From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Wed May 4 06:52:36 1994 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA19377 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Wed, 4 May 94 06:52:30 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA25233 for ; Wed, 4 May 94 06:32:30 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA08110; 4 May 94 05:21:57 EDT (Wed) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9405040521.AA08110 at synchro.com> From: judge-request at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #751 (May 04, 1994) Date: 4 May 94 05:21:57 EDT (Wed) JudgeNet Digest #751 Wed 04 May 1994 THE BEER JUDGE DIGEST Chuck Cox , publisher 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 Published by SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery Contents: re: Score Sheets (The Rider) (Michael Fetzer) Virtual Beer ("Rad Equipment") Virtual Beer Time:10:37 AM Date:5/3/94 the Matrix (Bruce Feist) BJCP Exams (Norman Farrell) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 01:36:48 -0800 From: mfetzer at ucsd.edu (The Rider) (Michael Fetzer) Subject: re: Score Sheets At 5:28 5/2/94 +0000, Bruce.Feist at f615.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Bruce Feist) >Subject: Score Sheets > There is a >strong tendency on the part of judges, particularly (I assume) those with >lesser experience), to count off-flavors too heavily relative to stylistic >adherence. It's counter-intuitive to have to give a good beer that's not >quite true to style a lower rating than a badly infected beer that *is* on >style, yet that is, as I understand it, what we are supposed to do. Great question... I have what I think is a decent solution to the problem... While I agree with you that there is a problem with that scenario, and I know many others agree as well, I'd like to suggest you look at it from a different perspective and try to convey this idea to other judges you're working with. The impression I get is scores go along the lines of good beer/bad beer as opposed to the intended scoring along the lines of style. E.g., the situation you describe, a pale ale with some off flavors being scored more harshly than a badly overhopped and thus off style pale ale with no other off flavors results in a higher score for the latter because it was 'better beer'. This is clearly wrong. Also, I don't think it's possible to have a beer that has off flavors and is 'to style'. These off flavors are not part of the style, otherwise they would not be off flavors. Combining these two ideas you end up with: Beer is rated soley on how well it fits the style, not how good/bad it is to drink. Off flavors are considered *deviation* from style just as the presence of extra hops, malt, etc. are deviations from style. That eliminates the lower half of your table. > Stylistic Adherence > Perfect Slightly Off Unrelated >O F None 35-50 25-34 20-24 >f l Minor xxxxx 20-30 18-22 >f a Major xxxxx xxxxx 15-19 What you have now is a beer with slight off flavor scoring as well, or a bit better, than a beer that is unrelated to style with absolutely no other flaws. But really, we no longer need that second dimension at all. We can go back to the linear scale at the bottom of the score sheet. Just keep in mind: off flavor == off style. Now the only thing you must do is weigh what's worse: phenols in an therwise perfect pale ale, or a cascade nose. Either is 'off style'. Which is more off style? The score sheet tells me: the phenolic one should be in the good to drinkable category, depending on how much defect there is. So should the hoppy one, depending on the level of hops. If both things were present, then we give the beer an 19. I'm told, common curtesy is to not judge beers lower than 19 since part of the purpose of the BJCP is to tactfully point out flaws in homebrewed beers, to educate the brewing public and to promote better overall products without unduly discouraging brewers. In summary, my theory is: treat all flaws and off flavor as a style defect, and be sure the other judges understand that such flaws are off style. Leave your notions of 'good beer' at home with your personal style preferences. You should have no problems. Anyone care to comment? Mike P.S.: indicentally, after my recent exam I spoke with the guy administering them... I mentioned the 'good beer' issue, and that some folks from the Corvallis brew club were considering adding a category to their competitions for simply 'good beer that does not fit a style.' He said that they (the AHA) were actually considering such a thing, and that at the least the competitions in his part of the country (New England) might soon have such a category. - -- Michael Fetzer pgp 2.2 key available on request Internet: mfetzer at ucsd.edu uucp: ...!ucsd!mfetzer Bitnet: FETZERM at SDSC HEPnet/SPAN: SDSC::FETZERM or 27.1::FETZERM ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 1994 10:44:23 -0800 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Virtual Beer Subject: Virtual Beer Time:10:37 AM Date:5/3/94 I just heard a program on Tech Nation (NPR) discussing virtual reality software which enables several "players" to work in groups on virtual projects and then be evaluated as to success/failure. The ultimate in role-playing training. Can't you just see us getting together in this way to brew some virtual beer? Or better yet, judge it!? An interesting idea to replace the BJCP Exam... 