Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 01:10:00 -0500
Message-Id: <199603070610.BAA00692 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 #1230 (Mar 06, 1996)

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

JudgeNet Digest #1230                              Wed 06 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:

  Sadly enough points                      (Bill Giffin)
  Judging Judges                           ("JOHN A. JR. CARLSON ")
  Judge Points                             (Fred Hardy)
  Points                                   (M.P. Manning)

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

Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 07:18:59 -0600
From: billg at giffin.iii.net (Bill Giffin)
Subject: Sadly enough points

Good morning,

Martin Manning wrote:
> to more closely tie a judge's point total and rank to his or her actual
>experience judging beer in competitions.  I see this as an improvement over
>the current system.

Experience is a quantitative concept which does not express quality unless
modified.   With out scoresheet evaluation and peer review of judges; how
can we determine whether or not the experience was positive or negative?

If you judge 50 mediocre brown ales, do you gain worthwhile experience by
judging 25 more mediocre brown ales?  All you have is more experience in
judging mediocre brown ales.  It does not increase your knowledge of brown
ales nor does it increase your ability to judge brown ales.  All it means is
you have been unlucky enough to have to judge another flight of mediocre
brown ales.

Bill


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

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 09:22:33 -0700 (MST)
From: "JOHN A. JR. CARLSON " <jcarlson at du.edu>
Subject: Judging Judges

Decarlo writes:

> 
> 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.

John judged one of my meads last november and this is what he said.  John 
does need more work, but then we all do.

Herb Mead - ginger,still,very sweet

Bouquet/Aroma 10/4
very sweet, cinnamin-spicy, some fruity.

Appearance 6/5
floaties,otherwise clear.  Nice golden color.

Flavor 24/10
spicy and sweet. Alcoholic warmth.  Some ginger spiciness, maybe.  Sort 
of a Hi-C fake fruit flavor.

Drinkability 10/4
Interests flavors, but shoud only be honey and ginger - neither comes 
through now.

score 23

The same mead was entered at the Salt City Competition and got these 
comments.

Bouquet 10/6
Honey sweetness comes through nicely.  Ginger is very subdued.  Secondary 
aromas are very interesting.

Appearance 6/5
Light yellow color.  Very slightly turbid.

Flavor 24/13
Sweet ginger is well in the background.  Alcohol warms some, but not 
quite enough to clear the clinging sweetness.  Acidity might be increased 
also, to balance better.  Pleasant sweet lingering aftertaste.

Drinkability 10/7
Nice job: tastes like a candy for grown-ups! A very clear & drinkable 
mead, though too sweet to drink alot.  Ginger does not come through quite 
well enough.
        
> club meetings, etc.). Further education is always needed.  Keep working on 
> comments--eliminate those that are disparaging or unhelpful.

Keep working on the comments is what we all have to do.  IMO more is better.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
I did email John re his comments.  I hope it helped him in some way.


- --jcarlson 

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

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:58:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh at access.digex.net>
Subject: Judge Points


>From an organizer's perspective, I feel the current point award system is 
simply an artifact from the early joint AHA/HWBTA days when judges were 
few and far between. I am very much against schemes which make more work 
and provide more opportunity for an organizer to goof. Particularly when 
I disagree with the premise for change.

Size of the competition does, and IMO, should, award organizer points 
based on the amount of work involved. I also agree with the number of 
entries determining the number of BoS judges receiving extra point 
awards. I think size of competition should be independent of judging points.

I have judged at AHA and HWBTA NHC 1st round, AHA 2nd round, and large 
and small regional competitions over a number of years. Seems to me the 
number of beers judged sorta averaged out to 12 or so per flight, with 
one or two flights a day. Small competitions have fewer judges, etc., 
etc., so size is not related to beers tasted. BoS judges earn their extra 
point award, but I would cut it to 1/2 point, regardless of size of event.

If, as Scott Bickham claims, extra incentive is appropriate for AHA 1st & 
2nd round and HWBTA NHC, then I can agree. I support the AHA, and think 
they do a pretty good job to promote our hobby.

I suggest a modification to the present point system. AHA/HWBTA NHC 1st 
round judges receive 1 1/2 points regardless of number of entries, 
flights, sessions or whatever. 2nd round AHA judges get 2 points.

All other competitions award 1 point per day of open judging. This fairly 
compensates judges who drive several hours to get to a 60 entry event 
where the flights were small, highly mixed, and the judge sampled 6 
different styles (I've been there, done that). It does not provide 
special rewards for the judge at a 150 entry event who drove 10 minutes, 
tasted the same number of beers, but only 2 styles. It is, however, fair.

I disagree with the temptation to strictly equate number of beers judged 
with judge experience. Practice does not necessarily make perfect, it 
usually only makes permanent. Judging skill and the ability to provide 
reasonable feedback is more related to research and brewing experience 
than it is to the number of bad or marginal beers tasted. Most beer geeks 
off the street can recognize marginal beer, without a clue to its style 
or how it is made.

IMO, there is more relevant experience in a couple of bottles of Guiness 
than in ten flights of marginal homebrewed stout. If you've made 10 or so 
stouts you're even better able to provide feedback to the entrant.

Yes, I am a strong advocate of judge levels being earned through the 
present BJCP exam + experience scheme. If you really want to be a Master 
judge, you'll find a way, but it will surely involve more hard work than 
simply tasting beer.

Cheers, Fred

==============================================================================
We must invent the future, else it will  |          <Fred Hardy>
happen to us and we will not like it.    |
[Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"]   |    email: fcmbh at access.digex.net


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

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 18:58:16 -0500
From: mannin29 at eos.eos.net (M.P. Manning)
Subject: Points

Scott Bickham did a nice job of summarizing the main issues regarding a
change in the way that judging points are awarded.  I still believe that
the best system is one point per beer.

Organizers are concerned about the extra pressure on them to even out the
opportunity to gain points, and maybe that's a good reason to instead go to
a flat award per flight, including BoS, with no dependence on number of
entries.  That is the one aspect of the current system that makes the least
sense to me, and, as we have heard discussed, is the source of much
confusion and compromise in making point awards.

While a point per flight is not as good as a point per beer, its better
than the current system.  As I said before, a conversion from the current
system would be as simple as letting everyone keep his or her current rank,
and deciding what factor to multiply existing points earned in excess of
that rank by.  In a one-pint-per-beer system, I suggested twenty.  In a one
point per flight, I'd say two, continuing with the arbitrary assumption of
ten beers per flight, on average.  Easy.

I think that we have seen a worth-while (and uncommonly civilized!)
discussion on this issue, and having seen it aired, I won't attempt to
perpetuate it further.  Whomever is responsible for such things can now
take the matter under advisement, and do something (or nothing) about it.
Thanks for your attention.

MPM

Martin Manning
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA


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

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