Subject: Digest for the period 3/14/2004 - 3/15/2004 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:04:33 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Beer that are not easy to evaluate (Jeffrey Pinhey) 2. Re: "unevaluatable" beers (David Houseman) 3. Really BAD beer! (Bev Blackwood II) 4. alternate path to master (Britt Weiser) 5. Re: Alternate Path to Master (Iain & Heather) 6. Alternate path to Master / "unevaluatable" (George de Piro) 7. Re: "unevaluatable" beers (Mike Dixon) 8. Re: Alternate Path to Master (Jamil Zainasheff) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeffrey Pinhey Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:39:31 -0400 Subject: Beer that are not easy to evaluate I recall a few occasions where the beer was not easy to evaluate, and reasons existed to possible excuse evaluation by the judges.. 1. There was nothing to evaluate - the bottle had leaked, no one noticed, none was left. I still provided some feedback, as I recall - something like, "use bottles that do not have twist off tops when possible....." 2. The beer was all over the room - on opening the bottle the beer decided to leave. It did so in a very rapid manner, to the shock of the judges at our table, and the delight of the rest of the judges in the room. I probably provided some feedback about sanitation, and bottling too early. I think I smelled the almost empty bottle. 3. The beer left the bottle very slowly - a "lava lamp" beer. After some initial higher pressure partial evacuation from the bottle, the remainder of this beer flowed in a foam state out of the bottle for around 45 minutes. I got my plastic cup into the foam flow and made an evaluation of the "foam", I still recall the basement, mustiness of that one. 4. Potential damage to palate may ensue. I have had this two ways - one where there was an entire sorrento pepper in each bottle. Maybe you can handle that kind of heat and still judge, but not me - and this was a morning session with another to come after. We left it to the person who discovered how hot the beer was to provide the most feedback. The other has happened more than once - the furniture polish beer - where the higher alcohols, and sometimes some very acrid compounds actually feel like they are burning your mouth. Again, I have always provided some feedback on all the beers, to my physical abilities to sense them. I don't think I ever put the sorrento beer in my mouth (the guy who did was strongly advising against this) but I could smell it. I remember one of the latter example that we tried to light, it was giving off such fuel aromas (we couldn't, but you knew that). 5. The beer obviously has some other active ingredients. Not my personal ethical dilemma, but I have judged a "marijuana beer" that was labelled as a hemp beer. We found out after the fact, though two of us were pretty sure it was a little more active that something you make shirts from. One of the judges opted out on some ground - maybe he was an Olympic athlete hopeful - a snowboarder perhaps. In summary - despite the incidents I describe above, in my opinion no beer, not even the one that isn't there, is, what was that "word"? Unevaluatable. Jeffrey Pinhey, Halifax, Canada BJCP National ********************************************************************** * 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: David Houseman Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:30:28 -0500 Subject: Re: "unevaluatable" beers Jay Ankeney say's "Some beers entered into competitions are simply too "off" to evaluate. Not only can tasting a foaming, smelly bottle be a truly disgusting experience, but more importantly judges owe it to the entries downstream in a given flight not to pollute their palettes." I have to disagree with this. First of all without even tasting the beer one can sense and provide a lot of feedback. The condition of the bottle (clear or hazy? Yeast bed or yeast free? Neck ring observed? Dark or light in color?) at least tells the entrant something about what you found. Maybe it was the wrong bottle? Or at least there are clues to what's to follow. Upon opening, what happened? Gusher? Sudden or slow and continuous? After the pour is the beer then highly carbonated? What was the head like? Color? Clarity? Floaters? Again, these all help the entrant with clues to the what may have gone wrong. Forgetting the problems how was the beer related to the entered style? Correct color, clarity, etc.? Again without tasting the beer, aroma can tell a lot about it's compatibility with the entered style as well as what may be wrong with the beer. Acidic? Vegetal? Hops? Malt? Diacetyl? Esters? Phenols? Alcohol? So without even tasting the beer, there's a lot to observe and provide valuable feedback to the entrant. And what about the tasting? Well as most judges know, there's nothing that will be living in that beer to harm the judge. It may not taste or smell attractive, but it won't be harmful. And while an infected gusher may not be what you'd really like to judge in most styles, it's likely to be not that dissimilar to judging lambics. With that taste, and a little is all you need, you can provide much more sensory feedback and clues to what may have gone wrong with the beer. A little bread or crackers and some water and you're all set for the next beer. You won't pollute your palate any more than you will with a great but highly hopped beer or many lambics. Entrants pay to enter our competitions and they deserve the benefit of the judging. In fact the entrant with the problem beer needs our help