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 ------------------------------ Date: 03 May 94 09:00:56 -0500 From: Bruce.Feist at f615.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Bruce Feist) Subject: the Matrix j> From: "John L. Isenhour" j> Bruce writes: BF>strong tendency on the part of judges, particularly (I assume) those with BF>lesser experience), to count off-flavors too heavily relative to stylistic BF>adherence. j> ... BF>a respectable rating of around thirty -- because "only the hopping wasn't BF>true to style". Meanwhile, stylistically correct beers BF>with major flaws were being rated in the lower twenties. j> It seems more of a continuum than two seperate entities to me. I dont see j> how a beer can be stylistically correct if it contains a major flaw. That's a good point; I tend to think in terms of a mixture of style and flaws, but maybe that's an artificial distinction. Or maybe not... I think there's a difference between how a porter entered as a pale ale (yes, it happened) and a badly oxidized pale ale should be treated. j> If a lager has an enteric infection, but thats its 'only' problem, to j> me the defect throws it out of style So, since off-flavors are off-style, stylistic considerations are sufficient? Maybe. - ------------------------------ From: trl at photos.wustl.edu (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965) j> A good point of discussion. Should any beer get a zero? j> Or less than 10? A j> former member of the St. Louis Brews, known far and wide j> for his pithy sayings, j> once quipped that he could, um, pee a 15. Hmm... we have a 'light-colored/yellow ale' competition coming up. Maybe... Nah. It would be too embarassing if I won. j> And so, back to the question I keep harping on: j> "What is the point of the AHA Competitions?" j> If we're first to decide whether a beer tastes good, and j> then decide whether it j> fits the style category, then we've got way too many style categories. I don't follow that; care to try again? j> If we're to decide first whether it fits a (narrow) category, and j> then decide whether it tastes good, then the score-sheet needs to be re- j> designed. Unfortunately, I've never seen a Statement of Goals or some j> such with respect to the competitions, j> and the score sheet itself sends mixed-signals about emphasis. A good point. Exactly what are we trying to accomplish? Bruce - --------- Fidonet: Bruce Feist 1:109/615 Internet: Bruce.Feist at f615.n109.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 May 1994 07:56:59 -0500 From: nfarrell at ppco.com (Norman Farrell) Subject: BJCP Exams >I have to agree about the emphasis on commercial beers. I don't mind >the questions that ask for "commercial examples", because the style >definitions originated from various commercial styles, so you really >need to be familiar with the "originals" in a style to fairly judge >it. I agree. A written style definition only take me so far. Even if the comercial example has a stylistic flaw, it is at least a tangible basis for discussion that a group of people can all taste and hash out around a table at the same time. >As far as the all-grain recipe for STYLE X question goes, I don't >think that it's at all out of line. This is one of the few questions >on the exam that ask you to integrate all your knowledge of styles, >ingredients, and processes. There was not a question like this on the exam I took several years ago. I like the recipe question and the idea of integrating knowledge of ingredients and processes. I consider most BJCP questions I have seen to be open ended. You could go several different ways on the Octoberfest question: Emphasis on the ingredients, emphasis on the extended aging period and it's relationship to the flavor profile, throw in a bit of history, you could even discuss how the extract brewer without refrgeration (insert gasps and other incredulous reactions here) could do the best they could with what they had. Since you might not have time to write all of the information (which is not to say knowledge)crammed into your head for a question like this, you have to select what to put down. That adds another level of sophistication to the question. How would a question like this be graded? Best Regards, Norman (nfarrell at ppco.com) May your last beer be your best! ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************