From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Mon May 8 03:35:56 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["18407" "" " 8" "May" "1995" "02:18:15" "EDT" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "379" "JudgeNet Digest #1037 (May 08, 1995)" "^Date:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3) with X.500 id DAA07313; Mon, 8 May 1995 03:35:53 -0400 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3) with SMTP id DAA07308; Mon, 8 May 1995 03:35:52 -0400 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA04380 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Mon, 8 May 95 03:35:48 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA06967 for ; Mon, 8 May 95 03:25:29 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA18345; 8 May 95 02:18:15 EDT (Mon) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9505080218.AA18345 at synchro.com> Date: 8 May 95 02:18:15 EDT (Mon) From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1037 (May 08, 1995) JudgeNet Digest #1037 Mon 08 May 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: Re: JudgeNet Digest #1036 (May 05, 1995) ("Lee C. Bussy") Chuck's power trip and the BJCC (MJL) Judging to style (bickham) needless flames / plastic cups (uswlsrap) Re: Judging Odds and Ends (spencer) Judge police, quality and flames (Fred Hardy) Judging Judges ("Kieran O'Connor") Good Judges and Rankings ("Manning Martin MP") ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 06:58:15 +0000 From: "Lee C. Bussy" Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #1036 (May 05, 1995) On 5 May 95, Bill Giffin this about JudgeNet Digest #1036 (May 05, 1995: > You don't need to Al they are both doppel bocks. Maybe I am > glad you don't judge in NE!! This guy is obviously a diplomat. > Lee not only haven't you got a clue what beer is, you don't > even suspect what beer is. If beer does not have DMS > chances are it is not beer! Please read You apparently attended the Andy Rooney School of Diplomacy. Here is the AHA's description of a Cream Ale: (e) Cream Ale/Lager Very pale. Effervescent. Light body. Low to medium bitterness. Low hop flavor or aroma OK. Low fruitiness/ester OK. Can use ale or lager yeasts or combination. Notice nothing about a vegetal odor being appropriate. You could have pointed out that even though it is not in the guidelines there may be historical relevance to it's presence in beer but you chose to attack my character and credentials. What a big man you are. - -- -Lee Bussy | Screaming on the Internet with | leeb at southwind.net | Windows 95!!!! 32 Bit made simple! | Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 May 1995 08:25:46 -0400 (EDT) From: MJL at UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU Subject: Chuck's power trip and the BJCC I am of one Chuck's regional database adminstrators, so take that into consideration when reading the following. First, I am thankful that Chuck Cox has the activation energy to initiate some form of database management based on volunteer labor. Obviously this is what the BJCP needs. I doubt the money or the desire will be present to buy a James Spence clone. Just to remind everyone of the obvious, competitions and paper work are still occurring after the breakup. As the AHA held the default position for competition sanctioning and point recording, all competition organizers (except those who read JND) will go with the AHA. Though the BJCC is making attempts at forming an elected board, they started the race far behind. We need to make every attempt to rush the implimentation of a new program. Second, I understand how JaH might interpret Chuck's actions as attempting to gain power. However in this situation I would reread the BJCP rules (aka constitution?) to remind myself that the BJCC holds the power. If the BJCC doesn't like the program Chuck has implemented, they can form their own. I look at it this way. Someone has to maintain the database. There may be competition for being elected to that position. If Chuck has already worked through the details of instilling a program, he would be more likely to get BJCC votes than someone who has not. I guess I has just reiterated what Chuck tersely said yesterday. Hey BJCC, if you don't like it, do it yourself. Mike Lelivelt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 10:18:51 -0400 (EDT) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Judging to style This is just my two cents worth. When judging a beer against a set of style guidelines, remember that they are just guidelines, and there's a chance that the person judging across from you knows the style better than the person who wrote those style guidelines. There are several examples of beers that fall into the written descriptions: witbiers that finish without a slight lactic sourness, IPA with gravities of 1.050, chocolately dunkelweizens and altbiers with only 25 bittering units. Those characteristics are all within the AHA style guidelines, but do not describe the majority of commercial beers that define the style, and quite honestly, I would score them at best in the low 30s. The key is to use what you read