more than many of the other entrants. There is no excuse for such minimally filled out judge sheets. Perhaps from the novice, but not from any judge in the BJCP much less those with aspirations to the Master level. Dave Houseman ********************************************************************** * 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: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:59:05 -0600 Subject: Really BAD beer! I'm with Bob on this one. I really think every beer that's entered in a competition deserves a well written, readable and complete evaluation. My basis for that opinion is a very basic one. If there's an entry fee involved (and I know of very few free competitions (But here's a plug for one that's outstanding... June's Big Batch Brew Bash ( http://www.thekgb.org ) ) then the club who's sponsoring the event has in essence been paid to provide feedback to the brewer. When we run the Dixie Cup, if a brewer's entries are broken, lost or otherwise denied a fair evaluation because of something we did, the brewer gets their money back. It's an implied contract. As a judge, I have come across beers that were nearly undrinkable. They are few and far between, thankfully. Even so, unless I have some notion that the beer will hurt me, I'm going to try and evaluate it. Is it prudent to set it aside and save your palate for beers that stand a chance of winning? Sure. I've never found a beer so off-flavor that I didn't think it could not be safely evaluated within the context of the flight, though. Two or three tiny sips to get the flaws right may be unpleasant, but short of hurting yourself, it's what you agreed to when you decided to judge beer and the brewer is counting on you to tell them what they did wrong so the next entry you get from them IS drinkable. -BDB2 Bev D. Blackwood II Co-Competition Coordinator 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: Britt Weiser Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:00:31 -0600 Subject: alternate path to master I agree with many of the postings that creating an alternative path to master would be beneficial in retaining high quality judges whose test score is not sufficient for master, while at the same time not cheapening the title. Before determining an appropriate alternative path for a master judge, I think it's important to define what we believe a master judge to be. In my opinion, a master judge should have lots of experience, be able to evaluate a wide range of beers, give the brewer EXCELLENT feedback on the quality of the beer, and provide suggestions for materials and methods to improve the beer. Therefore, I believe the *Tasting* portion of the exam should be at the appropriate score, and the written portion should be at least a 70% to ensure adequate knowledge. Experience point requirements could be some factor of the original requirement e.g. double the points needed. Following then is my suggested alternative path: Master: needs 90% on tasting portion of exam, 70% on written, and 80 experience pts. National: needs 80% on tasting portion, 70% on written, and 40 experience pts. Grand master: no change certified and recognized: no change I think a combination of a base level of knowledge (70%), with the appropriate tasting score for the rank, along with extra experience would hopefully open up the ranks without cheapening the process. If a person scored at least 70% on the written exam, they may only need to retake the tasting portion (not the dreaded essay questions) to achieve the desired score. And if they have a lot of experience in judging, this shouldn't pose a problem. Britt Weiser ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Iain & Heather Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:36:58 -0800 Subject: Re: Alternate Path to Master If this has already been said, I apologize - sometimes I am not able to keep up with the entire thread. If an alternate path to Master also required achieving a Master level score on the tasting portion of the exam, it would help to weed out judges with poor evaluation skills. Perhaps this, with an abundance of experience points, and some minimum score on the written exam, would be more palatable. (Pun intended.) Iain Ross Certified ********************************************************************** * 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: George de Piro Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:39:29 -0500 Subject: Alternate path to Master / "unevaluatable" Hi all, Call me extreme, but I'd really like see a requirement for Master judges to have formal palate training. I believe that is much more likely to produce a great judge than going to a lot of competitions and repeating the same mistakes over and over again. As for the "unevaluateable" beer: firstly, this gross abuse of the English language is offensive to me. Secondly, I was taught that every entry MUST be evaluated, regardless of its aroma or appearance. The only excuse I believe acceptable is if the beer gushes so severely that there is not enough left to taste. This has happened to me only once in many dozens of competitions. If the aroma of a beer is so bad that you fear for your life, at the very least write specifics about the flaws you perceive ("the strong scent of bitter almonds prevents me from taking a sip..."). To simply write, "Unevaluateable" is a cop out, and illustrative of a judge that probably knows very little about brewing and beer evaluation. The entrant should have their money refunded, and the judge disbarred (or at least disrobed, spayed with