Return-Path: owner-judge at synchro.com Received: from srvr7.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr7.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.69]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA10319 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 01:02:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (0 at redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.36]) by srvr7.engin.umich.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id BAA15469 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 01:02:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id BAA05329; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 01:02:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay2.smtp.psi.net by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with ESMTP id BAA05324; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 01:02:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com by relay2.smtp.psi.net (8.8.3/SMI-5.4-PSI) id BAA24438; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 01:02:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA06738 for vitt at rchland.vnet.ibm.com; Mon, 3 Mar 97 01:02:06 -0500 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08737 for judge-digest-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 00:27:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 00:27:45 -0500 Message-Id: <199703030527.AAA08737 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1395 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Monday, 3 March 1997 Volume 01 : Number 1395 ============================================================================ 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 Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publisher: SynchroSystems Submissions: judge at synchro.com Subscriptions: judge-request at synchro.com Archive: http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge BJCP info: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com ============================================================================ contents: Re: BOS judging (judge-digest V1 #1394) Scoring is too narrow Re: AHA scoring sheet AHA score sheets AHA Score Sheets & Al Re: AHA Scoresheet Re: AHA scoring sheet Excellent Beers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Joel Plutchak" Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:38:53 -0600 Subject: Re: BOS judging (judge-digest V1 #1394) Mark S. Johnston wrote: > Francois Espourteille wrote: > > > > > And I won't even get into the "I don't like smoke beers". I had > > to deal with a "I don't like fruit beers" recently under similar > > conditions... > > As a point of clarification, one may not prefer a type or style of beer > and yet may still have sufficient knowledge of the style, and sufficient > palate ability to recognize good from bad. How about the "this one is harder to brew thus it wins BOS, everything else being equal" mentality? I've heard that one before and it's an issue I have a hard time grappling with. As a brewer I can appreciate the extra work and attention to detail that can go into brewing certain styles of beer, but should that be a consideration when judging between styles? Will a great gueuze always win against a great American Pale Ale (or American Light Lager, for that matter)? I should mention that although I've been brewing for about ten years, I'm fairly new to the whole competition scene both as judge and entrant, and I've never sat on a BOS panel (nor have I attempted to brew a lambic style beer... yet!). - -- Joel Plutchak ------------------------------ From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:58:08 -0800 Subject: Scoring is too narrow Hi all, Chuck and Al K. raise an interesting point about the way we score beer. It is a rule of sorts to never give less than a 19 (I don't give less than 21 unless a beer is so bad that it impairs my palate). It is also next to impossible to score over 45. That means we are scoring on a *26* point scale, not 50. I have judged contests were none of the beers were stellar, but most were OK. It makes it very difficult to pick the top three in a category when the top 5 are all scored between 30-34 points! It is time consuming to have to do a "best of category" judging on the second bottle, and annoying when none of the beers are very good! This could be avoided if the point system was made broader, either by increasing the potential total points, or by actually using the full width of our current system. I feel somewhat constrained as the system now stands. To give less than a 30 means that there should be a serious flaw, yet scoring a beer 40 points would put it amongst the best scores I've ever given! There's only a 10 point difference! Al points out that the AHA will never revise its sheets, but that the BJCP might be more receptive. Well, seeing as the ONLY certification program for beer judges is the BJCP, what the hell does the AHA matter? Why do people still bother having their contests sanctioned by them? If you want homebrew to be judged by competent people, we're the ones you have to talk to! Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) ------------------------------ From: STROUDS at cliffy.polaroid.com Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:36:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: AHA scoring sheet Considering the recent change in management at the AHA and the fact that they've pretty much dropped the ball when it comes to any homebrew judging program, it is doubtful that they will change the beer evaluation form they send out with their competition packet. The BJCP is certainly receptive to changes and in fact have a subcommittee actively working on a new scoresheet. One of the ones they are considering has the following scoring guide: Excellent (46-50): World Class example of style. Very Good (36-45): Exemplifies style well, requires some fine tuning. Good (26-35): Generally within style parameters, needs some attention. Fair (16-25): Misses the mark on style and/or has off flavors/aromas. Problem (0-15): Off flavors and aromas dominate. Sounds like they've been listening to you, Rick :-) **************** AlK> Since I score each characteristic individually (aroma, AlK> appearance, etc.), I don't think that my final score would be AlK> likely to change given the new guide. One of the things about the old (current?) Beer Evaluation forms that I always hated were the scoring guide numbers in each section [hops (2), malt (2), other characteristics (2), etc] that made virtually no sense since different beer styles accentuate different characteristics. The new forms under consideration are much better in this regard, just listing the Excellent through Problem ranges for each section, i.e. Flavor (14-15 Excellent, 11-14 Very Good, 8-11 Good, 5-8 Fair, 0-5 Problem) (comment on malt and hop character, body, conditioning, balance, finish, as appropriate for style) I don't know if this approach will change peoples' final scores, but it certainly would induce people to score each characteristic individually much like Al does. Steve ********** work: strouds at polaroid.com home: stivnpam at worldnet.att.net ********** ------------------------------ From: Caroline Duncker Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:27:20 -0700 Subject: AHA score sheets I thought Rick Drake's comments/suggestions on JudgeNet for changing the range for AHA score sheets were informative and a real possibility for the 1998 competition. While all score sheets are printed for the 1997 AHA National Homebrew Competition, we can certainly modify them for 1998 as well as modify all the Sanctioned Competition Program score sheets for 1998. In particular, I find fault with the good range...it just isn't large enough. Despite Al Korzonas' remark that the AHA would not be receptive to such changes, we are indeed interested. I'll be forming a committe to make modifications which includes the AHA board of advisers and any judges that are interested. I'll be making changes in August for 1998, so any feedback sent to me prior to August would be very helpful. The AHA formed a committe to change the mead score sheet 1 1/2 years ago and we have much improved it through meadmakers' and mead judges' feedback. I think it's time to modify the beer score sheet. Thanks for your help. Caroline - -- Caroline Duncker Project Coordinator American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 116 (voice) 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax) PO Box 1679 caroline at aob.org (e-mail) Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info at aob.org (aob info) U.S.A. http://beertown.org (web) ------------------------------ From: jac at access.usa.net (John A. Carlson, Jr.) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:20:43 -0700 (MST) Subject: AHA Score Sheets & Al Al responds and then throws in: >Oh, by the way, you are unlikely to get any changes made to the AHA >scoresheets, but I know that the BJCP scoresheet authors are receptive >to good ideas. > I read that as a cheap shot against the AHA and totally non-productive to the discussion. Query: If the AHA is so non-responsive to change why did they approach Mike Hall (BJCP National) to help redraft the mead score sheet last year? Why did James Spence last summer write several mead makers across the country (Paddy Giffen, Fred Hardy, Byron Burch, myself, and several others) to solicite comment for a redraft of the mead style guidelines? These comments were incorporated into the 1997 NHC guidelines. FWIW, when I made some comments regarding recent BJCP changes to the program all the "reception" I got was a curt comment from the competition director. It took an email to Russ to get my question answered (thanks again, Russ). The two programs should be working together when and where they can. Cheap shots make this difficult. Remember, for every AHA santioned competition the BJCP receives $20.00 to provide a regional judge list and record points. At this time AHA sanctioned competition out-number BJCP Recognized competitions. It is in the interest of both programs to cooperate with one another. - --John ------------------------------ From: jeff at edm.ca (Jeff Pinhey) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 14:10:35 -0400 Subject: Re: AHA Scoresheet Al Korzonas writes: > >Oh, by the way, you are unlikely to get any changes made to the AHA >scoresheets, but I know that the BJCP scoresheet authors are receptive >to good ideas. Absolutely. Current thinking on the scoresheet committee is not far removed from the discussions on Judgenet. ####################################################### Jeff Pinhey, Halifax, Nova Scotia ------------------------------ From: hall at galt.c3.lanl.gov (Michael L. Hall) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:31:53 -0700 Subject: Re: AHA scoring sheet Al Korzonas writes: > Oh, by the way, you are unlikely to get any changes made to the AHA > scoresheets, but I know that the BJCP scoresheet authors are receptive > to good ideas. I am on both sides of this comment, and I just wanted to state my views. First, I was a member of a group of people that Caroline Duncker contacted last year to re-vamp the AHA mead score sheet. I made some suggestions, and she was very receptive (they adopted most of my changes). Second, I am on the committee (formed from respondents to a JudgeNet posting) to set up the BJCP's mead scoresheet. We are having good discussions about what to include and not to include, and I think that the final version will be well done. In fact, I think it will be better than the AHA's version because we have been able to have a back-and-forth discussion, instead of just giving our inputs and letting someone else decide what to include. Third, I am a newly elected member of the AHA's Board of Advisors. I don't know how much influence I will ultimately have (there are 15 advisors, and I don't know how much "say" the board really has), but IMO I think that the AHA would be foolish not to adopt, or at least consider, the BJCP-generated scoresheets. These scoresheets were designed by people all around the country who have judged a lot and who care about judging. I think that makes the scoresheets a valuable resource. Uh, I guess I should also say that I don't know anything about the politics involved -- i.e. can the AHA adopt the BJCP scoresheets? And I speak for myself only, yadda yadda yadda. However, I myself am receptive to new ideas, and I will try to make the AHA receptive also. I think they will be. Mike Hall President, Los Alamos Atom Mashers Member of AHA Board of Advisors ------------------------------ From: Dennis Davison Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 07:32:32 -0600 Subject: Excellent Beers >Excellent ( 45-50): Exceptionally exemplifies style, requires no attention. >Very Good (35-45): Exemplifies style, requires some attention >Good (25-35): Exemplifies style satisfactorily, but requires attention >Drinkable (20-25): Does not exemplify style, requires attention >Problem (<20): Problematic, requires much attention Al States: >Perhaps, but I've only given a score over 45 perhaps twice in 30+ >competitions. Since I score each characteristic individually (aroma, >appearance, etc.), I don't think that my final score would be likely to >change given the new guide. The entrants who get their beer judged >by me are unlikely to get it deemed "Excellent" under the new guide, >whereas under the old guide, several beers from a typical good flight >would have made it. > >While we are on the subject, I'd like to point out (again) that stylistic >problems are not the only issue and that technical problems (oxidation, >infection, etc.) are just as likely to cause loss of points as deviation >from style guidelines. The scoring guide should take this into account, >if we are going to re-write it. >Oh, by the way, you are unlikely to get any changes made to the AHA >scoresheets, but I know that the BJCP scoresheet authors are receptive >to good ideas. OK, before this discussion gets to far out of hand, yes, the competition committee is working on score sheets, and yes, the ranges mentioned above are the ranges they are looking at. Now gone will be the 3 points for malt and 3 for hops and 4 for conditioning, etc. Instead points are suggested for caliber 9-10 for excellent 7-8 for very good, etc. The sheet hasn't made it to the BoD to vote on but should be coming down the pike. In reviewing judge performance via the "You feel you got a poorly filled out score sheet program" I have repeatedly found judges comments under appearance and body, saying nothing bad and everything is great but only giving them two or three points. I'm trying to figure this out. Is everybody using these are to fudge? What do some of you do for Fruit or Herb beers where the beer can actually be anything. To me unless something is so terribly wrong, Fruit and Herb beers desire 6 & 5 points respectivly for apprearance and body. Now we get into the BJCP average of 32. Calibration beers throughout the Midwest at least tend to average themselves from 30.5 to 32.5 with most cases very close to that 32 mark. High scores of 40 and lows of 20 for the same beer means something is wrong out there even with a calibration beer. Why should a fresh Anchor steam score 32 average in a calibartion round? Why should a fresh Urquel score the same (yes, it was very fresh which suprised the hell out of a lot of people). Anyway, geting back to Al's comment. Yes, I to have only given a beer higher than a 45 only a couple of times in 6 years. With the new score sheets, and since I've been scoreing beers in the 40 to 44 range repeatedly, it looks like I'll just start scoring these beers a little higher to fit a new curve if need be. Those high 30 beers would also become low 40 beers. - -- Dennis Davison mailto:ddavison at execpc.com BJCP Representative for the Midwest BJCP President http://www.execpc.com/~ddavison/bjcp.html ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1395 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.