Subject: Digest for the period 3/16/2004 - 3/17/2004 Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:02:33 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Re: Unevaluateable beer (Scott Bickham) 2. Alternate Path to NATIONAL Judge (Dion Hollenbeck) 3. Judging Points vs. Test Scores (Martin Brungard) 4. alternate path (roxanne hastings) 5. Re: "unevaluatable" beers (Bill Wible) 6. The Passing of One of Our Own (Houseman, David L) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bickham Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:12:39 -0500 Subject: Re: Unevaluateable beer I guess I'm in the camp where I feel I owe it to the brewer to make every effort to evaluate his or her beer, regardless of the conditions. I suppose I should have provided more information. This particular beer did not have any serving problems (gusher, etc.) or aesthetic problems (chunks, etc.). The style was fruit lambic, and as a MCAB finalist, the beer had recently won first place in a large regional competition and was a BOS finalist. The judge's comment was that it was so infected that it was not worthwhile judging. The brewer gave me a sample of said beer after the competition, and it did have some flaws: it had some higher alcohols, which is unusual in that style, but it also had a combination of lactic and acetic acids, the fruit was very well-done and there was sufficient Brettanomyces to identify it as the lambic style. At the time of *my* evaluation, I was not aware of the actions of the judge, but the brewer did thank me for giving him more feedback in 10 seconds than he received in the competition. Regards, Scott ********************************************************************** * 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: Dion Hollenbeck Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:42:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Alternate Path to NATIONAL Judge What about an alternate path to National Judge, similar to whatever is adopted with regards to Master? Personally, I have given up ever taking the test again due to my inability to do rote memorization. Anybody who has judged with me could tell you about the quality of my judging being at the National level, and I have 35 points, 2/3 of which are judging and have judged 17 sanctioned competitions and about 10 non-sanctioned. But then again, any organizers who sit me on a panel know my judging is National level, even though I am only officially Certified. I have just about come to the conclusion that "advancement" through the ranks is worthless to me. I will contiune to be "Certified forever" and be happy with that. I will not let rank keep me from judging or continuing to hone my judging skills. regards, dion -- Dion Hollenbeck Email: hollen`at`woodsprite.com Home Page: http://www.woodsprite.com Brewing Page: http://hbd.org/hollen ********************************************************************** * 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: Martin Brungard Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:03:53 -0900 Subject: Judging Points vs. Test Scores It is apparent that judging points are very important for the advancement of BJCP judges. For example, if I was fortunate enough to score 90 or above upon my first attempt at the BJCP exam, it would still require years of judging experience (20 judging + 20 non-judging points) to reach the Master level. By that example, test score means only so much in our advancement system. Judging experience seems to matter more in determining if a judge is worthy of that lofty designation. Using the same premise that judging is a very important factor in determining if a judge is worthy of advancement, I see that providing an alternate path to advancement via additional judging is valid. Allowing additional judging points to make up for below par test scores is appropriate. The question then becomes: How many additional judging points are appropriate to reach an achievement level? This discussion has focused on Masters level achievement so far, but I suggest that this whole methodology of advancing judges with additional judging points is valid for the lower levels too. For instance, a judge scoring 70 should be able to reach the National level with some prescribed number of additional judging points. You'll notice that I mention judging points instead of experience points. Non-judging points make up to 1/2 of the experience points in normal advancement at each level. While non-judging points properly recognize contributions to the hobby, judging points are what can help make better judges. Additional judging points should help create better judges by requiring more valid "homework" and experience. My suggestion is that additional judging points be allowed to supplement a test score deficiencies. I suggest that 2 judging points provide one test point. This judging point requirement is on top of the existing advancement requirements. For instance, if you have an 80 test score, you are 10 test points shy of qualifying for Master. To achieve Master using my suggestion, an additional 20 judging points would be required. This is on top of the current requirement for at least 20 judging points and 20 other points. The next dilemma is if it would be allowable to permit a judge to advance more than one level with this method. Say you had a 79 test score. The additional 2 judging points needed to make up for the 1 point test deficiency would be an easy achievement to attain your National rating. That means that you would only need 12 judging points and 10 other points to attain National. Could you then achieve the Masters level using the additional point total described in the paragraph above? These are uncommon suggestions, but I think they add to this discussion. It is time to bolster the membership of this organization with higher level members. Part of the problem in getting good performance out of our volunteers is that too many able and willing people are excluded from participation. The existing volunteers are just overworked. We need to have more members to enlist as volunteer, but test graders and other responsibilities are limited to National and above member levels. We need