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 (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA17778 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:45:17 -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 JAA20951 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:45:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id JAA08579; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:45:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay4.smtp.psi.net by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with ESMTP id JAA08562; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:45:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com by relay4.smtp.psi.net (8.8.3/SMI-5.4-PSI) id JAA16264; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:44:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA18363 for vitt at rchland.vnet.ibm.com; Thu, 6 Mar 97 09:44:05 -0500 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08978 for judge-digest-outgoing; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:08:02 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:08:02 -0500 Message-Id: <199703061408.JAA08978 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1398 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Thursday, 6 March 1997 Volume 01 : Number 1398 ============================================================================ 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: The "AHA" Score Sheet and Carloine Dunckers remarks AHA/BJCP sanctioning - what does it mean? In style?/Suggestions Dennis' query Out-of-style scoring RE: Wider scoring range how to judge 6th. ann New York City Spring Regional Comp. sub-scores ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STROUDS at cliffy.polaroid.com Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 09:57:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: The "AHA" Score Sheet and Carloine Dunckers remarks IN JN# 1395, Caroline sez: "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." Why would the AHA go to the trouble of reinventing the wheel when the BJCP has just gone through such an exercise? Caroline, why doesn't the AHA just agree to use the new BJCP Beer Evaluation form? What is the need by the AHA to form more subcommittees and reexamine the issue when that exact exercise is being carried out by the BJCP? The AHA can either work with or against the BJCP; going off and preparing your own version of a score sheet seems to me to be the latter. - --Steve ********** work: strouds at polaroid.com home: stivnpam at worldnet.att.net ********** ------------------------------ From: hollen at vigra.com Date: Wed, 5 Mar 97 08:32:48 PST Subject: AHA/BJCP sanctioning - what does it mean? Some thoughts and some questions on what it means to get AHA and/or BJCP sanctioning. This year we are sanctioning America's Finest City with both, with the AHA because of the flap of competitions being left out of Zymurgy calendar if the comp was not AHA sanctioned (yes, I know AHA has said that they will not do that again, but I just wanted to make sure we got in). And with the BJCP because we support the BJCP 100% in its efforts to flourish and frankly, we would like to see the BJCP become the only sanctioning organization with the AHA using the BJCP judges and guidelines to run the AHA Nationals and the AHA being out of the sanctioning business. I don't have anything against the AHA like some people do, but when you read the following, it does not seem like like there is much point to AHA sanctioning, but there still are some reasons to continue to do it. So, we pay our money to the AHA and for it we get - 1) AHA printed style guidelines, 2) AHA calendar listing, 3) AHA printed forms (beer, cider and mead score sheets, entry forms, etc.), and 4) a list of BJCP judges and mailing labels for them (from the BJCP directly). Then we pay our money to the BJCP and we get - 1) BJCP style guidelines (not this year, but I am assuming in the future we will since they are not different from the AHA style guidelines this year), 2) on the BJCP web page calendar, 3) BJCP printed forms (beer only score sheets, entry forms, etc.), 4) a list of BJCP judges and mailing labels for them, and 5) on request an electronic database of the judge information. After the competition, we pay the AHA another $15 to have it send the judge and steward points on to the BJCP for recording since there is no AHA judging program. And we send the points listing on to the BJCP for recording as part of our original fee for registration. By the time all fees are paid to both organizations, the total to each comes out pretty much the same. OK, at this point, I am open to correction on what I believe are the facts of who provides what. If I am wrong, please correct me. However, now I will base some observations on the facts as I have stated them. Which style guidelines to use? - ------------------------------- Well, if I use the AHA style guidelines, for the most part I can refer a brewer who wants to enter to the Winter issue of Zymurgy where they are published and because of this, I only had to send out 4 sets of style guidelines for a competition which we expect to get about 300 entries. If I had used the BJCP style guidelines I would have had to have a copy of them for every entry form I sent out and that was hundreds of entry forms. A large expense to the club in both printing and extra postage (every entry form that went out with style guidelines needed an extra .32 stamp). I have gone to the BJCP web site to look at the BJCP style guidelines and nowhere can I find any table of OG, FG, color, etc., only the word descriptions of the categories. If we choose to use the BJCP guidelines, and if we want to accept mead and cider, then we will need to somehow come up with those guidelines, or take them from the AHA. Points recording - ---------------- This one is a no-brainer. The only people who care about points recording are the judges and stewards. Since I have a BJCP sanctioned competition, am I going to pay the AHA another $15 to send the same points recording to the BJCP for the second time? NOT!!! Recognition - ----------- How many brewers out there have heard of the AHA and the phrase "AHA sanctioned" will mean something to them vs. how many are familiar with the BJCP? I don't have a clue, but suspect that AHA recognition would carry more weight with newbies and BJCP recognition with more