From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Fri Apr 8 06:30:58 1994 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA13363 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Fri, 8 Apr 94 06:30:53 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA24435 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 94 06:03:31 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA20760; 8 Apr 94 05:14:47 EST (Fri) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9404080514.AA20760 at synchro.com> From: judge-request at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #732 (Apr 08, 1994) Date: 8 Apr 94 05:14:47 EST (Fri) JudgeNet Digest #732 Fri 08 Apr 1994 THE BEER JUDGE DIGEST Chuck Cox , digest administrator Michael Hall , archive administrator digest submissions to judge at synchro.com administrative requests to judge-request at synchro.com send rank updates to the administrative address messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored FTP archive information in /pub/judge/README on cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov Sponsored by SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery Contents: Re: Still Bitchin' about Porter (Jeff Frane) Porter Representitives ("Palmer.John") Norman Dickenson's HWBTA comment (Rick Garvin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 07:00:37 -0700 (PDT) From: gummitch at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Re: Still Bitchin' about Porter James Spence writes: > It is illogical to say that because a beer is outside of the style guidelines, > that the style guidelines are incorrect. If we don't want to brew to style > guidelines, that's just fine. But we shouldn't complain if we submit a beer > that is outside of the guidelines and it doesn't win. By participating in a > competition, any competition, we agree to abide by the rules of the > competition. If we don't agree with the rules, we don't have to participate, or > we can make reasonable and constructive suggestions for changing the rules. > Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I did not suggest that "the style guidelines are incorrect" because a porter of mine, f'rinstance, fell outside the guidelines. What I said was the guidelines are poorly drawn, no one can agree on what they should be and therefore it is impossible to come to a consensus about what a Porter should be. The reason that categories work in competitions, especially in national events, is that they are, for the most part, agreed-upon by the competitors and the judges. Simply because the NHCC decides, by judicial fiat, that a Porter is xxx does not mean that this definition is going to work for the members (remember them?) of the AHA. Just because you brought the baseball doesn't mean that you get to decide all the rules of the game. And Chuck Cox (who obviously peeked) wrote: > > Perhaps an analogy is in order here... > Said analogy being provided by those of us too thick to understand James' point or to have figured it out ourselves. > Similarly, beer competitions don't have to have a category for every > conceivable beer. As long as the competition categories are clearly > defined, it is the brewer's responsibility to produce a beer that > conforms to the classing structure. A beer that does not fit an > available category is no less of a beer, but it is not appropriate for > that competition. > To which I say, fine. I also say, bullshit. It is the responsibility of the organizer to *correctly* define the terms. If you want to run a dog show and define a dachshund as a large, hairy sheep-herding breed you can do it. But you will find yourself with a lot of disgruntled dachshund breeders. I still say this: until you can adequately define the term "porter" there will continue to be disgruntled porter brewers. Definitions have to be drawn, not in an arbitrary way, but by some real standards. Unfortunately, those standards either (a) do not exist or (b) are so broad that they are meaningless in this particular instance. It is equivalent to Fred Eckhardt's often-suggested category "good beer", which is something that is tasty but not something that fits into any existing category. And furthermore, I have no idea if I spelled dachshund correctly, and furthermore I don't care! - --Jeff ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 1994 08:09:42 U From: "Palmer.John" Subject: Porter Representitives Hello Group, Many of you know me from the HBD. I would like to preface my first post to this forum by saying that I while I do have an active interest in becoming a beer judge, I don't consider myself qualified by any stretch of the imagination at this point. But I do have some suggestions regarding defining a Porter. Likely you all discussed these points last month before I joined. In that case, this is a quick refresher. I like the Porter Style, which to me, fits between the normal bodied Brown Ales and the burnt-toast tasting Stouts. I have tried several commercial examples in my own attempt to define it. So far, I have tried Brewski's, Samual Smiths, Boulder, Anchor, Sierra Nevada and a couple other micro-brews not worth remembering. So far, I consider Anchor, SN and SS to be the best tasting. Now I believe that the SS- Tadcaster Porter is mentioned in MJs Pocket Guide to Beer to actually be SS- Nourishing Strong Stout? Now this raises a question as to how many styles of Stout there are, (2?) Dry and Sweet... Currently the AHA has two Styles of Porter- Robust and Brown. What I am getting at is, why not redefine Porter by the benchmark American Porters, Anchor and SN? Call it American Porter and define it along the lines of half of the (roast/toast malt) ingredients of a Stout. Can we not define it by looking at the body (FG), greater than an American Brown Ale, and less than or equal to a light Stout, with a background Toasted malt taste, less predominant than Stout. I guess the current AHA guidelines are much like this, but I think there should be a definite break between the Brown Ale and the Porter even if it means eliminating the Brown Porter (Light Porter?) category. (Amid glares of disgust and consternation, John shuffles back to the corner of the room) John Palmer palmer at ssdgwy.mdc.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 15:23:37 -0400 (ADT) From: Rick Garvin Subject: Norman Dickenson's HWBTA comment I tried to respond to Norman's comment via private emial at noreman.dickenson at sonoma.ed but it bounced. Norman, try to contact me directly at rgarvin at btg.com. Cheers, Rick ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************