Return-Path: judge-request at brew.oeonline.com Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.35]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA29055 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:38:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.36]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA08609 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:38:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root at localhost) by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.5) with X.500 id AAA10641; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:38:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from brew.oeonline.com (brew.oeonline.com [206.31.224.50]) by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.5) with ESMTP id AAA10630; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:38:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root at localhost) by brew.oeonline.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id AAA18951 for realjudge; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:01:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:01:05 -0400 Message-Id: <199807170401.AAA18951 at brew.oeonline.com> To: judge at hbd.org From: judge-request at hbd.org (Request Address Only - No Articles) Reply-to: judge at hbd.org (Posting Address Only - No Requests) Errors-to: judge-request at hbd.org Precedence: bulk Subject: Beer Judge Digest #22 (July 17, 1998) Beer Judge Digest #22 Fri 17 July 1998 FORUM ON BEER JUDGING AND RELATED ISSUES Digest Custodian: custodian at hbd.org Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Beer Judge Digest. URL: http://www.oeonline.com Contents: BOS, etc. (Byron Burch) Re: groupings/points/checkboxes (Al Korzonas) ("Mike Kidulich") Re: Recipes and accuracy in the AHA NHC (George_De_Piro) FW: JudgeNet ("Lutzen, Karl F.") Becoming a Master/Out of Style Winners (Gordon Strong) FW: I've been in a void for the last month. ("John Weerts") Collapsing categories (Bill Giffin) bill's spreadsheet asumptions (STEPHEN G STROUD) Collapsing Categories (Lyle C. Brown) Have you organized a competition lately? Send articles for __publication_only__ to judge at hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to judge-request at hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! YOU MUST BE A BEER JUDGE OR BE REFERRED BY ONE TO SUBSCRIBE!!! You MUST be a subscriber in order to post articles!!! Requests for back issues will be ignored. CUSTODIANS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (custodian at hbd.org) "Not a publication of the BJCP" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 23:00:57 -0700 From: jobybp at metro.net (Byron Burch) Subject: BOS, etc. Howdy, I've been reviewing the past few postings, and based on my experience, I'd like to make a couple of points. First, there is probably no perfect way of looking at BOS. It is very true that the first criterion is that a beer must be true to style, but at a top competition, I would hope that most BOS contenders would be true to style, at least in terms of their perception, if not in their statistics. By the way, I'm not sure I completely understand the idea of being "truest to style." Does that mean that if the IBU range for a given style is 40-50, a beer with 45 IBU's is more true to style than one with 49? I don't think that works. If, however, in a BOS judging, the "trueness to style" is the first consideration, it is also necessary to judge how well executed the entry is as a beer in that style. A really worthy entry will do well on that count, and one would hope the IBU level would at least fall somewhere in the correct range, but it should be as acceptable at 50 as at 45. My best BOS experience was at the 1997 Bluebonnet Brewoff, when we gave the award to a superb lambic. I enjoy a lambic occasionally, but it's miles away from being my favorite style. The icing on the cake (in the form of vindication) came later when the brewer entered his beer at the AHA Nationals, and won the Homebrewer of the Year award. Next point: It is a terrible idea to insist on furnishing recipes to the judges. The beer is being judged, not the recipe. Why limit the creativity of brewers? If someone needs to follow the Bavarian Purity Law to score well with a Munich Helles, okay, but if not, and the beer comes across as authentic, more power to him. I've often said that, if a beer shows itself well, it can be made out of sawgrass and peanut butter as far as I'm concerned. That's just a strong way of saying it, but the point is important I much enjoyed Lyle Brown's discussion recently (in Digest #18) of my Raspberry Imperial Stout that won the stout class at AHA's Oakland conference in 1990, and that's an excellent illustration of my point. Michael Jackson has written of Imperial Stouts having overtones of black currants. Who knows? Perhaps you can get a similar effect with raspberries. I'd like to be able to claim that this is exactly what I was trying to prove, but actually, I was just trying to add raspberries to an imperial stout at a barely detectable level, so that the flavors blended very subtly. They may have been more subtly blended than I intended. Maybe it's just that I really like raspberries, and can probably taste one at a distance of about 50 feet. There is a possible exception to the no recipe rule. I've judged specialty beers and meads in more than one competition, when we had to ask what the specialty ingredients were. It goes without saying that this should never happen. Peace to you all, Byron Burch http://205.138.228.126:80/jobybp/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 05:48:27 -5 From: "Mike Kidulich" Subject: Re: groupings/points/checkboxes (Al Korzonas) > We in the Beer Style Committee have that issue on our list of things > to do. We had planned to see if we could come up with a way for > competitions to collapse groups of styles. This can be done before > sending out the rules and registration info or after all the entries > are in but before judging begins. I just returned from an officers meeting of our homebrew club, where I presented a condensed version of the the AHA style guidelines. We will be accepting all AHA designations, in 12 categories plus mead and cider. Mead and cider do not compete in our BOS round, and hence have a minimal impact