serious brewers. Mix'n'Match - ----------- I kind of think that for at least the time being, AFCHBC will stay a mix'm'match competition, certainly this year since it is this Saturday! B-} We will register with both, use the AHA style guidelines, and register points with the BJCP only. As the BJCP and the AHA change their score sheets and style guidelines, this may become more and more difficult as they diverge. So, bottom line, I am not advocating any one particular position for any of you, but putting some things out for discussion. What do other think on this subject? BTW, I am forwarding a copy of this to Caroline Duncker, the AHA competition program coordinator and hope that she will also participate in this discussion. What I would really like to see is a single agreed up set of rules that both organizations supports, and that the BJCP "runs". The way it is now makes it more difficult on oranizers that it should be. Maybe this will provoke some more dialogue between the AHA and BJCP. dion QUAFF President Organizer America's Finest City Homebrew Competition March 8, 1997 Quality Ale and Fermentation Fraternity, Sponsor http://www.vigra.com/~hollen/AFCHBC.html - --- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen at vigra.com http://www.vigra.com/~hollen Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California ------------------------------ From: korz at xnet.com Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:52:59 -0600 (CST) Subject: In style?/Suggestions John writes (quoting Todd): >>This result really irks me when I give a beer of score of 24 -- the high >>end of drinkable -- because it doesn't come close to fitting the style >>guideline but is a clean, well-made beer otherwise. If someone else >>gives it higher than 31, then I am forced to raise my score into the >>good category ("exemplifies style satisfactorily") in order to achieve >>somebody else's idea of consensus, thus giving the brewer the impression >>that all the judges thought his beer was in style. > >This is reprehensible. If the beer isn't in style, you can't give it higher >than 24. Period. That kind of disagreement has to be resolved and resolved >completely, hopefully early on in the judging. If I think that a German Weizen >entry is out of style because it has *zero* clove, banana, bubble gum, etc., >and another judge disagrees with me--that has to be hammered out. I have been >in situations where we couldn't agree among ourselves and went to the organizer >or judge coordinator to make a ruling--which we lived with. I can't emphasize >enough how important this is for all the judges on a panel to be in agreement >on whether each beer is in style or not. I feel that this is the biggest problem with the current little "box" of score "meanings." It only talks about style, which is not the only thing that can go wrong with a beer. Furthermore, this makes it sound as if "in style" was a boolean result (it's either in or out). Aroma is but one stylistic character and therefore other things should be considered. If five things define a style (let's say) and one is missing, isn't the beer 80% "in style?" Well, okay, there should be some weight given to more important parameters like aroma (e.g. cloveyness in a Bavarian Weizen) and flavour (e.g. sourness in a pLambic), but I think it's unlikely to find a beer in any real competition that isn't at least 25% "in style." Back to that little "box" of "meanings." Mike writes: >I think you're probably right, Al, about a new era at the AHA. At least >I hope so. I don't know a lot about the past behavior of the AHA, but >I'm going into this wide-eyed and optimistic about the future. I'm going >to be listening to members a lot, especially vocal ones with good ideas, >like you. Okay, here's my first suggestion, which I am posting rather than sending directly because I'd like other judges' comments on it. I think that it is deserving of consideration and "I agree's" from other judges would give the BOA more evidence that it should be changed on the AHA scoresheets: Reword the meaning of the scores -- being in-style is not the only criteria for a high or low score. How about: 40-50 "stylisticaly excellent and has few or no technical problems," 30-39 "stylisticaly very good and/or has a few minor technical problems," 20-29 "a good beer, but has some stylistic and/or technical problems," 0-19 "has significant stylistic and/or technical flaws." I've already sent something similar to Tom Fitzpatrick when he asked for suggestions for the BJCP scoresheet back in November of 1996. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com ------------------------------ From: STROUDS at cliffy.polaroid.com Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 12:29:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Dennis' query Dennis> In reviewing judge performance via the "You feel you got a Dennis> poorly filled out score sheet program" I have repeatedly Dennis> found judges comments under appearance and body, saying Dennis> nothing bad and everything is great but only giving them two Dennis> or three points. I'm trying to figure this out. Is everybody Dennis> using these are to fudge? What do some of you do for Fruit or Dennis> Herb beers where the beer can actually be anything. To me Dennis> unless something is so terribly wrong, Fruit and Herb beers Dennis> desire 6 & 5 points respectivly for apprearance and body. In a word, yes. Most judges clearly have been making an attempt to have the total for a beer fit in the proper range. When that range is small (as in good: 25-29), then fudging takes place in order to shoehorn a beer into place. No doubt some if not most judges use body as a sacrificial point lamb. I'm not saying it's right, just that it happens, and that the old (current) beer evaluation form is partly to blame. - -- Steve ********** work: strouds at polaroid.com home: stivnpam at worldnet.att.net ********** ------------------------------ From: "Jones, Steven A." Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 12:35:02 -0500 Subject: Out-of-style scoring John DeCarlo raised an issue in #1397 that I have struggled with personally: that of limiting a beer that is judged out-of-style no higher than a 24, per the descriptors at the bottom of the scoring sheet (flame suit on). I believe that the AHA/BJCP style guidelines are just that - guidelines, and that there are no absolutes in judging to-style (including Guinness stout, SNPA, etc.). And, even if we had an absolute to compare to for a given category, then to-style is not necessarily a yes-no question, as a beer may be missing one or two flavor characteristics that the guidelines say should be present. By way of John's example, if a German Weizen has no detectable banana aroma, but has all of the other characteristics listed in the guidelines (clove, etc.), and also no obvious off-flavors, should the score be limited to a 24? This is an extreme example, but I use it to point out how "not-to-style" covers a range from an obviously mis-entered beer (porter in the kolsch category) to the type of situation in this example. In one competition, the other judge at the American Pale Ale table (only two of us) and I came up with widely different scores for a beer. He stated that he felt the beer was not-to-style (insufficient hops), and therefore should receive less than 24 points. I argued that the beer had no "major" flaws present (oxidation, phenolic, chlorine, etc.) - he agreed. I also stated that I wouldn't place the beer in the top 3 in category - he agreed. But, since I feel that the feedback to the entrants should be to first focus on "major" flaws like those listed above, for the new brewers, and that recipe formulation is a higher skill that can be practiced successfully only after a brewer eliminates the sources of the major flaws, that our point system should produce lower scores for seriously-flawed beers than for beers that are somewhat out-of-style (e.g., insufficient hops). (double-insulated flame suit on) Steve Jones T.R.A.S.H. - West (IN, AZ, ??) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---------------- Show me the data!!! Show me the data!!! ------------------------------ From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 15:26:19 -0800 Subject: RE: Wider scoring range Hi all, Bryan is confused by my post about utilizing the full scale for scoring beers. He asks, "The above refers to, I assume, your experience. Have you not given many scores above 40 because you haven't judged many beers that were very good?" "I mean, are you trying to argue that the score sheets should be revised because the range of beers in a typical competition all fall within a 10 point range on the current score sheets?" Yes, it is my experience that most beers at competitions fall within a 10 point range (or so). Like many other things, there is bell-shaped curve, with a few extreme entries, and most cluttering up the middle. Therefore the middle needs expansion, so that beers can be differentiated by score at the end of the day, without having to go back and retaste beers that are tied. David writes: "Take a look at other competitions, such as olympic sporting events that have qualitative merits expressed in quantitative terms. While events like gymnastics may have a 10 point scale, a 9 is a bad score and 9.8 is good." I don't agree with this analogy. Many sports, such as figure skating, gymnastics, and even pro football, have changed rules or scoring methods to make higher scoring games. This is a marketing tool. One reason Americans haven't embraced soccer is the low score of most games. High score = excitement. When judging 17 beers in one flight, it becomes tough to separate them by score if 10 of them fall into the 25-29 range. This just happened to me last weekend. The first place beer scored near 40. Almost all of the remaining 17 beers scored in the 25-29 range. They exemplified the style, but had fairly serious flaws. We had to do a "best of category" to determine 2nd and 3rd, because the scores were just too tight. If the scoring range was broader, this may have been avoided (maybe not). I think that the proposal that was printed here by Steve is a good one: 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. That's my .02. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) ------------------------------ From: "Thomas, Andrew R " Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 15:25:49 -0600 Subject: how to judge Here is a good way, taught to me in 1986 by a good friend, Fred Eckhardt. Dont score the subsections, but look at the beer, sniff it, and taste it. Now you have the whole thing in your head, go right to the bottom line total score and ask your self "is the beer good, problems, excellent, whatever" and roll out the final score. Then go back and score the subcategories like aroma and overall so the scores make sense. I find doing it this way gives me much more consistency, and there are no surprises when I "total up". A corollary: a problem beer is a 19. I read all the stuff in previous digests about using the whole 50 point spread. Dont do it. When you score a beer a zero, as we all have seen, people just get mad. A zero means " there is no beer in the bottle" in my book. Somebody suggested recently that a problem beer was under 30, and an excellent beer was over 40, making the functional spread 10. This is not correct. Read the score sheet again. a problem beer is under 20. andy ------------------------------ From: Ken Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 21:38:56 -0500 Subject: 6th. ann New York City Spring Regional Comp. Just a reminder. Several weeks ago we sent you information on the 6th ann. NY city Spring Regional Homebrew Competition. Entries are due by 3/21/97 complete information, including entry forms cam be found on the clubs home page URL http://www.wp.com/hosi/ under 6th ann NYCHBC, or you can request information in ASCI, MSWord or Amipro format. ------------------------------ From: "Bryan L. Gros" Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 08:07:27 -0600 (CST) Subject: sub-scores Along the topic of breaking down scoring by section (color 2, clarity 2, etc), how do you judge for conditioning? I judged a bavarian weizen once that had the phenolics dead on and was a great beer, but it was dead flat. I decided, for a weizen at least, that a flat beer was out of style (gave it 29 I think), but you really only have leeway to deduct two or three points for conditioning. Did I judge too harshly? In another style, say barleywine, I would not give nearly as much weight to conditioning; I felt it was more important for a weizen or something like American lager. - Bryan grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu Nashville, TN ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1398 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.