classes, with extremely broad definitions, and little (if any) relationship to commercial equivalents and generally accepted styles. When the judging criteria is a binary "gosh, gimme more!" vs. "take that sheep-dip away!", a single rating for a judge seems reasonable. The rapid explosion of classes and the sophistication of brewers has left the validity of that approach behind in the dust, though, but have left the problems of how to implement such a system, and what to do about the ratings of the existing judges. > I bring this up because of my interest in Belgian ales. I have lived in > Belgium and enjoyed many different Belgian ales. I have heard Belgian > style homebrews severly criticised at competitions for having what I > consider quintisential Belgian characteristics. That's the problem exactly. I started judging after having a Weizen slammed as "obviously infected" because of its "phenolic, clove-like" tastes. > ... Of course I've also heard > homebrewers say "Brewing Belgian ales is easy. If it's infected or has > strong off-flavors I just call it Belgian." I was hoping we'd seen the last of that. It was only a few years ago that the Belgian classes in any contest were a real horror show. > Am I crazy? WAK In no way. IMHO, of course ... = Martin Lodahl Systems Analyst, Capacity Planning, Pacific*Bell = = malodah at pacbell.com Sacramento, CA USA 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! (Unk.) = -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Dec 29 05:05:30 1993 From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Style Certification WAK writes: >Why isn't there a system for certification in specific styles in addition >to the general BJCP? There are a tremendous number of beers and styles >out there. It only makes sence to me that one concentrate on a style or >group of similar styles and learn it well. Bill-- the reason there is no system for certification in specific styles is because of the fact that the increased testing and administration of credentials would be an order of magnitude more difficult than the existing system. Also, except for the 2nd round of the Nationals, there is often difficulty in just getting a Certified Judge to be in each flight of a competition, let alone matching up judges certified in specific styles. Organizers try their best to match judges up with their preferred styles (as noted on their judge registration forms) but I don't think I've ever gotten my first choice, which shows that it's not very easy to do. Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Dec 30 04:32:41 1993 From: "Phillip Seitz" Subject: Certification for specific styles My own opinion is that it isn't really that big a deal to have enough knowledge in most of the beer styles to provide some adequate judging. Speaking as someone who will be taking the exam quite soon (and therfore reserves the right to fail ignominiously) I think that carving things up into smaller judging certifications would probably only make things more complicated, and that the burden of being able to tell whether an IPA is in style or not isn't overwhelming. Of course people are going to have strengths or weaknesses, but I think having some basic literacy in most areas is a reasonable requirment for anyone wanting to promote beer quality via judging. If it's a price you gotta pay, so be it. In the medical world the approach has been to offer people ADDITIONAL certification for specific expertise above that which is generally required (CAQs, or certificate of added qualification). Even there, though, it's a very touchy issue, although for different reasons. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Dec 30 04:32:41 1993 From: John Mare Subject: RE: Style Specialization A comment on Bill Kitch's excellent questions. I too am a newcomer to the judging scene, as yet uncertified, but I was raised and weaned on British ales, and thus feel a deep affinity for them. It seems to make sense that judges specialize, but how narrow should that specialization be? Ale judge? Does that include alt and Belgian ales? British ale judge? Does that include Scots ales? And heaven forbid, Irish? German lager judge or lager judge? Does that exclude you from judging "steam" beers, or do we have special judges for them? The question Bill asked is in my view excellent, the answers, not at all easy! Lets work on it!! John M., "John's Alehouse", Tucson, Arizona. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Dec 30 04:32:41 1993 From: Bob Devine Subject: Re- Style Certification The suggestion for a "judge knowledge" rating for each style makes a lot of sense. However the evaluation and enforcement of such a rating would be very difficult. Consider the fact that there are (rough numbers for easy calc) 25 beer categories and 500 judges, that means 12,500 exams would be necessary to rank each judge for each category. Plus since knowledge is not static, each judge would want to periodically retake the test to increase their ranking... A more workable approach would be to use a self-ranking method. The BJCP could issue a short test -- multiple choice/fill in the blank/whatever -- for each beer category. Judges would use this as a _guide_ to how much they know about the style. But book-knowledge is not a complete or final measurement of how to judge a beer. And many judges would not bother to take a self-test. But a competition's organizers need some way to form judging