about the style as written guidelines, and let your palate do the rest. We are obviously not as skilled as dogs in recognizing specific flavors and aromas out of thousands of different combinations, but our brains can easily assign labels to certain flavor combinations that were perceived when we tasted a particular beer. I would not judge dry stouts unless I had a good memory of my last pint of Guinness, IPAs without remembering a fresh Young's Special London Ale, etc. Once that is there, you've vastly improved on the technique of comparing the taste of the beer you're judging against a terse style description written by someone else. Auf ein neues, Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 May 1995 10:53:29 EDT From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Subject: needless flames / plastic cups Bill Giffin took offence at Al Korzonas' remark about distinguishing between similar OGs: Although Al is capable of coming to his own defence, I will make this note anyway to illustrate that it was evident to others what (I believe) he meant. If you have two beers _entered_ as Traditional Bocks, one at 1074 (within the style guideline, though overlapping the Doppelbock guideline), and another at 1080 (at the top of the Doppelbock guideline, but not really all _that_ much more than 1074), you will definitely recognise both as big beers, but depending on other characteristics of the entries, you may not be able to distinguish between them to be able to note that one is in range for a Bock and the other is too big. For those particular entries you might think either both are too big, or both of them at the high end of the traditional bock range. Depending on all the other varying characteristics of the particular entries, you _might_ even perceive the 1074 to be bigger than the 1080. Or, you might give the award to the 1080 "Bock" over the 1074 entry because the 1074 may be noticeably flawed and the 1080, on balance, closer to the "traditional bock" guidelines despite a higher gravity. Bill, as you said about being careful about throwing matches, a 1074 beer can indeed be a doppelbock. But it can also be a traditional bock. Read your style chart. Gravity isn't the only determinant of style, and Al didn't say anything about those other characteristics. So keep the flame-thrower in check. Plastic cups: I scored the American Pale Ale calibration beer we had at the NHC-Midwest last weekend rather low, in part for what I perceived to be a "plastic" character. I raised the score before submitting the sheets because when I went back to the aroma at the end, it was not nearly so strong. Yes, I believe it was the cup, and we unstacked the cups to air them out before the entries were brought out to us. They were the standard flavour wheel cups, and they had an unacceptably high plastic smell that lingered long enough that it remained even though the beer was poured in the staging area and brought to the table. That suggests two (or three) things to me: 1) I much prefer to use glass over plastic and would recommend it whereever possible. It also isn't terribly common. The only competitions where I have seen glass being used are at our own recent competitions in Madison (pat self on back??) and the Oregon State Fair last year. If you're judging in a brewpub or other restaurant and have helpful staff, it's not such a problem to be able to use glass. But the Oregon State Fair competition was conducted in a beverage distributor's warehouse, where we used wine glasses, which we rinsed at the table between beers. So even in a less than ideal setting, it can be done. 1a) If you do use plastic, unstack the cups and air them out. 2) The incident showed an unexpected benefit of using a calibration beer. We discovered the problem on something other than an entry and were able to correct the problem before doing an injustice to someone's beer. There's also a lot less waste when you use reusable glass instead of throwaway plastic cups. (okay, so make that four reasons) Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino / Disoriented in Badgerspace uswlsrap at ibmmail.com THIS SPACE UNDER RENOVATION ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 95 10:56:52 EDT From: spencer at med.umich.edu Subject: Re: Judging Odds and Ends I always check the "glasses" ahead of time when I'm judging. If they smell plasticky, I set out a few to "air". Usually, the plastic aroma will dissipate after a few minutes, and before pouring the beer. As a competition organizer, I've always tried to get high-quality plastic cups, similar to the ones the AHA sells (with the beer-flavor wheel on them) (but cheaper :-). Why not glass? I like to keep samples of all the beers in a flight (or at least the current top 3 or 4) in front of me for comparison with the beer currently under consideration. I realize that beer changes as it sits out, but I think it's still a more reliable method than going by memory. It's difficult to supply enough glass glasses to let the judges do this. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 11:21:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Fred Hardy Subject: Judge police, quality and flames I have been following several threads and I feel a need to throw in my $0.02. About Judge Police - I admit we all make mistakes when judging. Maybe a bad day, excessive pollen in the air, food odors in the judge area, bad plastic glasses, too rushed, too many brews to judge, insufficient knowledge, etc. As I understand the Judge Police thread, we need a central body to identify those judges who do not meet some, as yet undefined, standard, but are guilty of judging transgressions. Alternatively, the organizers, with their infinite wisdom, will assume the role of police and evaluate score sheets to correct the problem at the source. I am both an organizer (1995 Capitol District Open, November 4, 1995, Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill, Washington, DC) and an experienced judge. I personally do not feel I can presume to judge the work of my fellow judges. To do so in real time during the competition is out of the question. When I finally see the rankings of the individual flights (let alone, score sheets) there is barely enough time for me to work with the judge coordinator to assign flights and judges for the second round. Additionally, most of the judges are judging, and neither have the time nor the right to evaluate their peers' work. We usually have some judges having lunch and grumbling because one flight is only 1/2 finished. I am also working with the head steward to set up the second round, etc., etc. Sorry, there is simply not enough time to judge judges' comment sheets. Some judges are certainly better than others. However, I am so delighted to have enough BJCP judges to run our competition that I would be aghast at the idea of telling a judge s/he is not good enough to participate in our competition. For all who helped us in the past, thank you, thank you. I hope to see you again this year. Folks, let us get our facts straight and clarify our comments when we feel an urge to flame someone. Recently a contributor was berated because he claimed he could not tell a 1074 traditional bock from a 1080 dopplebock. The flamer shouted back that they were both dopplebocks, etc., etc., and implied the original poster should not be a judge. I agree with the original poster; the difference between a big bock and a small dopplebock is, in fact, zero. Upper guideline OG for a traditional bock and the lower OG guideline for a dopplebock are both 1074. Check before firing. DMS was both praised and damned in a different thread. DMS is probably not the problem being discussed. I believe it is what helps to make beer beer, and lager lager. Detectable DMS is generally essential to most beer styles. On the other hand, the flavor and aroma of creamed corn, cooked veggies, etc. is a fault in any beer I know of (including the 10 gallons of stout I have at home, which reeks of the stuff), and results from excessive DMS. Only offensive levels of the stuff should be graded down. A final word. Congratulations to Bill Woodring, Keith Symonds, their staff and the good folks at New England Brewing for another successful 1st round AHA NHC in the NE Region. Food, facilities, organization and hospitality were superb. ============================================================================== We must invent the future, else it will | happen to us and we will not like it. | [Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"] | email: fcmbh at access.digex.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 14:35:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Kieran O'Connor" Subject: Judging Judges Bob Hall discussed helping judges to continue honing their skills. This comment is more appropriately brought up to the BJCC in July--but I put it in JudgeNet now for food for thought. Perhaps one of the requirements of advancing as a judge would be "refresher courses" put on my senior judges--judges could judge a brew or two and then their sheets would be evaluated. The senion judges (nat'l and master) might have this type of service as a requirement for advancing. Just a thought. Now about that DMS.... Kieran ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kieran O'Connor koconnor at mailbox.syr.edu Syracuse, N.Y. USA In vino veritas; in cervesio felicitas. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 1995 13:13:06 U From: "Manning Martin MP" Subject: Good Judges and Rankings Here's a thought. Rather than basing rankings on points earned and a *composite* exam score (at present heavily weighted to the technical side), separate the two parts of the exam (judging skills and technical knowledge), and require "X" points earned and a certain score for a certain ranking on both parts of the exam? This would insure that an individual of a given rank can (at least if he/she tries) can do a commensurate job of judging, scoring, and commenting on beers. This might also be a good thing for someone who scored well enough on one part but not the other, as a judge could repeat one part or both as needed, and avoid the three-hour marathon when it's not necessary. MPM ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************