Lindemans Kriek and tied to an anthill). Have fun! George de Piro Head Brewer, C.H. Evans Brewing Company at the Albany Pump Station 19 Quackenbush Square Albany, NY, USA 12207 (518)447-9000 www.EvansAle.com Brewers of Kick-Ass Brown: Twice declared the Best American Brown Ale in the USA at the Great American Beer Festival (2000 & 2002)! ********************************************************************** * 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: Mike Dixon Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:40:55 -0500 Subject: Re: "unevaluatable" beers I firmly believe every beer should be evaluated at a competition regardless of how "bad" it may be. I have only been to one competition where a beer could not be evaluated. It was a lambic and it foamed completely out of the bottle into the slop bucket and nothing remained in the bottle to sample. They pulled the second bottle and had similar results. I don't know what actually happened in that instance, but if I was the organizer, I would probably return the entry fee with an explanation of the gushing causing the beer to not be evaluated. I made the mistake of evaluating an "awful" beer without pulling the second bottle. As it turns out the brewer had a bottle infection and the other bottle was fine. Now if I hit a bad bottle I always call for the second bottle if the organizer will allow it. Other than that one instance I have not found the second bottle to differ from the first, but I know I upset the brewer of the infected bottle beer by not going for the additional bottle. That brings up the question of how you then judge the next bottle if it is a great beer... My thought has always been I would comment on the bottle that was not infected, but also include an evaluation of the first bottle and the score would be a mixture of the two. I've never had to deal with it, so what would be a proper course? As far as Bob's question: "Would it be better in that kind of (very rare) situation for that judge simply to not submit a scoresheet and just go by the other judge'[s'] sheet??" If I was hypersensitive to an ingredient/beer I might ask the head judge or another judge at the competition to help out with that beer and the judging if there were only two judges, and with three I might not submit the scoresheet. Cheers, Mike Dixon Wake Forest, NC ********************************************************************** * 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: Jamil Zainasheff Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 15:31:41 -0800 Subject: Re: Alternate Path to Master It seems to me that changing to an "experience" based paradigm from the current "knowledge" based paradigm is more drastic than some realize. The fundamental purpose of the judge ranking system, in my mind, is to identify/recognize the more capable judges. Note, I say "more capable" and not "more experienced." Is it the case that every judge should eventually rise to the rank of Master? I don't think so, as there are some that just physically don't have the capability. Yet, this level based on experience does just that. I think there are individuals that were born with the perception abilities appropriate to Recognized level and there are some that were born with abilities appropriate to Master level (or anything in between). I really don't think we should take someone that can't tell the difference between malty and vegetal and make them Master level, because they judged a bunch of competitions. That really cheapens the whole program. Some argue that the current program really leans toward the test taking ability of the judge, and not the inherent tasting ability. I'd agree with that, to some extent. I think the exam should be restructured to better test the knowledge and ability of the examinees, while even better assessing their knowledge. It should be extremely easy to get Master level on the exam, PROVIDING you REALLY have the necessary skills and knowledge. The only way to reach this goal is to rework the exam. I'd be interested in participating in this effort. With proper restructuring of the exam, those people that say they have all this experience and ability to judge beers like the best out there, can then prove it and get their Master level. If they don't have the capability to judge at that level (be it physical limitations or knowledge limitations), then they still won't pass the exam. Me? I'm lucky enough to hang out and sample beers with Dave Sapsis, who has all the abilities and knowledge that a Grand Master should have. He also fills out every score sheet as one would expect from a Grand Master. (They are a thing of beauty.) Of course, hanging out with Dave makes me realize that maybe my skills never will be good enough to reach the kind of level that Dave is at. Maybe, just maybe I could be a lower end Master if I really worked at it, but I just don't think I have the same physical ability of someone like Dave. All in all, I'm very proud of my BJCP rank. Have you looked at the number of judges at any rank? Anyone that has the ability to do OK on the exam should be really proud of that fact, whether they passed or not. If you did pass and got Recognized, you're worlds better at "beer" than the vast majority of the population, and in my opinion, you should be very proud of it, not disappointed your glass isn't full to the very top. Thanks for reading this far and letting me express my opinion. JZ ********************************************************************** * 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 3/14/2004 - 3/15/2004 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:04:33 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Beer that are not easy to evaluate (Jeffrey Pinhey) 2. Re: "unevaluatable" beers (David Houseman) 3. Really BAD beer! (Bev Blackwood II) 4. alternate path to master (Britt Weiser) 5. Re: Alternate Path to Master (Iain & Heather) 6. Alternate path to Master / "unevaluatable" (George de Piro) 7. Re: "unevaluatable" beers (Mike Dixon) 8. Re: Alternate Path to Master (Jamil Zainasheff) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeffrey Pinhey Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:39:31 -0400 Subject: Beer that are not easy to evaluate I recall a few occasions where the beer was not easy to evaluate, and reasons existed to possible excuse evaluation by the judges.. 