Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 07:40:38 -0500
Message-Id: <199702201240.HAA01802 at synchro.com>
From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
To: judge-digest at synchro.com
Subject:   judge-digest V1 #1388
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com
Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk


judge-digest             Thursday, 20 February 1997     Volume 01 : Number 1388

 ============================================================================
       J u d g e N e t   -   t h e   b e e r   j u d g e   d i g e s t
 ============================================================================

 Moderator:        Chuck Cox          <chuck at synchro.com>
 Archivist:        Spencer Thomas     <spencer at umich.edu>
 Publisher:        SynchroSystems     <info at synchro.com>

 Submissions:      judge at synchro.com
 Administration:   judge-request at synchro.com
 Archive:          http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge
 BJCP info:        geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com

 ============================================================================
 contents:

 BOS....
 Facilitator
 Here's an Idea
 BOS judges, judging, the judged

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

From: Charles Hudak <cwhudak at mail1.abac.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:07:38 -0800
Subject: BOS....

All this talk about chest beating BOS judges has my eyes rolling back in my
head.  It's one thing to have an opinion about the merits of different beers
in the BOS but to make it a matter of pride if "your" choice gets the award
is insane.  Egos have no place in beer judging.  The contests are about THE
BEER, not about the judges and their egos.  I think that Jeff Pinhey was on
the right track when he wrote:

>Ego has no place in judging - all
>one needs to do is enter beers regularly to keep your ego in check!  I
>enjoy judging, not for any power it gives me over the entrants, but for the
>opportunity to carefully taste and evaluate, with others, so many good (and
>sometimes wonderful) beers. 

As someone who now makes my living making beer, while I have strong
opinions, I try not to be a "snob". I became interested in beer judging as a
means to gain breadth in my knowledge and experience in flavor nuances.
Both things that can enhance my work.  It's not a bad way to meet people in
the business (and in the know) as well.  I surely didn't become involved so
that I could beat heads with someone over BOS.

I'm sure there are a lot of great judges out there at the National and
Masters level.  I'm concerned, though, about those ego chasing idiots who've
landed in the BJCP.  Maybe there could be a complaint process to have
"unruly" judges sanctioned via the administrators at the BJCP.  Ban them
from judging for a period of time or better yet, make it mandatory that they
enter their own beers in a catagory they aren't judging (wink, wink Jeff) so
they can eat a big slice of humble pie when they don't place.

Power corrupts....

Cheers and beers,

C
Charles Hudak
Head Brewer, San Diego Brewing Co.
619.284.BREW
cwhudak at abac.com


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

From: "Kieran O'Connor" <koconnor at cnyric.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:28:38 -0500
Subject: Facilitator

- ---->

Two things here.  First, I am aghast at the war stories about
egotistical and/or rude BoS judges.  Maybe it's a regional thing,
but having served on a number of BoS panels, I have never
experienced any less than cooperative, congenial and qualified
people all seeking to reach a concensus through polite discussion.
If a BoS judge is as has been portrayed, then why the hell would
an organizer use such a person?  Am I missing something here?
An experienced person's judging style becomes well known to his/
her peers.  Second, the only facilitator I would expect to serve
the BoS panel would be a super steward whose knowledge and
experience enables instant recognition of how the BoS judges
want to conduct their business.  If a facilitator is needed to
police how the BoS judges conduct themselves, then the wrong
judges have been selected.

- - -norman-

I would agree that usually BOS judges are congenial. Most times I have
served on such panels. Let's take a group of judges who don't have personal
problems.  They still can yack and discuss the vagaries of a style, when,
in fact, a lot of discussion doesnt needs to be done.

if you have 14 beers, and I suggest that we drop the wheat beer, and no one
has  style problem with it, then why do some judges insist on discussing
where the wheat beer didnt cut it? it's not relevant: the beer is out, and
we can move along.

Buut, the reality is that there can be panels made up of those who are more
assertive than others, and a facilitator can help out here.