to get more high level members and we need to get them involved. Martin Brungard Tallahassee, FL _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ ********************************************************************** * 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: roxanne hastings Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 01:03:23 -0700 Subject: alternate path I want to say that I am in favour of the alternate path for a Master Judge. It shows that the BJCP program has reached a level of maturity when we can say there is more than one way to reach the same end. It also shows that we recognize that experienced judges are a valuable asset to our program. In general I would far rather be judged by a Certified Judge who had scored 70 but been steadily judging for 10 years than a National judge who had 85 but had just a few years and beers under his belt. To my mind, experience is always the most valuable asset and I would like to see it rewarded more efficiently than we have done in the past. I have been judging for over 10 years and am currently a National Judge. Although I am regarded as one of the top judges in my region and I travel to many shows in western Canada I have stopped judging BOS rounds. Why? Because although I am often the most experienced judge at the competition there is nothing I can do with those points. So I've made sure that less experienced judges have an opportunity to do BOS so that they can get those hard to come by points. Now this if often dissapointing for the organizers because they clearly want the best judges at the table in BOS and it doesn't do top service to the competitors. If I had the chance to apply those points towards a Masters I would not so graciously turn down those opportunities to do BOS :-) But one thing that does concern me is the suggestion about rewriting the tastings portion of the exam. Now most of us will agree that the ability to actual judge and score beer is more important than all the book knowledge that is shown in the essay portion. Why then is the tastings only worth 30%. I asked this question for 10 years as a beer judge and when I became an exam grader I found out why. Because it is the most subjective part of the whole exam and the most incredibly bitching part to grade fairly. There are many reason for this but it is a sad fact. Much depends on the quality of the proctors and their ability to judge and score right on the mark. Most times this is not a problem. But sadly I've seen cases where this has failed miserably e.g proctors have wildly different perceptions and scores are off by well over 10 points. What then? In terms of rewriting the tasting part for the Masters the irony is that anyone writing the exam for the purpose of becoming a Master judge is most likely going to be far more experienced, perceptive and better at judging than the proctors! Your experience may differ but it would certainly be true in my region. Not to say that experienced graders can't identify an exceptional potential judge in this fashion but it would not be a sure thing and I think we need a more objective way of promoting people into these positions. I think the original email on this subject that used a formula that gave points for judging, grading exams etc, i.e. that tried to objectively recognize actual experience and service to the judging community was the most simple and straightforward way of dealing with the situation. Not perfect but that would be too much to hope for. Roxy Hastings BJCP National ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Wible Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:47:35 -0500 Subject: Re: "unevaluatable" beers Yeah, we've all had the beer that looked or smelled so bad that you couldn't even get it past your nose. a) What about spitting? Wine judges do this. You could always take a sip, evaluate what you can, and if it's really that wretched you can spit it into the dump bucket. b) Has anybody ever gotten the impression from one of these REALLY bad beers you've had to judge that it was a bad beer that was just SO bad that it could only have been entered with the sole purpose of making a judge sick? I ask because I had this topic came up recently during a conversation with a member of another organization called the SCA, who also does these competitions, for homemade beer, wine, mead, cordials and spirits - outside the realm of the BJCP. One of their members told me this happens so often in their competitions that they've concluded that some people who are upset over judge's comments etc, or not winning an award are trying to make judges sick. I certainly would not rule this possibility out in BJCP competitions, either, especially with some of the beers we've seen. The SCA has also instituted a new and rather interesting rule in their competitions now, where each contestant who enters a beverage has to present 3 bottles, and the site collecting the entries will randomly choose one of the 3 bottles and make them actually drink it before accepting the other 2 for the entry. This would make mail in's impossible, but it does protect their judges. While I agree that each entrant has paid a fee and deserves a fair evaluation of their beer, I don't think a judge should be obligated to be poisoned or made sick by an intentionally entered bad beverage, either. Does it go on? Maybe. What do you guys think? Bill ********************************************************************** * 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: Houseman, David L Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:01:04 -0500 Subject: The Passing of One of Our Own Jeff tried to send this to JudgeNet but it was rejected as spam so he asked me to forward to JudgeNet for him. Fellow Judges, I am saddened to report to you all that homebrewer Steve Ford, of Overland Park, Kansas, passed away on Wednesday, March 10th, of a blood clot. Steve was an active, loved and respected member of the Kansas City Bier Meisters, the American Homebrewers Association and the Beer Judge Certification Program, and was a regular poster to HBD. Steve was one of only 36 BJCP Master Judges and a valued exam grader. Steve's fellow judges' thoughts are with Steve's family, friends and club members. Today, there is beer in heaven, and we imagine that Steve has been welcomed there by Bill Pfeiffer and George Fix. The K.C. Bier Meisters have a memorial page at http://www.kcbiermeisters.org/SteveFord.htm His Kansas City Star obituary is at (cut and paste) http://www.legacy.com/kansascity/LegacySubPage2.asp?Page= LifeStory&PersonId=2019732 Steve's candidate bio for a seat on the AHA Board of Advisors is at http://www.beertown.org/homebrewing/election.html Jeff Renner AHA Board of Advisors Please honor Steve's memory by voting in the AHA board election -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner`at`comcast.