Subject: Digest for the period 5/27/2003 - 5/28/2003 Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 01:03:33 -0400 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Mini-BOS or Why aren't judges scores aren't enough. (Drew Beechum) 2. Why have the Mini BOS? (Bev Blackwood II) 3. Re: One bottle Who is the customer? (Ted Hausotter) 4. Re: High score wins? (John C. Tull) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Drew Beechum Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 22:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Mini-BOS or Why aren't judges scores aren't enough. Ben, I'd have to say, scores aren't sufficient. You and I might score differently. As most of the people who have judged with me will tell you (and heck me too..) I score on general 3-5 points lower than almost everyone. And it's true of most judges.. you just don't score the same as anyone else. Whenever you have multiple sets of judges judging to their team's syncs, you need to come back. I've had a number of examples of judging rounds with a 37 as my top score handily beating anoter set of judges 41 in the Mini-BOS. Do I need to adjust my scoring? Probably, and I've been making that effort, but I don't think you can assure that everyone in a flight for a style agreeing on ranges. -- Drew > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: CondrBen`at`aol.com Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:57:30 EDT > Subject: Re: Digest for the period 5/24/2003 - 5/25/2003 > > > One bottle is more than sufficient for any first round judging. I am in > total > agreement that three bottles per competition is too much for a brewer to > send > and for an organizer to catalog. Judges at various competitions I have > attended haven't had a problem. > > This brings us to the whole concept of a Mini Best of Show. Shouldn't the > straight away three highest point beers win the event? Remember, as judges > we are > evaluating beer under controlled conditions (temperature). To re-review > these > same beers after several hours have lapsed may be corrupting the judging > process from the standpoint of oxidation, sediment (if any), etc., thereby > swaying > the vote for a beer that perhaps wasn't up to snuff at the initial judging > process. The only reason a mini BOS should even take place is if the beers > are > so closely scored that the judges are having problems placing the three top > scorers. Too often, I have seen more than three beers in a mini BOS. Is this > fair > to the entrant who may have garnered the highest point score only to lose in > > a consensus mini BOS? > > From an earlier posting, I am in total agreement that judging one beer > should > take no more than ten minutes. If a judge knows his craft, a fair assessment > > of the beer will follow in quick order. > > Ben Jankowski > Oyster Bay, NY __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bev Blackwood II Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 06:38:27 -0500 Subject: Why have the Mini BOS? > This brings us to the whole concept of a Mini Best of Show. Shouldn't > the > straight away three highest point beers win the event? If the beers were all judged by the same judges, I see no reason why not... BUT If you have a set of four panels, each judging 8 beers then absolutely not. Why? Because palates vary and so do the points they score as a result. I've been on panels where I was the "hanging judge" and have been on panels where I was "generous" simply because my scores ran consistently a few points ahead or behind the rest of the panel. Now multiply that by four and you see the problem. One panel's best beer might score lower than another's but in fact is the better beer and the Mini-BOS provides the layer of safety to the entrant that he didn't get the "hanging panel" and as a result get kicked out to the competition. It's not just about points, it's about the beer in the glass. > Is this fair to the entrant who may have garnered the highest point > score only to lose in > a consensus mini BOS? IMO, absolutely. I've seen the same thing happen in second round, with second bottles. In that context, the judges have no idea what the top scoring beer was in the first round and sometimes the scores can be startlingly different. > From an earlier posting, I am in total agreement that judging one beer > should > take no more than ten minutes. If a judge knows his craft, a fair > assessment > of the beer will follow in quick order. Yeah, but some of us don't write as fast as others and a problematic beer should always take longer than a really good one because there's more to write about. No one word evaluations! :-) -BDB2 Bev D. Blackwood II Brewsletter Editor The Foam Rangers http://www.foamrangers.com ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ted Hausotter Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 07:36:29 -0700 Subject: Re: One bottle Who is the customer? The one thing that has not been mentioned is that the customer who is spending their money supporting the hobby is not getting the best results with 1 bottle requirement. 2 bottles would serve the best. It is not the only solutuion, but the one that serves the entrant the best. Ted Hausotter Baker City, OR _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John C. Tull Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 09:53:25 -0700 Subject: Re: High score wins? On Monday, May 26, 2003, at 22:02 US/Pacific, Ben Jankowski wrote: > This brings us to the whole concept of a Mini Best of Show. Shouldn't > the > straight away three highest point beers win the event? Remember, as > judges we are > evaluating beer under controlled conditions (temperature). To > re-review these > same beers after several hours have lapsed may be corrupting the > judging > process from the standpoint of oxidation, sediment (if any), etc., > thereby swaying > the vote for a beer that perhaps wasn't up to snuff at the initial > judging > process. The only reason a mini BOS should even take place is if the > beers are > so closely scored that the judges are having problems placing the > three top > scorers. Too often, I have seen more than three beers in a mini BOS. > Is this fair > to the entrant who may have garnered the highest point score only to > lose in > a consensus mini BOS? This gets back to one of my original points: judges do not score beers consistently, especially from table to table. There is very little likelihood that beers ranked by score would end up being the rankings in a BOS round. I say boo to this assertion. Same goes for a mini-BOS. Let's not forget that our perspective and perception tends to change over the course of a round, so a revisit for the better beers (especially when close, as you noted) is a good idea, and a necessity if working with a split panel. John Tull Washoe Zephyr Zymurgists ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** Subject: Digest for the period 