From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Tue Apr 25 09:13:34 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11096" "" "25" "April" "1995" "02:17:28" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "230" "JudgeNet Digest #1028 (Apr 25, 1995)" "^Date:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3) with X.500 id DAA21095; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 03:46:00 -0400 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3) with SMTP id DAA21061; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 03:45:48 -0400 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA06200 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Tue, 25 Apr 95 03:45:43 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA02564 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 95 03:34:19 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA05595; 25 Apr 95 02:17:28 EST (Tue) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9504250217.AA05595 at synchro.com> Date: 25 Apr 95 02:17:28 EST (Tue) From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1028 (Apr 25, 1995) JudgeNet Digest #1028 Tue 25 Apr 1995 JudgeNet The Beer Judge Digest digest submissions: judge at synchro.com administrative requests: judge-request at synchro.com send cancellations & rank updates to the administrative address messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored FTP Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu in /pub/judge WWW Archives: http://guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu/Beer/Judge Gopher Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu Editor: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publishers: SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery Anti-Prohibitionists may also be interested in LiBeerty: The Libertarian Beer Digest Subscription info: libeerty-request at synchro.com Contents: 1995 MAZER CUP (spencer) "big" beers / scoring (uswlsrap) When does one actually become a BJCP member? (Kevin Schutz) Re: When does one actually become a BJCP member? (Chuck Cox) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 95 10:39:51 EDT From: spencer at med.umich.edu Subject: 1995 MAZER CUP The Mazer Cup announcement is also available on "the web" at http://guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu/Beer/AABG/Mazer_Cup.html Or start at my beer page: http://guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu/Beer/, and follow the link to "Beer-related Pages" / "competitions". =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 11:56:17 EDT From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Subject: "big" beers / scoring With this being the week before the NHC 1st round, perhaps some of the discussion should turn to judging rather than points (yes, I've been guilty, too) or the BJCC. Not that I mean to discourage open discussion on BJCP issues It's very important that work continue at a good pace toward a strong independent BJCP, but let's get a little "judging-talk" in here this week, ok? BIG beers. No, I'm not talking about our BIG AND HUGE again (but if you're coming to the Chicago NHC, I'll be willing to carry back entries for you and would welcome any judging volunteers), but about the concern that "big" beers were running away with awards even though they were far out of proper style ranges. Sure, the person who submits a doppelbock at the high end of that gravity range shouldn't be entering and winning in the traditional German bock category. But let's be careful not to carry that concern too far in the other direction. An example: (Names and other details omitted to protect the innocent/guilty) I was judging at a competition in which I heard someone remarking on the great beer his table had in (style), but it was more like a (really, really high gravity style), so they felt they had to make it fourth. Fast forward to getting my score sheets back. That was my beer. Most of the comments just raved about how it was the best beer they'd had that morning, et cetera. But in the flavour section, along with the comments about great malt, great hops, each judge had his opinion on which higher gravity style in which it should have been entered. So, was I trying to weasel an award by entering a huge beer in a category where it didn't belong? Hardly. I was a couple OG points over the top of the style guideline in the 1.050s. This was no 1.100 OG barley wine by any means. And the judge wasn't an inexperienced judge who doesn't know what he's talking about, either. He's experience points well beyond his "certified" exam score, and I'd be happy to have him judge at any competition I was running, and happy to have him judging my beers. But this "big beer" paranoia has affected even the best of 'em. (Indeed, I imagine that a less experienced judge, or someone who doesn't read judgenet and not exposed elsewhere to the talk about "big beer bias" might give a more "accurate" scoring on some of these beers.) Yes, be aware that some people enter beers far too big for the style, but let's also try not to penalise well-made full-bodied, well-balanced beers on the suspicion that someone's trying to get away with something. We're not perfect. Judging isn't an "exact science" (although some aspects of beer evaluation are). I don't get 'em right all the time either. I was judging a combined category and when I paired up with the senior judge from the other pair for a best-of-category round, I encountered a smoked wee-heavy, that we gave second place. Sure, it was a pretty big beer, and the smoked cetegory was clearly evident but not overpowering. During the awards ceremony I sat across the table from the person who, it turned out, brewed that beer. When he described his smoked beer, I said I didn't think he'd gotten an award because he said he had an 1.101 beer. Remember, I