Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.35]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA13221 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:05:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.144.90]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA07703 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:05:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 06/09/99 - 06/10/99 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:04:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC17057353D" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC17057353D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Taste-offs (Laura Guimond and Gary Corbin) Re: Brewcrew: Taste-offs (Michael Rasmussen) --Next_Part_SYNC17057353D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from mail2.teleport.com ([192.108.254.43]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC1680726E6 for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 09 Jun 1999 00:06:59 -0400 Received: (qmail 18152 invoked from network); 9 Jun 1999 04:07:26 -0000 Received: from i48-27-03.pdx.du.teleport.com (HELO gary-and-laura) (216.26.8.131) by mail2.teleport.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 1999 04:07:26 -0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:06:31 -0700 Message-ID: <01BEB1F2.C8387DE0.llgrc at teleport.com> From: Laura Guimond and Gary Corbin Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Cc: 'Brew Crew MailList Server' Subject: Taste-offs Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:57:19 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 51 TEXT X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I would like to raise a judging issue for serious discussion. I think we should change the way we do taste-offs in competitions for multiple-flight categories. I invite discussion on this topic - please, jump in! Typically in competition in which there are too many entries (more than 12) in a category to judge in one flight, the judging is structured like this: the category is split into two or more flights, and the best 2 or 3 by score are forwarded to a taste-off, to be decided by some or all of the judges from the separate flights. The judges at the taste-off do not rescore the entries, but instead try to reach a consensus on the best 3 and rank them to determine the winners. Here are the problems I see with this: - Often the taste-off judges do not have a fresh bottle to use in the taste-off. Instead, the scoring judges must save some of the bottle they've poured for the taste-off. It sits, loosely capped, for up to 2 hours as the other beers are tasted. It gets flat, warm, and stale. - The re-ranking of the beers is often quick and in any event is not as thorough as the initial scoring. It does not take into account the careful work already done by the scoring judges. - More often than not, and in part due to the first two points, the winner is NOT one of the ones scored highest at either table. I've seen a #3 beer, which had scored as much as 8-10 points lower than #1, emerge the winner; and #1 scorers - scored by the same initial judges - fall out of the winner's circle. I think we need a more structured taste-off process, sanctioned and required for AHA/BJCP competitions. I suggest: - A separate bottle is ALWAYS used for taste-offs, that is every bit as fresh as the one first judged. For most competitions, that means 3 beers must be submitted for evaluation. (For AHA first-round, and others where there is no best of show round, it requires 2.) - The taste-off MUST take into account the scoring. Moreover, the ONLY beers that should be considered for first place overall ought to be the ones receiving the high scores in the scoring flight. Then the other #1 and the #2 ought to be considered for second. And so on. - If there are still scoring rank-order differences, i.e. #1 has a 37 and #2 (the other table's high score) had a 42, they ought to be fixed by either adjusting the initial score(s), or having the taste-off judges rescore them. Preferably they'd just adjust the #1 upwards. What do you think? - Gary --Next_Part_SYNC17057353D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from barley.patch.com ([209.180.166.33]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC168172780 for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 09 Jun 1999 01:52:09 -0400 Received: (from mikeraz at localhost) by barley.patch.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA27773; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 22:52:29 -0700 From: Michael Rasmussen Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Message-Id: <199906090552.WAA27773 at barley.patch.com> Subject: Re: Brewcrew: Taste-offs In-Reply-To: <000001beb237$b40f4e80$26081ad8 at greagle> from Noel Blake at "Jun 8, 99 10:19:52 pm" To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 22:52:29 -0700 (PDT) Cc: judge at synchro.com, brewcrew at barley.patch.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL34 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Noel Blake wrote: > Gary Corbin offered some well-thought out suggestions regarding taste-offs. > >> The taste-off MUST take into account the scoring. Moreover, the ONLY > beers that should be considered for first place overall ought to be the ones > receiving the high scores in the scoring flight. Then the other #1 and the > #2 ought to be considered for second. And so on. > > This would be a good idea, if the overall level of judging were more > consistent. Due to problems in interpreting or understanding style, > inexperienced judges may score a beer down unfairly. The only way to Noel, Gary's idea does take into account these issues. I'll amplify what he said... Assume that we only have two flights in this case. A and B...no that won't work. How about M and H? That will work. So we have M1, M2 and M3 - the top beers from the M table. And H1, H2 and H3 from the H table. M1 and H1 are compared and one is selected as best for the catagory. Since we're a bunch of hop heads here in the Northwest, let's say H1 is the winnder. Now M1 and H2 are compared. It turns out that H2 is also judged as better than M1. H2 becomes the #2 beer for the flight. And so on. This respects the initial evaluation made by each table. It guarantees that the #3 beer from a table won't be promoted over the #1 beer from the same table. (Yes, this does happen.) At the same time if one table was lucky enough to have all the good beer (sigh, it happens) then it still allows for the good table to take all the ribbons. Now if we have a table that took a great beer and assigned it a ranking (say third) behind lesser beers...well that too happens. That's what makes judging a continuing education kind of thing. Speaking of which...it's quarter to 11:00, I've been working since 5:00am and I need to attend to my own continuing education of beer evaluation. -- Michael Rasmussen - mikeraz at patch.com Be Appropriate && Follow Your Curiosity email to pager: pagemike at patch.com --Next_Part_SYNC17057353D-- Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.35]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA13221 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:05:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.144.90]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA07703 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:05:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 06/09/99 - 06/10/99 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:04:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC17057353D" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC17057353D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Taste-offs (Laura Guimond and Gary Corbin) Re: Brewcrew: Taste-offs (Michael Rasmussen) --Next_Part_SYNC17057353D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from mail2.teleport.com ([192.108.254.43]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC1680726E6 for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 09 Jun 1999 00:06:59 -0400 Received: (qmail 18152 invoked from network); 9 Jun 1999 04:07:26 -0000 Received: from i48-27-03.pdx.du.teleport.com (HELO gary-and-laura) (216.26.8.131) by mail2.teleport.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 1999 04:07:26 -0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:06:31 -0700 Message-ID: <01BEB1F2.C8387DE0.llgrc at teleport.com> From: Laura Guimond and Gary Corbin Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Cc: 'Brew Crew MailList Server' Subject: Taste-offs Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:57:19 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 51 TEXT X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I would like to raise a judging issue for serious discussion. I think we should change the way we do taste-offs in competitions for multiple-flight categories. I invite discussion on this topic - please, jump in! Typically in competition in which there are too many entries (more than 12) in a category to judge in one flight, the judging is structured like this: the category is split into two or more flights, and the best 2 or 3 by score are forwarded to a taste-off, to be decided by some or all of the judges from the separate flights. The judges at the taste-off do not rescore the entries, but instead try to reach a consensus on the best 3 and rank them to determine the winners. Here are the problems I see with this: - Often the taste-off judges do not have a fresh bottle to use in the taste-off. Instead, the scoring judges must save some of the bottle they've poured for the taste-off. It sits, loosely capped, for up to 2 hours as the other beers are tasted. It gets flat, warm, and stale. - The re-ranking of the beers is often quick and in any event is not as thorough as the initial scoring. It does not take into account the careful work already done by the scoring judges. - More often than not, and in part due to the first two points, the winner is NOT one of the ones scored highest at either table. I've seen a #3 beer, which had scored as much as 8-10 points lower than #1, emerge the winner; and #1 scorers - scored by the same initial judges - fall out of the winner's circle. I think we need a more structured taste-off process, sanctioned and required for AHA/BJCP competitions. I suggest: - A separate bottle is ALWAYS used for taste-offs, that is every bit as fresh as the one first judged. For most competitions, that means 3 beers must be submitted for evaluation. (For AHA first-round, and others where there is no best of show round, it requires 2.) - The taste-off MUST take into account the scoring. Moreover, the ONLY beers that should be considered for first place overall ought to be the ones receiving the high scores in the scoring flight. Then the other #1 and the #2 ought to be considered for second. And so on. - If there are still scoring rank-order differences, i.e. #1 has a 37 and #2 (the other table's high score) had a 42, they ought to be fixed by either adjusting the initial score(s), or having the taste-off judges rescore them. Preferably they'd just adjust the #1 upwards. What do you think? - Gary --Next_Part_SYNC17057353D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from barley.patch.com ([209.180.166.33]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC168172780 for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 09 Jun 1999 01:52:09 -0400 Received: (from mikeraz at localhost) by barley.patch.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA27773; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 22:52:29 -0700 From: Michael Rasmussen Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Message-Id: <199906090552.WAA27773 at barley.patch.com> Subject: Re: Brewcrew: Taste-offs In-Reply-To: <000001beb237$b40f4e80$26081ad8 at greagle> from Noel Blake at "Jun 8, 99 10:19:52 pm" To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 22:52:29 -0700 (PDT) Cc: judge at synchro.com, brewcrew at barley.patch.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL34 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Noel Blake wrote: > Gary Corbin offered some well-thought out suggestions regarding taste-offs. > >> The taste-off MUST take into account the scoring. Moreover, the ONLY > beers that should be considered for first place overall ought to be the ones > receiving the high scores in the scoring flight. Then the other #1 and the > #2 ought to be considered for second. And so on. > > This would be a good idea, if the overall level of judging were more > consistent. Due to problems in interpreting or understanding style, > inexperienced judges may score a beer down unfairly. The only way to Noel, Gary's idea does take into account these issues. I'll amplify what he said... Assume that we only have two flights in this case. A and B...no that won't work. How about M and H? That will work. So we have M1, M2 and M3 - the top beers from the M table. And H1, H2 and H3 from the H table. M1 and H1 are compared and one is selected as best for the catagory. Since we're a bunch of hop heads here in the Northwest, let's say H1 is the winnder. Now M1 and H2 are compared. It turns out that H2 is also judged as better than M1. H2 becomes the #2 beer for the flight. And so on. This respects the initial evaluation made by each table. It guarantees that the #3 beer from a table won't be promoted over the #1 beer from the same table. (Yes, this does happen.) At the same time if one table was lucky enough to have all the good beer (sigh, it happens) then it still allows for the good table to take all the ribbons. Now if we have a table that took a great beer and assigned it a ranking (say third) behind lesser beers...well that too happens. That's what makes judging a continuing education kind of thing. Speaking of which...it's quarter to 11:00, I've been working since 5:00am and I need to attend to my own continuing education of beer evaluation. -- Michael Rasmussen - mikeraz at patch.com Be Appropriate && Follow Your Curiosity email to pager: pagemike at patch.com --Next_Part_SYNC17057353D--