Subject: Digest for the period 2/18/02 - 2/19/02 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 01:03:28 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC5345433016" --Next_Part_SYNC5345433016 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Style Guidelines and Collapses (Jeffrey Pinhey) Final Adjustments to Scoring (Stephen Johnson) --Next_Part_SYNC5345433016 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC5345433016" --Message_Part_SYNC5345433016 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ns01s0.ns.sympatico.ca ([142.177.1.91]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5327432A61 for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 07:17:02 -0500 Received: from [10.40.151.19] ([142.177.228.12]) by mail-ns01s0.ns.sympatico.ca (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-68925U141000L141000S0V35) with ESMTP id ca for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:16:11 -0400 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:13:24 -0400 Subject: Style Guidelines and Collapses From: Jeffrey Pinhey 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 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: 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 It seems that many of us consider the style guidelines as a set of descriptions that maintain the existence of a style by formalizing a description. "I am defined, therefore I exist." Therefore the guidelines tend to perpetuate styles of beer, helping them to remain in our vernacular. I believe that this is a worthy role. Having a reference that allows us all to maintain a common understanding of a style, be it commercial slop or obscure delicacy, is of intrinsic value. I would not prevent the style guidelines from being a living document, growing as more styles are either re-discovered, or created anew? The guidelines would only become more of a resource. At the same time, the issue of competitions with the collapsing of styles is a separate, but still related issue. Competition organizers already limit the styles they will entertain for a competition. Careful selection of style categories, with a knowledge of past entries where possible, can reduce the number of incidences of judges being put in the position to compare "apples with oranges". At the same time, anyone who has judged beer over the past 10 years has had numerous times where they have to consider both a beer's adherence to style, and then judge its relative quality compared to other beers in a flight. This happens within one style guideline, and if you have a good understanding of the styles being collapsed, it is not that big a step to be able to compare one dark ale with another. I have judged several tables where porter and stout were collapsed. That was not hard. It is when you get "British ales" collapsed into one flight, with a 1035 bitter up against a 1090 barley wine that things can get a bit dicey. So as long as the organizer understands what styles can be collapsed and reasonably compared, this is something I'll just have to continue to expect, and will be ready to deal with. In summary, I am saying: 1. Let the style guidelines grow as required to reflect the world of beer. (IMHO,If you include Eisbock, you can include Sake). 2. Be more selective and concise when selecting which styles will be included for a competition. 3. Be more careful when collapsing styles. I know many organizers are already doing 2. and 3. I have had the pleasure to judge at competitions where there were not many style collapses, and not many categories. Decisions over which styles to collapse, when made by an experienced judge, have, in my experience, worked better. Jeff Pinhey, Halifax, NS --Message_Part_SYNC5345433016 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.mail.vanderbilt.edu ([129.59.1.77]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5332432C83 for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:58:41 -0500 Received: from smtp3.mail.vanderbilt.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6C+d3.6) with ESMTP id g1IHwbd13404 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:58:38 -0600 (CST) Received: from imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (imap2.mail.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.1.135]) by smtp3.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6B+d3.6) with ESMTP id g1IHwbA13371 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:58:37 -0600 (CST) Received: from susan.vanderbilt.edu (A193120.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.193.120]) by imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6A+d3.6) with SMTP id g1IHw4v29666 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:58:12 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20020218115818.006f9f7c`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu> X-Sender: johnsosm`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:58:18 -0600 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Stephen Johnson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Final Adjustments to Scoring Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message In the Digest for the period 2/16/02 - 2/17/02, Randy Paul makes some concluding comments that I think are very cogent to the recent discussion on balancing the judging process to address the parameters of the style guidelines with comparing beers across a flight: "Most notably, the "overall impression" is 10 very subjective points which is a much greater range than that which separates most winning beers. Add to that, palate fatigue and reaching threshold values of some flavors ... and it becomes important to compare the top scoring beers side by side to affirm their ranking within subjective limitations." Here is a procedure that I have used for the past few years, and I welcome feedback on this process. Do any other judges do this? Does it seem like a fair way of addressing both of the issues that Bill Wible and others have been discussing regarding judging to the guidelines or comparing beers within a flight? In many of the competitions in our area, I sometimes end up being the head or "senior" judge (by experience or ranking, not necessarily by age!). Whenever I have this responsibility, I will try to save some beer in each of the bottles that has scored particularly well. I do this by replacing the cap and apologizing to the steward that he/she can't have any until we get our flight finished. As the flight progresses, I try to keep the top 4 or 5 on the table; once a beer comes along that is lower scoring than any of the current best on the table, they don't stay on the table and the stewards can sample them if they choose. Throughout the flight, then, when a beer comes along that has scored higher, it stays on the table, and the lowest one gets the boot. At the end of the flight, we are then able to taste a small sample from the top scoring 4 or 5, and then make a final decision on whether the rankings by score match our final perceptions of these beers all tasted together (kind of like a mini BOS). If things don't match up, then we discuss reasons, and possibly adjust final scores if necessary. It still may not address all of the concerns regarding the order in which the beers are judged, or palate fatigue, but I think it is a good compromise and a fair one as well. Steve Johnson, President Music City Brewers Nashville, TN --Message_Part_SYNC5345433016-- --Next_Part_SYNC5345433016-- Subject: Digest for