I think a facilitator can really help here, and it would help move along
the BoS. I've been one some panels where it's taken forever, and it didnt
really need to. In many cases, entrants want to know who wiins BoS, and
without sacrificing quality BoS judging, we should aim to get them results
as quickly as practical.

Again, do what works for your comp. Just a suggestion./


Kieran

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kieran O'Connor

koconnor at cnyric.org
Syracuse, N.Y. USA

                 			 In vino veritas; in cervesio
felicitas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


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

From: TashFam at aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:42:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Here's an Idea

  I am just a beginner in beer judging, I have not taken the BJCP exam yet,
but hope to at the end of this summer.
   I would like to suggest that the first of each month a style of beer is
chosen along with a national avaible beer that is a fair representation of
that style. Then readers of Judge Digest would judge this beer and place
their score and comments in Judge Digest. This
would give the writers practice and show beginners how a score sheet should
be filled
out. 
    Since I have never ran a beer judging would someone who has please set a
schedule of
styles and a beer that represents that style.  I feel this will give us
plenty of topics for
future discussions and attempt to improve beer judging.

Thanks
Ed Tash 
Tashfam at aol.com

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

From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino at execpc.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:52:40 -0600 (CST)
Subject: BOS judges, judging, the judged

I've had time to read only half of the digests over the past few weeks (if
that much), but have been orvalwhelmed (and pleased) with the active
discussion of diverse views.  Fortunately, I've seen very little of the
"gorillas in heat" syndrome described in one post; instead, most of my BOS
experiences have been very collegial, regardless of whether we
independently come up with the same beers or we have spirited debate over
the merits of the "finalists."  I have never been made to feel a "lesser" 
judge because of my low rank ("recognised forever": low exam score and
experience points more than sufficient for national, and with no immediate
intentions to re-test simply for the sake of a title) by higher ranking
judges.  Whether I would be invited to do BOS (with my rank) at a
competition in another region where I don't regularly judge and where
people have not judged with me is, of course, another question--but I
would not feel slighted for being passed over, because an organiser really
does have to know something about the experience and judging "demeanour" 
of the personnel. 

I judged at a small competition over the weekend and was on a BOS panel
with two professional brewers--one of whom has _many_ years of experience
and has also done more than his share of duty for the BJCP.  We were down
to the last two beers (and here comes a counterexample to the "big beer" 
myth), and we had a hell of a time picking the BOS from between them.  The
contenders?  An Imperial Stout and an American Wheat--how's that for
different ends of the spectrum?  When it finally came down to a decision,
the other two made the close call in favour of the American Wheat, on the
grounds that it was a fine example of the style and that it's tough to do
something that clean and flawless.  I gave the Imperial the edge because
it was such a fine example, and that it's equally difficult to take so
many different and strong flavour components and have them balance each
other so well in a style that can very easily be "overdone."  Any of us
could have just as easily have gone with the other beer, but that's the
way it turned out.  Seeing, close call or not, that mine was the minority
view, I offered to defer to the other two.  And it probably would have
been easy for two professional brewers to let me concede the point to
them.  But instead, one of them called the organiser over to ask whether
awarding a "co-BOS" to each beer would be acceptable and, to my surprise,
it was and we did.  Have others encountered competitions where a shared
BOS was awarded?

That was perhaps a consensus decision at its finest (or you could say we
wimped out, but I wasn't at all unhappy with the idea of recognising two
excellent beers).  That takes me to the other side of this consensus
thaaang. On a couple occasions I've been on BOS panels in which one judge
(in one case) and the organiser (in the other example) insisted on a vote
when it got down to having to make a decision on those last beers.  I was
very uncomfortable with that method, knowing that the final decision
really comes down to how the vote is structured.  My opinion is that it is
absolutely _not_ the way to do it, but others (obviously, or it would
never happen) will differ.  Comments? 


Now go have a beer,


Bob Paolino                                  rpaolino at earth.execpc.com
Madison
Have a beer today... for your palate and for good health
Vice President, Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild
For information, write to us at mhtg at stdorg.wisc.edu


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

End of judge-digest V1 #1388
****************************

 Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com.
 Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.