Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 01:10:01 -0500
Message-Id: <199603060610.BAA04352 at synchro.com>
To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients)
From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator)
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet)
Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk
Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1229 (Mar 05, 1996)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

JudgeNet Digest #1229                              Tue 05 Mar 1996

                               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

        WWW Archives: http://www.umich.edu/~spencer/beer/judge

                 Editor: Chuck Cox <chuck at synchro.com>
             Archivist: Spencer Thomas <spencer at umich.edu>

      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

     For BJCP General Information contact: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents:

  Entries                                  (Algis R Korzonas)
  Re:  Judging points                      ("Lee C. Bussy")
  Judging Judges                           (John DeCarlo                       )
  Points for judging                       ("Ginger Wotring, Pharm/Phys")
  Martin's proposal                        (Dr. Beer)
  Maltose Falcons' Mayfaire Competition    (Brian Vessa)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 96 12:03:27 CST
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Entries

Bob writes:
>> Are the Nationals a crap shoot?  I'll say... if you are lucky enough to get
>> a couple of judges that give a damn, you have a fair chance.  If you don't,
>> then you might as well save your $10 (don't forget shipping).
> 
>Is this the same Al Korzonas who entered _how many_ beers in the AHA last
>year? :-) Should we expect a little more restraint this year? :-) :-)

Perhaps.  I entered 18 beers at the AHA Nationals last year.  Every
single one of those recipes had, or has since, won a 1st place or 2nd place
at another *recent* competition (some as small as "Big and Huge" or "Small
and Tiny" others as big as "The Dixie Cup").  Granted, some were just a
little young and others were just a little past their prime.

To me, winning a ribbon at the AHA Nationals is the brass ring, a goal,
a target to shoot for.  The reason I entered so many beers was *because*
I was aware of the luck involved in getting a couple of skilled, responsible
judges in the first round who *like* your beer and then being lucky enough
to get three more skilled, responsible judges at the second round who also
*like* it.

This year, it will be even more difficult because of the number of beers
going to the second round (more regions).  Now, your beer will have to run
the gauntlet of three sets of judges (the third, theoretically, being most
skilled, but also the most palate fatigued).

Entering the Nationals (to me) is no longer a matter of getting comments.
We have plenty of local competitions here in Chicagoland at which to get
unbiased opinions from good judges.  On the other hand, there are some who
are not so lucky and rely on the Nationals to get feedback.  Here's where
sometimes you get good comments, sometimes you don't.  Imagine what a financial
disaster the AHA Nationals would be if people who got "Just doesn't do it
for me" scoresheets asked for their money back?

Al.
Palos Hills, IL
korz at pubs.att.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 07:10:56 +0000
From: "Lee C. Bussy" <leeb at roadkill.org>
Subject: Re:  Judging points

On  5 Mar 96 at 1:10, Scott Bickham <bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil>
wrote:

> Martin's proposal about a different system for awarding points has
> generated an interesting discussion, and those issues are exactly the
> ones we should be discussing on JudgeNet.  Personal attacks and poor
> efforts at creative writing should be left at home.

I agre and while seeming totaly equitable... how could we ever do it? 
 Even as fair and as easy as this sounds... it leaves a different 
point *structure*.  We would have to re-invent the wheel.  No longer 
would 20 points mean 20 points, it would have to mean 200 points... 
how could we translate?

The current system is/was basically sound although some tweaking is 
definitely in order.  The AHA Nationals stand out begginng to be 
"tweaked". Otherwise... I think we're close.  Not perfect, just 
close.

> event.  It would really suck to have 498 entries at your regional

Not any more than having 148 or 298.  You do have to draw the line 
somewhere though.  

- --
 -Lee C. Bussy/leeb at southwind.net

"Insanity in idividuals is something rare - but in groups
  parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
                         - Nietzsche

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 96 06:50:48 EST
From: John DeCarlo                        <jdecarlo at burp.org>
Subject: Judging Judges

Here is an abbreviated copy of the annual review my boss gave me for my 
judging career:

Palate:  Somewhat improved, though still middle-of-the-road.  Kept palate 
exercised, particularly in the harder-to-keep-up-with lambics.  Tasted and 
judged meads to further educate palate.  Needs more work--a Dr. Beer (tm) 
type session would help.

Experience:  Kept judging to keep in practice.  Judged more styles, 
including the previously-avoided-like-the-plague light lager styles.  Judged
meads with expert mead judges and learned a lot.  Continued to judge Belgian
styles and learned from experts and educated a few somewhat.

Scoresheets:  Hard to tell.  Hopefully have improved both legibility and 
range of commentary.  Have slacked off on recommendations to brewers, due in
part to realizing that judges have no information on what was done and not 
wanting to appear foolish.  Got some feedback from fellow judges I judged 
and found both good (helpful/useful to brewer) and bad (disparaging and 
unhelpful) things I wrote.  Needs more work.

Working with others:  Judges well with others.  Rarely annoys or insults 
other judges while judging. <grin>

Overall:  Has improved as a judge.  Must work harder on palate--keep it 
exercised.  Should judge more beers informally to keep in shape (brewpubs, 
club meetings, etc.). Further education is always needed.  Keep working on 
comments--eliminate those that are disparaging or unhelpful.