5/27/2003 - 5/28/2003 Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 01:03:33 -0400 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Mini-BOS or Why aren't judges scores aren't enough. (Drew Beechum) 2. Why have the Mini BOS? (Bev Blackwood II) 3. Re: One bottle Who is the customer? (Ted Hausotter) 4. Re: High score wins? (John C. Tull) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Drew Beechum Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 22:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Mini-BOS or Why aren't judges scores aren't enough. Ben, I'd have to say, scores aren't sufficient. You and I might score differently. As most of the people who have judged with me will tell you (and heck me too..) I score on general 3-5 points lower than almost everyone. And it's true of most judges.. you just don't score the same as anyone else. Whenever you have multiple sets of judges judging to their team's syncs, you need to come back. I've had a number of examples of judging rounds with a 37 as my top score handily beating anoter set of judges 41 in the Mini-BOS. Do I need to adjust my scoring? Probably, and I've been making that effort, but I don't think you can assure that everyone in a flight for a style agreeing on ranges. -- Drew > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: CondrBen`at`aol.com Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:57:30 EDT > Subject: Re: Digest for the period 5/24/2003 - 5/25/2003 > > > One bottle is more than sufficient for any first round judging. I am in > total > agreement that three bottles per competition is too much for a brewer to > send > and for an organizer to catalog. Judges at various competitions I have > attended haven't had a problem. > > This brings us to the whole concept of a Mini Best of Show. Shouldn't the > straight away three highest point beers win the event? Remember, as judges > we are > evaluating beer under controlled conditions (temperature). To re-review > these > same beers after several hours have lapsed may be corrupting the judging > process from the standpoint of oxidation, sediment (if any), etc., thereby > swaying > the vote for a beer that perhaps wasn't up to snuff at the initial judging > process. The only reason a mini BOS should even take place is if the beers > are > so closely scored that the judges are having problems placing the three top > scorers. Too often, I have seen more than three beers in a mini BOS. Is this > fair > to the entrant who may have garnered the highest point score only to lose in > > a consensus mini BOS? > > From an earlier posting, I am in total agreement that judging one beer > should > take no more than ten minutes. If a judge knows his craft, a fair assessment > > of the beer will follow in quick order. > > Ben Jankowski > Oyster Bay, NY __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bev Blackwood II Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 06:38:27 -0500 Subject: Why have the Mini BOS? > This brings us to the whole concept of a Mini Best of Show. Shouldn't > the > straight away three highest point beers win the event? If the beers were all judged by the same judges, I see no reason why not... BUT If you have a set of four panels, each judging 8 beers then absolutely not. Why? Because palates vary and so do the points they score as a result. I've been on panels where I was the "hanging judge" and have been on panels where I was "generous" simply because my scores ran consistently a few points ahead or behind the rest of the panel. Now multiply that by four and you see the problem. One panel's best beer might score lower than another's but in fact is the better beer and the Mini-BOS provides the layer of safety to the entrant that he didn't get the "hanging panel" and as a result get kicked out to the competition. It's not just about points, it's about the beer in the glass. > Is this fair to the entrant who may have garnered the highest point > score only to lose in > a consensus mini BOS? IMO, absolutely. I've seen the same thing happen in second round, with second bottles. In that context, the judges have no idea what the top scoring beer was in the first round and sometimes the scores can be startlingly different. > From an earlier posting, I am in total agreement that judging one beer > should > take no more than ten minutes. If a judge knows his craft, a fair > assessment > of the beer will follow in quick order. Yeah, but some of us don't write as fast as others and a problematic beer should always take longer than a really good one because there's more to write about. No one word evaluations! :-) -BDB2 Bev D. Blackwood II Brewsletter Editor The Foam Rangers http://www.foamrangers.com ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ted Hausotter Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 07:36:29 -0700 Subject: Re: One bottle Who is the customer? The one thing that has not been mentioned is that the customer who is spending their money supporting the hobby is not getting the best results with 1 bottle requirement. 2 bottles would serve the best. It is not the only solutuion, but the one that serves the entrant the best. Ted Hausotter Baker City, OR _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John C. Tull Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 09:53:25 -0700 Subject: Re: High score wins? On Monday, May 26, 2003, at 22:02 US/Pacific, Ben Jankowski wrote: > This brings us to the whole concept of a Mini Best of Show. Shouldn't > the > straight away three highest point beers win the event? Remember, as > judges we are > evaluating beer under controlled conditions (temperature). To > re-review these > same beers after several hours have lapsed may be corrupting the > judging > process from the standpoint of oxidation, sediment (if any), etc., > thereby swaying > the vote for a beer that perhaps wasn't up to snuff at the initial > judging > process. The only reason a mini BOS should even take place is if the > beers are > so closely scored that the judges are having problems placing the > three top > scorers. Too often, I have seen more than three beers in a mini BOS. > Is this fair > to the entrant who may have garnered the highest point score only to > lose in > a consensus mini BOS? This gets back to one of my original points: judges do not score beers consistently, especially from table to table. There is very little likelihood that beers ranked by score would end up being the rankings in a BOS round. I say boo to this assertion. Same goes for a mini-BOS. Let's not forget that our perspective and perception tends to change over the course of a round, so a revisit for the better beers (especially when close, as you noted) is a good idea, and a necessity if working with a split panel. John Tull Washoe Zephyr Zymurgists ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * **********************************************************************