Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 11:13:08 -0500
Message-Id: <199703071613.LAA13028 at synchro.com>
From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
To: judge-digest at synchro.com
Subject:   judge-digest V1 #1400
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com
Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk


judge-digest                Friday, 7 March 1997        Volume 01 : Number 1400

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

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

 multiple topics...
 Re: judge-digest V1 #1399
 Heads Up: Spirit of Free Beer, June 7
 Not exactly convincing

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

From: fespourteille at mmt.com (Francois Espourteille)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 16:39:28 -0500
Subject: multiple topics...

     Dion gives a pretty good analysis of the AHA / BJCP competition 
     options and costs.  Once you have looked closely at all the options, 
     
     >  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.  
     
     I came to the same conclusion last year while organizing a 
     competition.
     
     On a different topic, that of styles and judging, a few people (Al 
     Korzonas, Steven Jones, Bryan Gros, and others) gave examples of beers 
     being scored low for being out of styles.  In most cases the beer was 
     seen as out of style due to only one characteristic (e.i. no 
     clove/banana esters for a weizen).  I don't necessarily agree (as Al 
     K. pointed out I believe) that one characteristic places a beer in or 
     out of a style.  A weizen lacking esters can be seen as having a major 
     flaw, but not as being out of style. Everything else about that beer 
     might be in style.  It usually takes more than one characteristic for 
     me to determine that a beer is out of style.  Any other thoughts on 
     that topic? 
     
     Andrew Thomas advocates the old "bottom up" approach to grading:
     
     >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". 
     
     I have always found this method dangerous for a couple of reasons:  
     First, this (look,snif, sip, score) can only be done correctly by a 
     handfull of very experienced judges; most judges don't (in my opinion) 
     have the ability to do this consistently and reproducibly.  Secondly, 
     when working with a very complex sample (like a beer), if one can 
     manage to break it down in simple(r) groups of characteristics, then 
     assess these characteristics as individually as possible, the analyst 
     (judge) has to make simpler, more straightforward decisions.  Then one 
     can sum up these decisions.  I am an analytical chemist and 
     simplifying/subdividing a sample is essencial to being able to produce 
     a correct analysis.  I don't think it's different with beer.  
     Afterall, the "bottom up" method requires that we turn on all of our 
     senses (taste buds, nasal sensors, visual sensors, sense of touch and 
     hearing) and in the sensory mayhem that follows the smelling/tasting 
     of the beer, we require our brain to simultaneously process the input 
     from all these sensory organs and spit out a ranking.  Like I just 
     said, maybe a few people out can do this consistently, but for the 
     rest of us...  I much rather score from the top down, and if you do it 
     right, then the total will reflect the beer.  Of course, that's just 
     my opinion.   
     
     
     On a totally different topic, that is not entirelly beer related, 
     George De Piro write:
       >One reason Americans haven't embraced soccer is the low score of    
       >most games.  High score = excitement.
     
     Not at all.  Soccer doesn't have a chance here because you can't cram 
     it full of commercials.  The game doesn't stop every ten minutes and 
     it bugs the hell out of the Madison St. guys.
     
     Sorry for the long post; lots of good topics to discuss.
     
     Cheers,
     
     Francois.

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

From: Craig Pepin <ckp at acpub.duke.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 03:26:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: judge-digest V1 #1399

Having finally caught up with several back months of Judgedigest 
remotely from across the Atlantic, let me add several short points to 
recent discussions.  I already went through the whole AHA-BJCP double 
sanctioning thing last fall, but tend to agree with many of Dion's 
points.  The AHA 'Lifers' and BJCP fans will always find reasons to 
boost their cause, and that's fine for me. I'll sanction based on who I 
think provides the services and on my prejudices.  As John Carlson? said, 
it's a free marketplace.

On sending out style guidelines, we did it because the 
BJCP ones were not in place and I had big problems with some of the AHA's 
style descriptions.  We had our own, modified set of style guidelines.
We mailed these out with our entry forms, which I think should always be 
done regardless of whose guidelines are used.  Not everyone gets 
Zymurgy.  There was no additional postage cost because four sheets of 
paper plus a staple and label are still under the 1 oz limit and cost 
.32.  Just put info on both sides, or even better, on two 11x17 sheets 
folded like a book.  Yes, there is an increased copier cost, but I think 
the entrant ought to have the style info in front of him, to help novices 
from miscategorizing.

On another issue: why must things be yes/no?  The world is a complicated 
place, John - complexities, ambiguities, shades of gray.  Only in the 
computer world can everything be reduced to black or white, yes or no, 1 
or 0.  Last I checked, computers had not become the real world ... yet.  
Only the Batman villain Twoface insists on binary results in the real 
world.

