From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Mon May 16 07:03:07 1994 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA24020 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Mon, 16 May 94 07:02:59 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA06493 for ; Mon, 16 May 94 06:36:59 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA29845; 16 May 94 05:23:21 EDT (Mon) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9405160523.AA29845 at synchro.com> From: judge-request at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #761 (May 16, 1994) Date: 16 May 94 05:23:21 EDT (Mon) JudgeNet Digest #761 Mon 16 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: Top Down Judging (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630)) BJCP organization question (MIKE LELIVELT) Questions - Newbie (Rich Fortnum) Reviewer Wanted (Chuck Cox) bloody mead ("Daniel F McConnell") bloody mead ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 08:45:50 -0400 (EDT) From: rgarvin at btg.com (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630)) Subject: Top Down Judging I thought that I had made a pretty bold statement dismissing bottom up judging (which the AHA score sheets favor) and advocating top down judging. No email, no posts, is this such a widely held belief that I did not shock anyone? Recent discussions on the NHC first rounds indicated that judges were pushed to perform at a pace faster than they were comfortable to judge at. What is a good pace? I know that if I sit a table with Jim Busch and Tim Artz that 10 minutes would be a long time to spend on one beer. However, when judging with neophytes 10 minutes is a fast beer. For me, the top down approach leads to faster, more accurate judging that, when it is over, allows the consensus to build quickly and with few disputes. Cheers, Rick <-- wants to talk on this subject ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 08:47:27 -0400 (EDT) From: MIKE LELIVELT Subject: BJCP organization question I agree with several individuals comments that a corner of one's brain could be filled with style knowledge as opposed to x experience points makes one y level judge. However, most exam takers do have a fairly decent grasp of this. Obviously Pat, Alberta, and the rest of the gang think that this is important. Since there has been argument about the length of the exam, one could consider the exam to have only nine questions plus the obligatory organization question. >From the exam taker's point of view, this should be a welcomed question. One will be ask (without a doubt) to run through the BJCP organization data. Bingo, automatic 7% of the exam finished. I, too, would like to extend sincere thanks to Russ W. for posting the list. Mike Lelivelt ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 May 94 16:10:41 GMT From: Rich Fortnum < at beerich.demon.co.uk:rich at rich.demon.co.uk> Subject: Questions - Newbie I have a couple of questions. I am not a judge...yet. :-) About exam results. The recognition is based on an exam (which is worth 70% from what I hear) and the rest (30%) is based on a tasting. The combination of these two gives a total out of 100%. So far so good. If I get 85%, but have no points, I am recognized. If I earn points past 20, must I take this examination over again to get National status? About measurements. I find it a bit strange that when the brewing world is based on Metric, that a judging group would make all of its calculations in Imperial. Can people take the exam in Metric, or will people not get the marks? About events. How does one get invited to participate as a judge at an event? Let's say I want to get down in to the States (I'm Canadian) for an event. Does somebody ask me, or would I have to poke my nose in? Do more experienced judges hog the good events? Cheers. Facing brewing exams of my own. :-) BeeRich Malting, Brewing & Distilling Science Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh, Scotland e-mail: rich at beerich.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 May 94 22:43:24 EDT From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Reviewer Wanted Stephen Mallery asked me to post the following: > BrewingTechniques magazine, a national technically oriented magazine for > home, pub, and microbrewers, is looking for a qualified person to read and > write a review of "Evaluating Beer," released last fall by Brewers > Publications. The editor would like to run the review in the next issue > (July/August) and would therefore need the completed review by June 1 > (possibly stretched to June 3 or June 6 at the latest). Target length: > 700-900 words. He will overnight the book to the reviewer, and the reviewer > gets to keep it. For more information, contact editor Stephen Mallery by > e-mail, bteditor at aol.com Stephen does not receive JudgeNet, so you must contact him directly. - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 1994 12:33:18 -0400 From: "Daniel F McConnell" Subject: bloody mead Subject: bloody mead Last week I posted my interesting experience judging at the 1st round in Chicago where I had the opportunity to consume a mead flavored with raspberries and a few drops of O pos blood..... and asked _what would you do?_ Here's the follow-up, ie what I did... We decided not to drink it, but we judged it for appearance and aroma and wrote an explaination that went something like this: Although I am confident that no diseases may be transmitted in this fashion, I have decided not to taste your mead. The inclusion of human blood, either accidental or on purpose is clearly uncalled for. If this is a joke, it simply isn't funny. Imagine what would have happened if it had been passed on to the second round in Denver! DanMcC ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************