Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.22]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA11257 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:05:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA27752 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:04:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 9/4/01 - 9/5/01 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 01:01:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC13373B6F1D" X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC13373B6F1D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Commercial competitions (Robert Paolino) --Next_Part_SYNC13373B6F1D Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC13373B6F1D" --Message_Part_SYNC13373B6F1D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from out1.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net ([169.207.2.78]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC12293B4A35 for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:38:37 -0400 Received: from pop4.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (pop4.nwbl.wi.voyager.net [169.207.2.83]) by out1.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (8.11.4/8.11.4/1.7) with ESMTP id f7VHcFu43948 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:38:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from earth (rpaolino at earth.execpc.com [169.207.16.1]) by pop4.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7VHcEW47901 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:38:14 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:38:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Paolino 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 Subject: Commercial competitions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Belated response to Jeff Sparrow's comments: Although I am not in Jeff's "absolutely not" category, I am leaning slightly to the "no" side. But I think Jeff's (I paraphrase) "when you start dealing with what other people do to make a living" concern is misplaced. We're not talking about the BJCP forcing any commercial competition to take BJCP judges or procedures. If a BJCP judge who isn't also a professional brewer (and there are others who might be somewhat associated with the industry, even if not full time--I have judged the World Beer Cup, and was accepted/invited, I presume, in part from my being a part-time beer writer, but I'm sure also taking into account my judging experience and other beer related pursuits) isn't invited to judge, s/he's not going to be judging that competition. They'll have us judge only if they want us to. The BJCP awarding points for that experience? Points, schmoints... Any BJCP judge who is experienced enough that a major professional competition would invite that judge is a judge who probably isn't all that concerned about getting even more points. (For homebrew competitions it's nice to have the participation recorded, regardless of points, simply because it's a record of service (to the BJCP), but to add a few extra points for a relatively small number of judges in non-homebrew competitions doesn't seem worth the extra effort by the BJCP.) Tyler Yarbrough writes: [snip] > I don't think we're suggesting getting the BJCP involved in dictating > style guidelines to commercial brewers, or even influencing what > commercial brewers are doing at all. The discussion, rather is whether > BJCP ranked judges should accrue experience recognition by the BJCP for > their efforts on behalf of commercial beer competitions. > The BJCP has never held itself out as a resource for commercial brewers, > even though commercial beer competitions recognize our judging > competence to the point of inviting us to judge. All we're talking > about, as I understand it, is recognizing this internally to the BJCP, > as good experience for the judges involved. [snip] Of course it's good experience, but 1) most judges at that level probably don't need the points (noted above) and 2) consider the logistics. BJCP sanctioning does imply an agreement to follow certain procedures and standards, but it's pretty, ummm, flexible. Look at the diversity of categories and procedures among BJCP homebrew competitions, and they all are eligible under the sanctioning procedure. So, yes, the major commercial competitions would meet the standards in that they use defined style guidelines (even if not the same guidelines as the BJCP), assuring blind tasting, a "professional" attitude, et cetera (although the expectations for what is written on the score sheet are much different from a homebrew competition). But do the commercial competitions want to apply for sanctioning by an "amateur" body? And, yes, the BJCP under some variation on current rules _would_ have to sanction/register a commercial competition for a judge to receive points for judging it (and what about BJCP judges who volunteer to steward?). Why? Who's going to report the points to the BJCP? I've judged at more than a handful of sanctioned competitions for which I've never received points because the organiser never submitted a report and has ended up on the shitlist that gets printed in the BJCP newsletter. If there are judges who don't get points at _sanctioned_ competitions for lack, how is the BJCP going to document the points for judges at professional competitions that aren't registered with the BJCP? It's not that I oppose the idea of judges getting some kind of recognition for service outside of homebrew competitions (or the enhanced status that the BJCP may derive from it), it's that it's extra effort expended by the organisation (effort that could go into improving homebrew competition), for minimal return (points to a relatively small number of judges who already have plenty of points). If the BJCP really wants to get involved in this _and_ can do so without diverting effort/resources away from homebrew competitions and related educational activity (not enough of that yet), fine, go ahead and do it, but it just seems to be something that would be of minimal benefit to too few people (and I say that as someone who would be in a position to be one of those too few people). > From: beerking1 at juno.com Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:18:25 -0400 > Subject: Judging at the GABF > > Anyone else remember the year Jim Koch set out to intentionally prove > that the GABF Best of Show was a pure popularity contest? For those that > don't: He announced his intentions ahead of time, and showed up with a > bevy of scantily clad, buxom women (how many women are in a bevy?) These I was aware that he did solicit votes that way, but was not aware that he had announced in advance that he was doing it to prove it a farce. > women all were there to attract attention, and promote voting for Sam > Adams as Best of Show. Wonder of wonders, he won by a landslide. This > created much hate and discontent within the community. There were many > arguments about this event. Still, the bottom line was that Jim saw a > flaw in the process, and proved the error of it. Subsequent to his It sure didn't stop him from exploiting the flawed and error-ridden "best beer in America" designation in the marketing of the product, at least until the GABF and he came to an agreement for him to stop (or modify) making the claim. -- Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino rpaolino at earth.execpc.com Madison I can taste my beer; can you? Support your local craft brewers! --Message_Part_SYNC13373B6F1D-- --Next_Part_SYNC13373B6F1D-- Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.22]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA11257 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:05:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA27752 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:04:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 9/4/01 - 9/5/01 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 01:01:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC13373B6F1D" X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC13373B6F1D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Commercial competitions (Robert Paolino) --Next_Part_SYNC13373B6F1D Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC13373B6F1D" --Message_Part_SYNC13373B6F1D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from out1.