1. There was nothing to evaluate - the bottle had leaked, no one noticed, none was left. I still provided some feedback, as I recall - something like, "use bottles that do not have twist off tops when possible....." 2. The beer was all over the room - on opening the bottle the beer decided to leave. It did so in a very rapid manner, to the shock of the judges at our table, and the delight of the rest of the judges in the room. I probably provided some feedback about sanitation, and bottling too early. I think I smelled the almost empty bottle. 3. The beer left the bottle very slowly - a "lava lamp" beer. After some initial higher pressure partial evacuation from the bottle, the remainder of this beer flowed in a foam state out of the bottle for around 45 minutes. I got my plastic cup into the foam flow and made an evaluation of the "foam", I still recall the basement, mustiness of that one. 4. Potential damage to palate may ensue. I have had this two ways - one where there was an entire sorrento pepper in each bottle. Maybe you can handle that kind of heat and still judge, but not me - and this was a morning session with another to come after. We left it to the person who discovered how hot the beer was to provide the most feedback. The other has happened more than once - the furniture polish beer - where the higher alcohols, and sometimes some very acrid compounds actually feel like they are burning your mouth. Again, I have always provided some feedback on all the beers, to my physical abilities to sense them. I don't think I ever put the sorrento beer in my mouth (the guy who did was strongly advising against this) but I could smell it. I remember one of the latter example that we tried to light, it was giving off such fuel aromas (we couldn't, but you knew that). 5. The beer obviously has some other active ingredients. Not my personal ethical dilemma, but I have judged a "marijuana beer" that was labelled as a hemp beer. We found out after the fact, though two of us were pretty sure it was a little more active that something you make shirts from. One of the judges opted out on some ground - maybe he was an Olympic athlete hopeful - a snowboarder perhaps. In summary - despite the incidents I describe above, in my opinion no beer, not even the one that isn't there, is, what was that "word"? Unevaluatable. Jeffrey Pinhey, Halifax, Canada BJCP National ********************************************************************** * 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: David Houseman Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:30:28 -0500 Subject: Re: "unevaluatable" beers Jay Ankeney say's "Some beers entered into competitions are simply too "off" to evaluate. Not only can tasting a foaming, smelly bottle be a truly disgusting experience, but more importantly judges owe it to the entries downstream in a given flight not to pollute their palettes." I have to disagree with this. First of all without even tasting the beer one can sense and provide a lot of feedback. The condition of the bottle (clear or hazy? Yeast bed or yeast free? Neck ring observed? Dark or light in color?) at least tells the entrant something about what you found. Maybe it was the wrong bottle? Or at least there are clues to what's to follow. Upon opening, what happened? Gusher? Sudden or slow and continuous? After the pour is the beer then highly carbonated? What was the head like? Color? Clarity? Floaters? Again, these all help the entrant with clues to the what may have gone wrong. Forgetting the problems how was the beer related to the entered style? Correct color, clarity, etc.? Again without tasting the beer, aroma can tell a lot about it's compatibility with the entered style as well as what may be wrong with the beer. Acidic? Vegetal? Hops? Malt? Diacetyl? Esters? Phenols? Alcohol? So without even tasting the beer, there's a lot to observe and provide valuable feedback to the entrant. And what about the tasting? Well as most judges know, there's nothing that will be living in that beer to harm the judge. It may not taste or smell attractive, but it won't be harmful. And while an infected gusher may not be what you'd really like to judge in most styles, it's likely to be not that dissimilar to judging lambics. With that taste, and a little is all you need, you can provide much more sensory feedback and clues to what may have gone wrong with the beer. A little bread or crackers and some water and you're all set for the next beer. You won't pollute your palate any more than you will with a great but highly hopped beer or many lambics. Entrants pay to enter our competitions and they deserve the benefit of the judging. In fact the entrant with the problem beer needs our help more than many of the other entrants. There is no