the period 2/18/02 - 2/19/02 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 01:03:28 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC5345433016" --Next_Part_SYNC5345433016 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Style Guidelines and Collapses (Jeffrey Pinhey) Final Adjustments to Scoring (Stephen Johnson) --Next_Part_SYNC5345433016 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC5345433016" --Message_Part_SYNC5345433016 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ns01s0.ns.sympatico.ca ([142.177.1.91]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5327432A61 for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 07:17:02 -0500 Received: from [10.40.151.19] ([142.177.228.12]) by mail-ns01s0.ns.sympatico.ca (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-68925U141000L141000S0V35) with ESMTP id ca for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:16:11 -0400 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:13:24 -0400 Subject: Style Guidelines and Collapses From: Jeffrey Pinhey 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 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: 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 It seems that many of us consider the style guidelines as a set of descriptions that maintain the existence of a style by formalizing a description. "I am defined, therefore I exist." Therefore the guidelines tend to perpetuate styles of beer, helping them to remain in our vernacular. I believe that this is a worthy role. Having a reference that allows us all to maintain a common understanding of a style, be it commercial slop or obscure delicacy, is of intrinsic value. I would not prevent the style guidelines from being a living document, growing as more styles are either re-discovered, or created anew? The guidelines would only become more of a resource. At the same time, the issue of competitions with the collapsing of styles is a separate, but still related issue. Competition organizers already limit the styles they will entertain for a competition. Careful selection of style categories, with a knowledge of past entries where possible, can reduce the number of incidences of judges being put in the position to compare "apples with oranges". At the same time, anyone who has judged beer over the past 10 years has had numerous times where they have to consider both a beer's adherence to style, and then judge its relative quality compared to other beers in a flight. This happens within one style guideline, and if you have a good understanding of the styles being collapsed, it is not that big a step to be able to compare one dark ale with another. I have judged several tables where porter and stout were collapsed. That was not hard. It is when you get "British ales" collapsed into one flight, with a 1035 bitter up against a 1090 barley wine that things can get a bit dicey. So as long as the organizer understands what styles can be collapsed and reasonably compared, this is something I'll just have to continue to expect, and will be ready to deal with. In summary, I am saying: 1. Let the style guidelines grow as required to reflect the world of beer. (IMHO,If you include Eisbock, you can include Sake). 2. Be more selective and concise when selecting which styles will be included for a competition. 3. Be more careful when collapsing styles. I know many organizers are already doing 2. and 3. I have had the pleasure to judge at competitions where there were not many style collapses, and not many categories. Decisions over which styles to collapse, when made by an experienced judge, have, in my experience, worked better. Jeff Pinhey, Halifax, NS --Message_Part_SYNC5345433016 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.mail.vanderbilt.edu ([129.59.1.77]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5332432C83 for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:58:41 -0500 Received: from smtp3.mail.vanderbilt.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6C+d3.6) with ESMTP id g1IHwbd13404 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:58:38 -0600 (CST) Received: from imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (imap2.mail.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.1.135]) by smtp3.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6B+d3.6) with ESMTP id g1IHwbA13371 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:58:37 -0600 (CST) Received: from susan.vanderbilt.edu (A193120.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.193.120]) by imap2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/VU-3.6A+d3.6) with SMTP id g1IHw4v29666 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:58:12 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20020218115818.006f9f7c`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu> X-Sender: johnsosm`at`j.mail.vanderbilt.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:58:18 -0600 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Stephen Johnson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Subject: Final Adjustments to Scoring Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message In the Digest for the period 2/16/02 - 2/17/02, Randy Paul makes some concluding comments that I think are very cogent to the recent discussion on balancing the judging process to address the parameters of the style guidelines with comparing beers across a flight: "Most notably, the "overall impression" is 10 very subjective points which is a much greater range than that which separates most winning beers. Add to that, palate fatigue and reaching threshold values of some flavors ... and it becomes important to compare the top scoring beers side by side to affirm their ranking within subjective limitations." Here is a procedure that I have used for the past few years, and I welcome feedback on this process. Do any other judges do this? Does it seem like a fair way of addressing both of the issues that Bill Wible and others have been discussing regarding judging to the guidelines or comparing beers within a flight? In many of the competitions in our area, I sometimes end up being the head or "senior" judge (by experience or ranking, not necessarily by age!). Whenever I have this responsibility, I will try to save some beer in each of the bottles that has scored particularly well. I do this by replacing the cap and apologizing to the steward that he/she can't have any until we get our flight finished. As the flight progresses, I try to keep the top 4 or 5 on the table; once a beer comes along that is lower scoring than any of the current best on the table, they don't stay on the table and the stewards can sample them if they choose. Throughout the flight, then, when a beer comes along that has scored higher, it stays on the table, and the lowest one gets the boot. At the end of the flight, we are then able to taste a small sample from the top scoring 4 or 5, and then make a final decision on whether the rankings by score match our final perceptions of these beers all tasted together (kind of like a mini BOS). If things don't match up, then we discuss reasons, and possibly adjust final scores if necessary. It still may not address all of the concerns regarding the order in which the beers are judged, or palate fatigue, but I think it is a good compromise and a fair one as well. Steve Johnson, President Music City Brewers Nashville, TN --Message_Part_SYNC5345433016-- --Next_Part_SYNC5345433016--