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net ([169.207.2.78]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC12293B4A35 for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:38:37 -0400 Received: from pop4.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (pop4.nwbl.wi.voyager.net [169.207.2.83]) by out1.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (8.11.4/8.11.4/1.7) with ESMTP id f7VHcFu43948 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:38:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from earth (rpaolino at earth.execpc.com [169.207.16.1]) by pop4.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7VHcEW47901 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:38:14 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:38:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Paolino 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 Subject: Commercial competitions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Belated response to Jeff Sparrow's comments: Although I am not in Jeff's "absolutely not" category, I am leaning slightly to the "no" side. But I think Jeff's (I paraphrase) "when you start dealing with what other people do to make a living" concern is misplaced. We're not talking about the BJCP forcing any commercial competition to take BJCP judges or procedures. If a BJCP judge who isn't also a professional brewer (and there are others who might be somewhat associated with the industry, even if not full time--I have judged the World Beer Cup, and was accepted/invited, I presume, in part from my being a part-time beer writer, but I'm sure also taking into account my judging experience and other beer related pursuits) isn't invited to judge, s/he's not going to be judging that competition. They'll have us judge only if they want us to. The BJCP awarding points for that experience? Points, schmoints... Any BJCP judge who is experienced enough that a major professional competition would invite that judge is a judge who probably isn't all that concerned about getting even more points. (For homebrew competitions it's nice to have the participation recorded, regardless of points, simply because it's a record of service (to the BJCP), but to add a few extra points for a relatively small number of judges in non-homebrew competitions doesn't seem worth the extra effort by the BJCP.) Tyler Yarbrough writes: [snip] > I don't think we're suggesting getting the BJCP involved in dictating > style guidelines to commercial brewers, or even influencing what > commercial brewers are doing at all. The discussion, rather is whether > BJCP ranked judges should accrue experience recognition by the BJCP for > their efforts on behalf of commercial beer competitions. > The BJCP has never held itself out as a resource for commercial brewers, > even though commercial beer competitions recognize our judging > competence to the point of inviting us to judge. All we're talking > about, as I understand it, is recognizing this internally to the BJCP, > as good experience for the judges involved. [snip] Of course it's good experience, but 1) most judges at that level probably don't need the points (noted above) and 2) consider the logistics. BJCP sanctioning does imply an agreement to follow certain procedures and standards, but it's pretty, ummm, flexible. Look at the diversity of categories and procedures among BJCP homebrew competitions, and they all are eligible under the sanctioning procedure. So, yes, the major commercial competitions would meet the standards in that they use defined style guidelines (even if not the same guidelines as the BJCP), assuring blind tasting, a "professional" attitude, et cetera (although the expectations for what is written on the score sheet are much different from a homebrew competition). But do the commercial competitions want to apply for sanctioning by an "amateur" body? And, yes, the BJCP under some variation on current rules _would_ have to sanction/register a commercial competition for a judge to receive points for judging it (and what about BJCP judges who volunteer to steward?). Why? Who's going to report the points to the BJCP? I've judged at more than a handful of sanctioned competitions for which I've never received points because the organiser never submitted a report and has ended up on the shitlist that gets printed in the BJCP newsletter. If there are judges who don't get points at _sanctioned_ competitions for lack, how is the BJCP going to document the points for judges at professional competitions that aren't registered with the BJCP? It's not that I oppose the idea of judges getting some kind of recognition for service outside of homebrew competitions (or the enhanced status that the BJCP may derive from it), it's that it's extra effort expended by the organisation (effort that could go into improving homebrew competition), for minimal return (points to a relatively small number of judges who already have plenty of points). If the BJCP really wants to get involved in this _and_ can do so without diverting effort/resources away from homebrew competitions and related educational activity (not enough of that yet), fine, go ahead and do it, but it just seems to be something that would be of minimal benefit to too few people (and I say that as someone who would be in a position to be one of those too few people). > From: beerking1 at juno.com Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:18:25 -0400 > Subject: Judging at the GABF > > Anyone else remember the year Jim Koch set out to intentionally prove > that the GABF Best of Show was a pure popularity contest? For those that > don't: He announced his intentions ahead of time, and showed up with a > bevy of scantily clad, buxom women (how many women are in a bevy?) These I was aware that he did solicit votes that way, but was not aware that he had announced in advance that he was doing it to prove it a farce. > women all were there to attract attention, and promote voting for Sam > Adams as Best of Show. Wonder of wonders, he won by a landslide. This > created much hate and discontent within the community. There were many > arguments about this event. Still, the bottom line was that Jim saw a > flaw in the process, and proved the error of it. Subsequent to his It sure didn't stop him from exploiting the flawed and error-ridden "best beer in America" designation in the marketing of the product, at least until the GABF and he came to an agreement for him to stop (or modify) making the claim. -- Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino rpaolino at earth.execpc.com Madison I can taste my beer; can you? Support your local craft brewers! --Message_Part_SYNC13373B6F1D-- --Next_Part_SYNC13373B6F1D--