excuse for such minimally filled out judge sheets. Perhaps from the novice, but not from any judge in the BJCP much less those with aspirations to the Master level. Dave Houseman ********************************************************************** * 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: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:59:05 -0600 Subject: Really BAD beer! I'm with Bob on this one. I really think every beer that's entered in a competition deserves a well written, readable and complete evaluation. My basis for that opinion is a very basic one. If there's an entry fee involved (and I know of very few free competitions (But here's a plug for one that's outstanding... June's Big Batch Brew Bash ( http://www.thekgb.org ) ) then the club who's sponsoring the event has in essence been paid to provide feedback to the brewer. When we run the Dixie Cup, if a brewer's entries are broken, lost or otherwise denied a fair evaluation because of something we did, the brewer gets their money back. It's an implied contract. As a judge, I have come across beers that were nearly undrinkable. They are few and far between, thankfully. Even so, unless I have some notion that the beer will hurt me, I'm going to try and evaluate it. Is it prudent to set it aside and save your palate for beers that stand a chance of winning? Sure. I've never found a beer so off-flavor that I didn't think it could not be safely evaluated within the context of the flight, though. Two or three tiny sips to get the flaws right may be unpleasant, but short of hurting yourself, it's what you agreed to when you decided to judge beer and the brewer is counting on you to tell them what they did wrong so the next entry you get from them IS drinkable. -BDB2 Bev D. Blackwood II Co-Competition Coordinator 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: Britt Weiser Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:00:31 -0600 Subject: alternate path to master I agree with many of the postings that creating an alternative path to master would be beneficial in retaining high quality judges whose test score is not sufficient for master, while at the same time not cheapening the title. Before determining an appropriate alternative path for a master judge, I think it's important to define what we believe a master judge to be. In my opinion, a master judge should have lots of experience, be able to evaluate a wide range of beers, give the brewer EXCELLENT feedback on the quality of the beer, and provide suggestions for materials and methods to improve the beer. Therefore, I believe the *Tasting* portion of the exam should be at the appropriate score, and the written portion should be at least a 70% to ensure adequate knowledge. Experience point requirements could be some factor of the original requirement e.g. double the points needed. Following then is my suggested alternative path: Master: needs 90% on tasting portion of exam, 70% on written, and 80 experience pts. National: needs 80% on tasting portion, 70% on written, and 40 experience pts. Grand master: no change certified and recognized: no change I think a combination of a base level of knowledge (70%), with the appropriate tasting score for the rank, along with extra experience would hopefully open up the ranks without cheapening the process. If a person scored at least 70% on the written exam, they may only need to retake the tasting portion (not the dreaded essay questions) to achieve the desired score. And if they have a lot of experience in judging, this shouldn't pose a problem. Britt Weiser ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Iain & Heather Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:36:58 -0800 Subject: Re: Alternate Path to Master If this has already been said, I apologize - sometimes I am not able to keep up with the entire thread. If an alternate path to Master also required achieving a Master level score on the tasting portion of the exam, it would help to weed out judges with poor evaluation skills. Perhaps this, with an abundance of experience points, and some minimum score on the written exam, would be more palatable. (Pun intended.) Iain Ross Certified ********************************************************************** * 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: George de Piro Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:39:29 -0500 Subject: Alternate path to Master / "unevaluatable" Hi all, Call me extreme, but I'd really like see a requirement for Master judges to have formal palate training. I believe that is much more likely to produce a great judge than going to a lot of competitions and repeating the same mistakes over and over again. As for the "unevaluateable" beer: firstly, this gross abuse of the English language is offensive to me. Secondly, I was taught that every entry MUST be evaluated, regardless of its aroma or appearance. The only excuse I believe acceptable is if the beer gushes so severely that there is not enough left to taste. This has happened to me only once in many dozens of competitions. If the aroma of a beer is so bad that you fear for your life, at the very least write specifics about the flaws you perceive ("the strong scent of bitter almonds prevents me from taking a sip..."). To simply write, "Unevaluateable" is a cop out, and illustrative of a judge that probably knows very little about brewing and beer evaluation. The entrant should have their money refunded, and the judge disbarred (or at least disrobed, spayed with Lindemans Kriek and tied to an anthill). Have fun! George