At any rate, the new scoresheets which revamp the 24 points, out of style 
marking seem to help with this dilemma.  Nor should this be seen as 
endorsement of percentages.  John, however, is completely right in that 
that proof is the comments.

Craig "I'm drinking altbier and you're not" Pepin
 - more easily reachable at Pepin at stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de


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

From: stevens at stsci.edu (Mark Stevens)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 08:07:49 -0500
Subject: Heads Up: Spirit of Free Beer, June 7

BURP's fifth annual Nation's Capital "Spirit of Free
Beer" homebrew competition will be held June 7 in
Vienna VA. Entries will be due by May 30. This is a
BJCP sanctioned competition. All major beer styles,
plus cider and mead are eligible.

BURP always awards great prizes to all of the winners.
Both ribbons and prizes will be awarded to all category
winners with the best of show winner earning the
chance to scale-up and brew a batch of the winning
recipe at the Virginia Beverage Company.

We're also looking for judges. All BJCP judges are invited
to come judge with us. We're a fairly easy drive from NC
or PA. BJCP judges who would like to judge at this
competition should contact Greg Griffin (gmgriff0 at wcc.com).

Entry packets will be mailed in early April. Anyone who
would like to request a packet should contact Mark Stevens,
stevens at stsci.edu.

Cheers!
- ---Mark Stevens

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

From: gwk at world.std.com (Greg Kushmerek)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 10:27:47 -0500
Subject: Not exactly convincing

>  >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.
 
> As you know, this is the United States of America.  We have a free
> market of ideas here.  The AHA had a score sheet long before
> whatever we (BJCP) have now.  To say that an AHA revision of its own
> score sheet is working against the BJCP is IMO misplaced.  Let the
> AHA have its score sheet, let the BJCP have its score sheet and let
> the organizer choose the one he/she feels is the better product!

First of all, Steve pointed out (if you go back and read his post)
that the BJCP has already created the form, and invited the AHA to use
it.  His conclusion really says that the AHA's efforts would be
redundant and points out the rather obvious fact that the AHA's
reinventing the wheel after the BJCP has gone through the same effort
would be an organizational disregard for the BJCP -- one that suggests
a lack of respect for the BJCP's efforts (if you respect the
organization, why ignore its efforts?).

Second of all, your post says nothing to convince me that what Steve
has said is "misplaced".  As a matter of fact, it only promotes the
idea of conflict and confusion.  When you promote the folly of the
free market of ideas, you make some rather erroneous assumptions:

	1. The BJCP and AHA are competitors and must sell a product to
	promote themselves.

	2. The only way to achieve the best score sheet is to pit the
	resources of the BJCP and the AHA against each other.

On the first point, why do you, a self-identified "AHA Life Member and
BJCP National Judge", feel that the non-profit AHA and BJCP must
engage in the for-profit activity of market competition to come up
with the best score sheet?  Is this a dollar game?  I didn't think so!
This arrangement works best when someone must win to be on top. Having
the best product is only a side-show to market dominance.  True
capitalists only make it as good as it has to be to attract the most
market share.  I thought our motivation was to make it as good as it
should be so that all of us amateurs could get the best for our hobby.

Why would two non-profit organizations such as these want this
arrangement?  Surely, you must really want to promote the idea of
competing score sheets towards the end of finding the best one.  Well,
the BJCP has already started exactly such a procedure whereby it
offers several proposed sheets so that people can make this
evaluation.  (I'm not in the inner circle and I knew this much.)

However, assume that we go that route of a market-oriented,
competitive-based approach.  I don't think you've throught through the
fallout on this one.  What does Joe-I-entered-three-pack get from an
inter-organization competitive struggle?  Confusion, most likely.  If
he/she notices two different organizations and two different
score-sheets, they'll notice an inconsistency in results.  I don't see
how this helps educate and promote homebrewing and beer knowledge.

No, I think that this shows the folly of your second base assumption.
As each organization struggles against the other to pitch its better
scoresheet, they'll have to make the general public victims in the
struggle.  This goes against the nature of each organization.

It's just as civil an idea to corral ideas and propose the best
thought out ideas for review and use.  Why, even in our "Free market
of ideas" here in the good old United States of America, we do just
such a thing.  It's called "cooperation" and if you need to feel warm
and fuzzy in mimicking the market, look to the large corporations for
your inspiration (they're called "consortiums").

So why not have the AHA take the BJCP proposed forms and use them as a
basis for further work or review?  Why put out a competing form when
cooperation will achieve results much faster?  Send email to
gwk at world.std.com if you'd like some examples of the protracted costs
and problems when you use market competition to set a standard (think
Beta first, though).  If it's not necessary to compete, then there's
no point in doing so.

- --gk

- -- 
Greg Kushmerek
gwk at world.std.com
 

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

End of judge-digest V1 #1400
****************************

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