on judging. We previously had only nine categories, with entire styles like Scottish-Style ales and German Wheat beers consigned to Specialty. I haven't finished the text version of our guidelines, but I can post them here if anyone is interested. I expect to have them completed by the end of the week. Also, I just thought I would add my $0.02 on the style guideline discussion. I, too would like to see the AHA and BJCP guidlines in agreement, not just from an organization standpoint, but also from an educational standpoint. I am going to be attempting to teach beer judging this next year, culminating in a BJCP exam to be held in conjunction with our annual competition next May (stay tuned for details). It would be nice to have one set of guidelines to teach from, so as to reduce controversy. Cheers! Mike Kidulich, President Emeritus/BJCP Coordinator Upstate New York Homebrewers Association mjkid at ix.netcom.com http://www.ggw.org/unyha/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 08:11:53 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com Subject: Re: Recipes and accuracy in the AHA NHC Hi all, Bill G. continues his years long diatribe about how bad we all are because some of the published recipes in Zymurgy don't seem to fit the style guidelines. When my O'fest won a gold back in 1996 Bill sent me unsolicited advice about how to correct my recipe to make it more to style. He noted that my efficiency was low and that my hop rate calculated out to only 11 IBUs. He didn't complain that my 1.062 OG was well above the guidelines at the time (I complained enough to the AHA that they have now expanded the gravity range almost enough to include historically accurate examples). Bill never tasted the beer. I, and 6 other judges (2 of which were pro brewers, one of them being Dave Miller) agreed that it was a damn good beer, and very much to style. "How can this be?" Bill might ask. "The recipe indicates it is not to style." The answer is simple. IBU calculations are total BS. Whenever I have used even the "generous" Rager formula to estimate hop IBU's, my beers end up WAY over hopped. The results of the recent HBD pale ale experiment have confirmed my suspicions. All of the participants brewed the same recipe (with the same ingredients from the same source), which calculated out to about 35-39 IBU's. The reality was an average around 65 IBU's, with enough variation to make one scratch their head in wonder. Reading a recipe is not nearly enough. Unless you were there to taste the beer, don't pretend that you can talk about its flaws and merits. Even in recipes that look way over hopped, there are variables that may make the actual beer fit the entered style. Of course some judges are not very good, and will make more mistakes than others. That's life. How can we stop this? I doubt that we can. It can be improved, though. Some ideas and comments follow: 1. This one isn't my idea, but since it was told to me in a private communication I won't spout the person's name. They can jump in and take credit if they want: a BJCP judge must enter at least two AHA/BJCP sanctioned contests each year to stay on the active roster. I add to this idea that an exemption could be made for the professionals amongst us (they already brew many times each year and subject their efforts to the scrutiny o the paying public!) I really like this idea. The best judges (in my opinion) are the ones that brew frequently, and regularly subject their efforts to the scrutiny of their peers. Not only does this let them know how they are brewing, but it also allows them to experience how an entrant feels when they get crappy score sheets back! That should make people more careful about their own judging. 2. Offer "advanced tasting" classes through the BJCP. I am about to start such a class in my area (although it is not sanctioned by the BJCP), using an Aldrich beer spiking kit. The BJCP has $30K in the kitty. There is no reason a bit of that can't be spent on a program like this. The goal of our non-profit organization is to foster the appreciation of real beer and recognize beer evaluation skills. This would fit in beautifully. I am the one of the most vocal people I know when it comes to complaining about crappy judges. I am trying to do something about it though. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 08:46:48 -0500 From: "Lutzen, Karl F." Subject: FW: JudgeNet I just received this note from Chuck Cox. JudgeNet is now back online. This brings us to a point that I knew would occur someday: do we continue to run the BJD in parallel to JudgeNet (with the inevitable cross-posting, and possible confusion)? Anyway, I leave it to the subscribers to vote on their own as to which way we go. > > After a prolonged absence due to a server failure and > transition to a new > operating system, the original JudgeNet is back online. > > JudgeNet is a public digest for the discussion of topics of > interest to > beer competition judges and organizers. JudgeNet is moderated by BJCP > master beer judge Chuck Cox and is sponsored by > SynchroSystems. > > To subscribe to JudgeNet, send a message to > mailserver at synchro.com containing: > > subscribe judge > > Please note that it is not my intention to be contentious with the new > judge digest. I had already made a significant investment in reviving > JudgeNet when the new digest was announced, and hate to see > that effort > wasted. Perhaps the two digests can evolve to serve > different needs. I am > willing to be quite flexible about the future of JudgeNet and > welcome your > suggestions. > > Please distribute this message to others who may be > interested in JudgeNet. > > > - Chuck Cox > - SynchroSystems > - > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 10:05:19 -0400 From: Gordon Strong Subject: Becoming a Master/Out of Style Winners Bill Giffen wrote in BJD #21: "When should we make a National judge that scored 87 on the exam and has judged over 40 competitions a Master judge? At 45 competition? At 60 competitions? Never? Must the National judge have to take the exam over for a few points or have they demonstrated that they are in fact a Master judge that is only given a National rating and should be raise in rank to a master?" While I haven't quite judged in 40 competitions yet, I did score an 87 on the