de Piro Head Brewer, C.H. Evans Brewing Company at the Albany Pump Station 19 Quackenbush Square Albany, NY, USA 12207 (518)447-9000 www.EvansAle.com Brewers of Kick-Ass Brown: Twice declared the Best American Brown Ale in the USA at the Great American Beer Festival (2000 & 2002)! ********************************************************************** * 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: Mike Dixon Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:40:55 -0500 Subject: Re: "unevaluatable" beers I firmly believe every beer should be evaluated at a competition regardless of how "bad" it may be. I have only been to one competition where a beer could not be evaluated. It was a lambic and it foamed completely out of the bottle into the slop bucket and nothing remained in the bottle to sample. They pulled the second bottle and had similar results. I don't know what actually happened in that instance, but if I was the organizer, I would probably return the entry fee with an explanation of the gushing causing the beer to not be evaluated. I made the mistake of evaluating an "awful" beer without pulling the second bottle. As it turns out the brewer had a bottle infection and the other bottle was fine. Now if I hit a bad bottle I always call for the second bottle if the organizer will allow it. Other than that one instance I have not found the second bottle to differ from the first, but I know I upset the brewer of the infected bottle beer by not going for the additional bottle. That brings up the question of how you then judge the next bottle if it is a great beer... My thought has always been I would comment on the bottle that was not infected, but also include an evaluation of the first bottle and the score would be a mixture of the two. I've never had to deal with it, so what would be a proper course? As far as Bob's question: "Would it be better in that kind of (very rare) situation for that judge simply to not submit a scoresheet and just go by the other judge'[s'] sheet??" If I was hypersensitive to an ingredient/beer I might ask the head judge or another judge at the competition to help out with that beer and the judging if there were only two judges, and with three I might not submit the scoresheet. Cheers, Mike Dixon Wake Forest, NC ********************************************************************** * 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: Jamil Zainasheff Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 15:31:41 -0800 Subject: Re: Alternate Path to Master It seems to me that changing to an "experience" based paradigm from the current "knowledge" based paradigm is more drastic than some realize. The fundamental purpose of the judge ranking system, in my mind, is to identify/recognize the more capable judges. Note, I say "more capable" and not "more experienced." Is it the case that every judge should eventually rise to the rank of Master? I don't think so, as there are some that just physically don't have the capability. Yet, this level based on experience does just that. I think there are individuals that were born with the perception abilities appropriate to Recognized level and there are some that were born with abilities appropriate to Master level (or anything in between). I really don't think we should take someone that can't tell the difference between malty and vegetal and make them Master level, because they judged a bunch of competitions. That really cheapens the whole program. Some argue that the current program really leans toward the test taking ability of the judge, and not the inherent tasting ability. I'd agree with that, to some extent. I think the exam should be restructured to better test the knowledge and ability of the examinees, while even better assessing their knowledge. It should be extremely easy to get Master level on the exam, PROVIDING you REALLY have the necessary skills and knowledge. The only way to reach this goal is to rework the exam. I'd be interested in participating in this effort. With proper restructuring of the exam, those people that say they have all this experience and ability to judge beers like the best out there, can then prove it and get their Master level. If they don't have the capability to judge at that level (be it physical limitations or knowledge limitations), then they still won't pass the exam. Me? I'm lucky enough to hang out and sample beers with Dave Sapsis, who has all the abilities and knowledge that a Grand Master should have. He also fills out every score sheet as one would expect from a Grand Master. (They are a thing of beauty.) Of course, hanging out with Dave makes me realize that maybe my skills never will be good enough to reach the kind of level that Dave is at. Maybe, just maybe I could be a lower end Master if I really worked at it, but I just don't think I have the same physical ability of someone like Dave. All in all, I'm very proud of my BJCP rank. Have you looked at the number of judges at any rank? Anyone that has the ability to do OK on the exam should be really proud of that fact, whether they passed or not. If you did pass and got Recognized, you're worlds better at "beer" than the vast majority of the population, and in my opinion, you should be very proud of it, not disappointed your glass isn't full to the very top. Thanks for reading this far and letting me express my opinion. JZ ********************************************************************** * 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 * **********************************************************************