groups that is more reliable than just the judge's interest in a category. What matters to a person who entered a beer is what is on the score-sheet, so there could be another check-off box on it that is similar to the current "judge level". The judge would say which level they are: 0. never had any beers of this type before 1. some knowledge 2. quite experienced (have made beers, sampled most commercial examples, know about process, etc.) 3. expert (professional brewer of type, recognized expert, etc). I too have been disappointed by the judging given to a beer of mine. A stout received nearly identical description from both judges (one judge was likely parroting what the other judge said). For the few times I entered, the comments I receive back are usually not too descriptive. Sometimes I wonder why people bother to pay to enter beers! Bob Devine -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Dec 31 05:05:00 1993 From: gummitch at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Re: Category Specialization As one of the members of the AHA Board of Advisors, who jumped around and yelled a lot about this idea during the last meeting, let me make a point or two. Phil (where's my beer, Frane?) Seitz writes: > In the medical world the approach has been to offer people ADDITIONAL > certification for specific expertise above that which is generally > required (CAQs, or certificate of added qualification). Even there, > though, it's a very touchy issue, although for different reasons. > This *is*, in fact, the idea. Specialized certification would exist above and beyond regular BJCP certification. Bob Devine writes: However the evaluation and enforcement > of such a rating would be very difficult. Consider the fact > that there are (rough numbers for easy calc) 25 beer categories > and 500 judges, that means 12,500 exams would be necessary to > rank each judge for each category. Plus since knowledge is > not static, each judge would want to periodically retake the > test to increase their ranking... > The whole point of this approach is that no judge *can* be highly experienced in all categories. The idea is that a judge would apply him/herself to extra study in one or two categories. Obviously, one way of applying oneself to Muncheners would be to spend a few years guzzling in the beer cellars of Bavaria -- but there are other, more realistic approaches as well. I do not think it would require judges retaking their test, as I certainly wouldn't envision this as a ranking such as the regular BJCP method (i.e., no Master Dortmunder Judge status, just Certified Judge, Pale Lager Endorsed). The entire point of this exercise, at least as I envision it, is to avoid the situations that regularly arise where someone who is convinced they're an expert on pale ales, brown ales, dark lagers, wheat beers, Belgian ales, and smoked beers, etc etc etc tells some poor brewer that his weizenbier stinks because it's too phenolic or that her barleywine is inappropriate because it's too light in color. Let Mr Expert take some time to focus on barleywines, reading everything available, tasting as many commercial examples as is possible, and brewing a half dozen batches. > A more workable approach would be to use a self-ranking method. > The BJCP could issue a short test -- multiple choice/fill in > the blank/whatever -- for each beer category. Judges would use > this as a _guide_ to how much they know about the style. > > But book-knowledge is not a complete or final measurement of how to > judge a beer. And many judges would not bother to take a self-test. > But a competition's organizers need some way to form judging groups > that is more reliable than just the judge's interest in a category. > > What matters to a person who entered a beer is what is on the > score-sheet, so there could be another check-off box on it that > is similar to the current "judge level". The judge would > say which level they are: > 0. never had any beers of this type before > 1. some knowledge > 2. quite experienced (have made beers, sampled most commercial > examples, know about process, etc.) > 3. expert (professional brewer of type, recognized expert, etc). > As an organizer who has tried this approach, I can only say that it is a stopgap measure, at best. The reality is that judges often have badly inflated ideas of their own expertise. And they lie. I recently sat as a judge in a pilsner competition. We had to divide the Bohemian pilsners into two tables, and at the *other* table there were two certified judges who spent the entire period blathering on to a local newspaper reporter about this beer and that beer, Great Bloody Experts. They tossed out a truly extraordinary pilsner, which I subsequently tasted -- one of the best homebrewed pilsners I've encountered -- and one judge criticized it for "having DMS or diacetyl aroma". The beers they brought forward, furthermore, were completely undistinguished. But if you had given either of these fellows that check-off above you would have gotten a solid 2, at least: Genius, Impeccable Nose, Knows Everything! > I too have been disappointed by the judging given to a beer of mine. > A stout received nearly identical description from both judges (one > judge was likely parroting what the other judge said). For the few > times I entered, the comments I receive back are usually not too descriptive. > Sometimes I wonder why people bother to pay to enter