Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 01:10:00 -0500
Message-Id: <199603110610.BAA03105 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 #1232 (Mar 10, 1996)

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

JudgeNet Digest #1232                              Sun 10 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:

  Point Awards                             (John DeCarlo                       )
  Calibration beers                        (Algis R Korzonas)
  FWIW                                     (Mark Johnston)
  5th ann. New York City spring regional Competition 3/24/96 (Ken )

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 96 07:50:41 EST
From: John DeCarlo                        <jdecarlo at mitre.org>
Subject: Point Awards

I would just like to recommend some explanation of whatever point award 
policies come out.  

The two main reasons I know of to give judging points are:

1) You need some mechanism to advance a judge's rank, and experience is 
important and points are the only mechanism we have so far for recording 
experience.

2) Some vital roles are lots of work and should get some recognition.  (Like
organizing a competition)

Some combination of these two seems to explain everything except giving
points to BoS judges.  Judging BoS isn't clearly an unwanted and difficult
job--more like a privilege.

It doesn't matter to me whether judging four flights for a competition gives
me the same number of points as judging one (or gets four times the number 
of points), as long as the *explanation* makes sense.

John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own
Fidonet:  1:109/131  Internet:  jdecarlo at mitre.org


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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 96 15:24:51 CST
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Calibration beers

Since my post in which I wrote about the scoresheet I received from
the AHA Nationals 2nd round last year for my Old Ale, I've been
giving the matter some thought and I believe that the calibration
beer may be at fault.

You will recall that the comments on the scoresheet were basically
that the colour was too light in my Old Ale and that the Certified
judge did not even fill in the aroma or flavour sections.

I believe that I read somewhere that Old Peculier was the calibration
beer for the Old Ald table.

The 1995 AHA Guidelines for English Old Ale/Strong Ale say:
"Light amber to deep amber/copper" and we all know that OP is
quite dark.

Perhaps because the judges were given Old Peculier as the calibration
beer, they were looking for a beer that was like OP and not concentrating
on the AHA guidelines.  There is no excuse for the blank aroma or
flavour sections, but perhaps the judge took one look at the beer and
decided that it is too far off-the-mark for contention.

Consider further, that the Old Peculier we get in bottles in the US
has absolutely no hop aroma and very little hop flavour.  The 1995 AHA
guidelines say: "hop...flavor and aroma can be assertive."  My beer had
a strong hop aroma and rather strong hop flavour which, compared to Old
Peculier, would have seemed wrong for the style.

I know that I am making some assumptions, but I think that perhaps we
should rethink whether using a single, narrow-guideline beer as the
calibration beer (e.g. American Premium Lager or Bohemian Pilsner or
California Common) wouldn't be a better idea and fairer to the entrants?

Comments?

Al.

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

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

Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:18:50 -0500
From: Mark Johnston <msjohnst at srvr.third-wave.com>
Subject: FWIW


        Having read about 2 weeks worth of comments on this forum, it seems
that many people are in agreement about one thing: QUALITY of JUDGES. 

        I concur that it is a matter of serious concern, as poor (or no)
comments reflect poorly on ourselves, and do not assist the competition
entrant. I do feel that the "solutions" to this problem do not place the
emphasis where, I feel, it would do the most good. I have mentioned this
point before, but perhaps have not argued or explained it clearly enough. 

        The current BJCP qualification process is skewed in the direction of
knowledge as opposed to palate. As someone mentioned recently in this forum,
experience at tasting 25 mediocre brown ales does not make one an expert on
brown ales. I would also argue that memorizing the OG, IBU, & SRM of
Newcastle Brown Ale will not allow you to determine if the brew you are
tasting is similar in style.

        As such, I am of the opinion that the tasting of beer, and the
subsequent commenting on those tastes, must be a larger factor in BJCP
qualification, testing, and advancement. Under the present system, a person
can score (e.g.) a 90 on the written test and a 60 on tasting, and still be
eligible for National ranking after tasting a few hundred beers. If, as is
often the case unfortunately, the majority of these beers are faulted, or
untrue to style, how has "experience" qualified him?

        I am, perhaps, fortunate that I have an outlet which allows me to
regularly sample a flight of different commercial beers of a given style. I
also seek out beers which have been given high praise for their adherance to
style, and purchase them as part of a "beer club". Even in styles that I
don't particularly care for (such as Biere de Garde or Belgian ales). While
some people may not be able to perform similar exercises in palate
calibration, it is this type of activity which goes farther than MJ's Beer
Companion in giving a judge a sound basis for style definition.

        I do not hold with the people who justify the current test weighting
by saying that a judge must know all about a style in order to properly
comment on it. I have yet to judge a competition or see a score sheet which
provided me enough time and space to discuss the geo-political history of
Imperial Stout, or the development of the Bock style. 

        The same is true for people who say that a judge must be intimately
familiar with all aspects of commercial brewing processes. How can this be
justified when we are instructed not to make comments on ingredients or
processes that we think were used? (I'm not talking about blatent things
such as bacterial contamination or lightstruck characteristics. But to guess
at whether the beer was a triple decoction based solely on perceived
mouthfeel?) Familiarity with homebrewing methods is a must. But taste is
what determines if a beer is on or off. A few years back, the AHA Homebrewer
of the Year won with a Munich Dunkel that sat for at least a day in an open
fermenter when the top blew off (by the brewer's own admission). I haven't
seen anyone recommend this for classic Dunkel production, but obviously the
beer tasted ok.

        I submit that the entire competition process hinges around the
palate of the judges, and it is that palate which must be educated,
calibrated, and evaluated. The tasting portion of the exam is the place to
determine if a judge possesses style knowledge on a *practical* level. Book
knowledge is important. But tasting must be given, at least, equal weight in
the certification process (IMHO).

        I would also support maintenance qualification of judges on a
periodic basis. Say by taking the taste portion of the exam every 5 years or
so. Cost to be pro-rated. Minimum score required commensurate with rank. I'm
not sure how this would be policed except that a judge who let his quals
lapse would not be granted points pending a re-qual. I'm sure that this
topic has been hashed over before. Just my $.02.


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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 10:01:47 -0500
From: kbjohns at escape.com (Ken )
Subject: 5th ann. New York City spring regional Competition 3/24/96

The Homebrewers of Staten Island will hold their 5th competition On Sun
3/24. Complete information can be found on the club's homepage URL
http://www.wp.com/HOSI/ look for the competition announcement.

We will be awarding over $900.00 in prizes and judging all beer styles.

Entry forms will be sent via e-mail.

We also need judges

Ken
URL http://www.wp.com/HOSI/


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

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