didn't judge all the smoked beers the first time around. All I had were the ones that the other pair of judges passed to the best-of-category. Nonetheless, I'd have never imagined that the beer was _that_ big. Okay, now on to a pet peeve of mine on the way some people score beers. Some people will try the beer and decide upon a score ("Hmmmm... This one seems like a 32 beer....") and then make up the points to make it add up that way. That kind of scoring is a disservice to the brewer. Maybe that is a 32 beer, but when you arbitrarily assign points to the different sections on the scoresheet, you aren't conveying useful information to the brewer. I don't like judging with those judges for that reason. A variation on that (and I've judged with someone who admits that's what he does) is to use the final "Drinkability" section as a "fudge factor" in arriving at that final score. Again, maybe it is that 32 beer, but when you've said fairly positive things about the beer as you've gone down the sheet, how can you say 3 points out of 10 for drinkability?? I wouldn't choose to drink a beer that, style considerations aside, could score only 3 on a scale of 10. If you're sure you gave valid scores on the other sections of the score sheet,but have only 3 points left out of that predetermined score to put on "drinkability," maybe that 32 beer is really a 35 (such a beer, it would seem, would warrant more like 6 points for drinkability), or you need to go back and look for where you scored too high elsewhere if you're not comfortable with 35. You may not agree with the way the scoresheet allocates points, but that's what you're expected to work with. Get used to it, or convince someone to change it. Even within the sections, people screw around too much. Appearance is six points, with 2 points each for colour, clarity, and head retention. How, then, can a beer a judge says has great clarity and head retention, give only 2 points for appearance just because it's too dark for the style? Like it or not, colour is two points out of 50. A beer that is too dark (or light) for style, by the scoresheet, can lose only two points for that fact, except to the extent that the things that account for excess/ deficient/wrong colour may carry over into the flavour, or you can take a couple extra points off on the overall evaluation part. But you shouldn't take off more than two points in the appearance section. That works the other way, too. Sometimes you add up the points and get a total that seems way too high for a flawed beer. But if it looked just about perfect it's going to get 5 or 6 points for appearance, and those six points may appear awfully significant when they boost what "ought" to be a low-20s beer into the high 20s. But you're expected to allocate points according to the score sheet categories. Adjust other scores down if you can justify it for the criteria given, but if you can't do it, you're just going to have to live with giving it a higher score that you think it deserves. You may not think that appearance should be able to salvage the score on a flawed beer, but the standards we're expected to observe say that appearance is 12% of the total score. Doing otherwise means a lack of consistency in scoring across different judges who may perceive the very same characteristics in a beer. Hope these get some discussion going.... Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino / Disoriented in Badgerspace / uswlsrap at ibmmail.com - ---THE INTERNET: Hardwiring the neurons of the global brain:--- One geek at a time.... - --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 95 11:04:33 MDT From: kschutz at atmel.com (Kevin Schutz) Subject: When does one actually become a BJCP member? Hello, I've been wondering about the process of "joining" the judging community. I've been connected to the JudgeNet forum for about 6 months, I've judged an actual sanctioned event, and I have recently taken the BJCP exam (no score yet). Have I overlooked any procedural requirements to join the BJCP? I'm assuming taht I'm not listed as a member yet since I have not received any of the mailings to the membership recently mentioned in the JudgeNet. At what point does one actually become a member? Just curious. Kevin Schutz Colorado Springs, CO kschutz at atmel.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 95 16:27:14 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Re: When does one actually become a BJCP member? Kevin Schutz sez... > > I've been wondering about the process of "joining" the judging community. > I've been connected to the JudgeNet forum for about 6 months, I've judged > an actual sanctioned event, and I have recently taken the BJCP exam > (no score yet). I am not sure if you become an official BJCP member when you take the exam or when it is scored, but in fact you will start receiving mailings when your "Participant Information" form is entered into the national database. I have entered all exam data I have received, so if you haven't received any mailings, I probably haven't received your exam data yet (Kevin, I haven't received yours). You should contact your exam administrator to determine the status of your exam results. An interesting side-effect is that even judges that fail the exam are members of the BJCP. They are given the inspiring rank of "N/A". While I am adding judges to the database as the "Participant Information" forms come in, you should be aware that it may take a while to give you credit for past experience points. This is because we must now get confirmation of past experience from the AHA. Don't forget that if you are inactive for 2 years, you will stop receiving mailings, and if you remain inactive for another 2 years, you will be deleted from the database. - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************