beers! > Well, yes, precisely. Personally, I'm about ready to give up on entering beers, unless I can be sure that when my Abbey bier is judged people like Martin Lodahl and Phil Seitz are tasting it, or Darryl Richman is going to be evaluating my bock. I hate getting comments back and discovering that the judge hasn't the *faintest* idea of what the beer is supposed to be like, or is perhaps intimidated by the "experienced" judge next to him and parrots the expert's opinion. I say, we either collapse these 25+ categories back to five, or we get some really well-trained, open-minded judges to handle the ones we have. - --Jeff (excessively long-winded) Frane -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Dec 31 05:05:00 1993 From: malodah at pbgueuze.scrm2700.PacBell.COM (Martin Lodahl) Subject: More On Qualifications In JudgeNet Digest #655 the discussion of by-category qualifications continued. Thanks, Bill, for bringing it up! Phillip Seitz opined: > ... I think having > some basic literacy in most areas is a reasonable requirment for anyone > wanting to promote beer quality via judging. If it's a price you gotta > pay, so be it. Amen. > In the medical world the approach has been to offer people ADDITIONAL > certification for specific expertise above that which is generally > required (CAQs, or certificate of added qualification). Even there, > though, it's a very touchy issue, although for different reasons. Excellent idea. >From John Mare: > A comment on Bill Kitch's excellent questions. I too am a newcomer to the > judging scene, as yet uncertified, but I was raised and weaned on British > ales, and thus feel a deep affinity for them. It seems to make sense that > judges specialize, but how narrow should that specialization be? Ale judge? > Does that include alt and Belgian ales? British ale judge? Does that include > Scots ales? And heaven forbid, Irish? German lager judge or lager judge? > Does that exclude you from judging "steam" beers, or do we have special > judges for them? The question Bill asked is in my view excellent, the > answers, not at all easy! Lets work on it!! No, it's not easy, and a lot of the burden ends up on the shoulders of contest organizers. In our "pool" we have a fellow whose in-depth knowledge of the pale ales of his homeland is a very valuable asset, but he's the first to admit that his judging of almost any other style is likely to be unimpressive. We just work with that, and give him all the pale ales he can stand. The unfortunate side-effect is a certain "type-casting," as he's unlikely to improve in the categories he isn't judging. I've been "type-cast" as a Belgian judge for years, but try to branch out into other classes as often as possible, if a strong Belgian panel can be made up without me. Bob Devine pointed out just how daunting an undertaking this could be: > ... Consider the fact > that there are (rough numbers for easy calc) 25 beer categories > and 500 judges, that means 12,500 exams would be necessary to > rank each judge for each category. Plus since knowledge is > not static, each judge would want to periodically retake the > test to increase their ranking... Houlala. That's a lot of exams. Presumably, though, supplementary exams would be shorter than the general exam. > A more workable approach would be to use a self-ranking method. > The BJCP could issue a short test -- multiple choice/fill in > the blank/whatever -- for each beer category. Judges would use > this as a _guide_ to how much they know about the style. The problem being, of course, that not all judges are realistic about their abilities. In our "pool," again, we have one judge who shows up for every sanctioned event, and took the test over and over until he qualified for National ranking, but can't tell IPA from the local brewpub from unleaded regular from the local self-serve. Serving on a panel with him is an experience eagerly to be missed. He rates his own abilities, though, even more highly than the BJCP does ... > But book-knowledge is not a complete or final measurement of how to > judge a beer. And many judges would not bother to take a self-test. > But a competition's organizers need some way to form judging groups > that is more reliable than just the judge's interest in a category. That's indeed the nub of the matter. > I too have been disappointed by the judging given to a beer of mine. > A stout received nearly identical description from both judges (one > judge was likely parroting what the other judge said). For the few > times I entered, the comments I receive back are usually not too descriptive. > Sometimes I wonder why people bother to pay to enter beers! Frankly, I think that BJCP classes should distribute examples of well-done score sheets, and should critique score sheets filled out by class participants. In my files I have a copy of a score sheet someone got from Maureen Nye of the Maltose Falcons, that I think is a perfect example of what a score sheet should be. The strengths and weaknesses are noted in a detailed, supportive way. The brewer reading that knows exactly what to try next, and feels encouraged to do so. When sheets like that are the rule rather than the exception, the BJCP will have succeeded. = Martin Lodahl Systems Analyst, Capacity Planning, Pacific*Bell = = malodah at pacbell.com Sacramento, CA USA 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! (Unk.) = --------------------------------------