test, and I do expect to retake the exam before becoming a master judge. I think any expectation otherwise undermines the purpose of the organization. Simply being present at competitions does not make one a master judge. Granted, it should help, but if you can't demonstrate the skills necessary to be called a master judge (i.e. getting a 90 on the test) you shouldn't be considered one. Advancement based on demonstrated skill and experience is a fair and proper approach. Regarding out of style (usually big) beers winning competitions, I agree with Bill it can be a problem. But I think the solution is to increase the awareness, judging ability and responsibility of judges, not subject winners to some form of post-award screening. Any time a human element is present, there are chances for error (e.g. in the NBA finals, Utah lost game 6 because of a 5-point swing on two missed calls at the buzzer; instant replay showed otherwise, but the human referee prevailed). What can we do? Increase awareness among judges that this can be a problem, and to look for it. To increase the experience of members so that things like a 50% too high gravity beer can be recognized. Maybe BJCP test proctors should include one beer that is way too big for style so that judges who can't differentiate that won't get as high a score and thus won't achieve the highest judging levels. I also disagree with creating style certifications for judges. It's hard enough to find judges (and volunteers to administer the program) without adding another layer of complexity. Competition organizers and judge directors can look at the judge forms to see what categories a judge feels competent at judging. I just wish more competitions would use the information they have presently, and even (gasp) let judges know what categories they will be judging in advance so they can prepare. If we can't even achieve this goal on a regular basis, I fail to see how adding more certifications will help. Bottom line, I think our present system works well but individual judges need to continue their training and be aware of problems that arise within the system. With the right judge attitude, these problems are self-correcting. Gordon Strong strongg at earthlink.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:06:46 -0500 From: "John Weerts" Subject: FW: I've been in a void for the last month. In Brewing, John R. Weerts - -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Cox [mailto:chuck at synchro.com] Sent: Thursday, July 16, 1998 8:11 AM To: John R. Weerts Subject: Re: I've been in a void for the last month. After a prolonged absence due to a server failure and transition to a new operating system, the original JudgeNet is back online. JudgeNet is a public digest for the discussion of topics of interest to beer competition judges and organizers. JudgeNet is moderated by BJCP master beer judge Chuck Cox and is sponsored by SynchroSystems. To subscribe to JudgeNet, send a message to mailserver at synchro.com containing: subscribe judge Please note that it is not my intention to be contentious with the new judge digest. I had already made a significant investment in reviving JudgeNet when the new digest was announced, and hate to see that effort wasted. Perhaps the two digests can evolve to serve different needs. I am willing to be quite flexible about the future of JudgeNet and welcome your suggestions. Please distribute this message to others who may be interested in JudgeNet. * Chuck Cox * SynchroSystems * ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:09:19 -0400 From: Bill Giffin Subject: Collapsing categories I have never understood why categories are collapsed except for judging purposes. In New England we finally did away with collapsing categories for prize purposes. If there is only one beer in a category and it scores 25 or more it wins first place. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:12:41 -0400 From: STROUDS at POLAROID.COM (STEPHEN G STROUD) Subject: bill's spreadsheet asumptions Hello all, IN BJD #21, Bill Giffin wrote: > I used a spreadsheet to evaluate the recipes of the past AHA NHC. > This spreadsheet calculated efficiency, color, and ibu's. If the > expected efficiency was very low then it was an indication that the > recipe was not in agreement with the OG. One efficiency came out > to be 110%, damn I wish I could do that it would be a money > machine, which is obvious that the recipe isn't correct for the > winning beer shown. There is nowhere near enough information in the published recipes in Zymurgy for Bill to be making efficiency assumptions about them. Almost none of the recipes show mash volumes, sparge volumes, sparge times, sparge temperatures, etc. What if I used a RIMS system and got 34 pts/lb/gal? What if I did a no-sparge and got 20 pts/lb/gal? What if my grain wasn't crushed very efficiently? What if it was slack? How would the Zumurgy reader know? How does Bill know? The IBU's Bill calculated are at best an approximation and again, Zymurgy doesn't indicate whether they were pellet hops or whole leaf, if a hop bag was used, how strongly the wort was boiled, whether a blowoff tube was used, if the initial krausen was skimmed, or anything else that might affect the final bitterness level. Additionally, the algorithm used to calculate approximate IBU levels varies from spreadsheet to spreadsheet and none of them are in total agreement indicating the vagaries of the calculation. Spreadsheets are great for figuring out your own recipes on your own system using your own techniques, but for Bill to be broadly criticizing the recipes as published based on his spreadsheet calculations and the assumptions made therein strikes me as hypercritical. Cheers, -Steve ********** work: strouds at polaroid.com home: strouds at gis.net ********** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 19:42:32 -0400 From: beerking1 at juno.com (Lyle C. Brown) Subject: Collapsing Categories Doesn't anybody remember the "good old days," when many a competition was soo small the only "categories" were: Pale Lager, Amber Lager, Dark Lager and Pale Ale, Amber Ale and Dark Ale? How far we've come! Lyle C. Brown VA's First Beer Judge! _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ End of Beer Judge Digest #22, 07/17/98 ************************************* -------