As you can see, my boss (me) likes my work, but isn't satisfied.  But what 
does *he* know?  Typical clueless manager, that's what *I* think.

Maybe I should staple questionnaires with self-addressed envelopes to random
judging sheets to see what the brewers think.  I already put my e-mail 
address on there, just in case.  I can't rely on competition 
organizers--they are overworked and need me as a judge anyway.

Comments?  Maybe we could come up with a better review form.  Are there 
categories I missed?  Just thinking about a review form, and filling it out
yourself, can be helpful.

Fidonet:  1:109/131  Internet:  jdecarlo at burp.org


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 08:06:09 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ginger Wotring, Pharm/Phys" <WOTRING at SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
Subject: Points for judging


I haven't heard enough organizers wailing about this idea of 
figuring points by a judge according to the number of beers
in their flights, and I'm surprised. Organizing a competition
of any size is, in addition to being fun and rewarding, a
whole bunch of pain-in-the-butt paperwork. Asking me to 
now, when assigning judges to flight, take into consideration
their ranks, what categories they have entered, who I think
they will be able to work well with, their experience with 
sampling and brewing a particular style, *and* make sure
that everybody winds up with roughly the same points at the 
end of the weekend is asking too much. Although exceptions
occur, most organizers seem to make flights that are composed 
of 7 to 12 beers. Additionally, a judge who is in a large flight
for one round may be put on a smaller one in another round, 
decreasing the likelihood of exhausting palates. I really 
don't think great injustices are being to judges with our
current system. And I certainly don't think adding more
stuff for the organizer to keep track of is worth whatever
refinement in the experience levels might result.

As far as judges who participate for only part of competition
getting that same points as those there for the whole event,
I would have no problem with a flat "x points per flight"
rule.  But, at least here in St Louis, we so rarely have judges
who only judge a flight or two instead of an entire event that
I tend to think this is not really a problem either.

And how's this for a judge's comment?
>From a certified judge from large and respected club in the Midwest
on the drinkability of my barleywine: "Thanks for the buzz..."
Perhaps we should devote more of our discussion time to 
ways we could improve judge education instead. I think that's
something we really do need.

- --
Ginger Wotring  Pharmacology/Physiology
internet: wotring at sluvca.slu.edu


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:32:15 -0500
From: drbeer at tiac.net (Dr. Beer)
Subject: Martin's proposal


        One other drawback to Martin's proposal is that I believe it makes
more work for a competition organizer.  Right now it is fairly
straightforward to track the number of rounds a judge works with no need to
track the number of beers the judge actually scores.  With Martin's proposal
the organizer would additionally have to track both what rounds the judge
works and how many beers in each round.  Since Judge assignment is often
done last minute at some competitions, and there are often last minute
changes due to no shows this presents an additional burden on the organizer.

        Apologies to Martin if I only seem to find flaws with his proposal.
Certainly discussion is worthwhile, but I personally feel that the impetus
is on the person(s) making such proposals, especially when they constitute a
fairly large change in operational procedures.   Things work fairly well now
and undertaking such a major conversion of how we operate requires very
strong justification since it will likely be confusing for both organizers
and judges to change over to a new system.  Which of course is another issue
yet to be discussed.


                          Jay

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalt's

This is a key free document, no keyboards were harmed in its creation.
(The DragonDictate speech recognition system, the CIC handwriting
recognizer, or some combination was used.  Send e-mail to drbeer at tiac.net to
find out more)


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 12:58:43 -0800
From: bav at earthlink.net (Brian Vessa)
Subject: Maltose Falcons' Mayfaire Competition

The Maltose Falcons' 1996 Mayfaire Competition is one of the largest
regional homebrew competitions in the state of California.  Results are
used in the determination of the Sierra Nevada Homebrewer of the Year
award, given each November.  The competition features the largest number of
recognized categories and styles in the country.  The Mayfaire is both BJCP
and AHA sanctioned.

Best of Show prize is "The Bird", a statuette of the Maltose Falcon-named
"Hashiell Dammit"-and a special ribbon.  1st, 2nd and 3rd place ribbons may
be awarded in each beer category, subject to the decision of the judges.

The entries are due by 5:00PM on April 6th, 1996 at:

The Home Wine and Beermaking Shop
22836 Ventura Blvd. #2
Woodland Hills, Ca.  91364

The entry fee is $6.00 per entry, payable by check or money order only to
"The Maltose Falcons".

For entry information, contact Rusty Reece:
(310) 379-2921
1813 8th St.
Manhattan Beach, Ca.  90266
Email:  rustyreece at aol.com

The judging is April 27th, 1996 at 9:00AM at the St. Luke's Church
5312 Comercio Way, Woodland Hills
Judges-Please contact Brian Vessa:
(310) 397-8352
Email:  bav at earthlink.net

Information on the competition is also available on the Maltose Falcons'
Web Site
www.westworld.com/~troutman/maltose/index.html


------------------------------

End of JudgeNet Digest
************************
-------