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 ********************************************************************** * 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 3/16/2004 - 3/17/2004 Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:02:33 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Re: Unevaluateable beer (Scott Bickham) 2. Alternate Path to NATIONAL Judge (Dion Hollenbeck) 3. Judging Points vs. Test Scores (Martin Brungard) 4. alternate path (roxanne hastings) 5. Re: "unevaluatable" beers (Bill Wible) 6. The Passing of One of Our Own (Houseman, David L) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bickham Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:12:39 -0500 Subject: Re: Unevaluateable beer I guess I'm in the camp where I feel I owe it to the brewer to make every effort to evaluate his or her beer, regardless of the conditions. I suppose I should have provided more information. This particular beer did not have any serving problems (gusher, etc.) or aesthetic problems (chunks, etc.). The style was fruit lambic, and as a MCAB finalist, the beer had recently won first place in a large regional competition and was a BOS finalist. The judge's comment was that it was so infected that it was not worthwhile judging. The brewer gave me a sample of said beer after the competition, and it did have some flaws: it had some higher alcohols, which is unusual in that style, but it also had a combination of lactic and acetic acids, the fruit was very well-done and there was sufficient Brettanomyces to identify it as the lambic style. At the time of *my* evaluation, I was not aware of the actions of the judge, but the brewer did thank me for giving him more feedback in 10 seconds than he received in the competition. Regards, Scott ********************************************************************** * 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: Dion Hollenbeck Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:42:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Alternate Path to NATIONAL Judge What about an alternate path to National Judge, similar to whatever is adopted with regards to Master? Personally, I have given up ever taking the test again due to my inability to do rote memorization. Anybody who has judged with me could tell you about the quality of my judging being at the National level, and I have 35 points, 2/3 of which are judging and have judged 17 sanctioned competitions and about 10 non-sanctioned. But then again, any organizers who sit me on a panel know my judging is National level, even though I am only officially Certified. I have just about come to the conclusion that "advancement" through the ranks is worthless to me. I will contiune to be "Certified forever" and be happy with that. I will not let rank keep me from judging or continuing to hone my judging skills. regards, dion -- Dion Hollenbeck Email: hollen`at`woodsprite.com Home Page: http://www.woodsprite.com Brewing Page: http://hbd.org/hollen ********************************************************************** * 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: Martin Brungard Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:03:53 -0900 Subject: Judging Points vs. Test Scores It is apparent that judging points are very important for the advancement of BJCP judges. For example, if I was fortunate enough to score 90 or above upon my first attempt at the BJCP exam, it would still require years of judging experience (20 judging + 20 non-judging points) to reach the Master level. By that example, test score means only so much in our advancement system. Judging experience seems to matter more in determining if a judge is worthy of that lofty designation. Using the same premise that judging is a very important factor in determining if a judge is worthy of advancement, I see that providing an alternate path to advancement via additional judging is valid. Allowing additional judging points to make up for below par test scores is appropriate. The question then becomes: How many additional judging points are appropriate to reach an achievement level? This discussion has focused on Masters level achievement so far, but I suggest that this whole methodology of advancing judges with additional judging points is valid for the lower levels too. For instance, a judge scoring 70 should be able to reach the National level with some prescribed number of additional judging points. You'll notice that I mention judging points instead of experience points. Non-judging points make up to 1/2 of the experience points in normal advancement at each level. While non-judging points properly recognize contributions to the hobby, judging points are what can help make better judges. Additional judging points should help create better judges by requiring more valid "homework" and experience. My suggestion is that additional judging points be allowed to supplement a test score deficiencies. I suggest that 2 judging points provide one test point. This judging point requirement is on top of the existing advancement requirements. For instance, if you have an 80 test score, you are 10 test points shy of qualifying for Master. To achieve Master using my suggestion, an additional 20 judging points would be required. This is on top of the current requirement for at least 20 judging points and 20 other points. The next dilemma is if it would be allowable to permit a judge to advance more than one level with this method. Say you had a 79 test score. The additional 2 judging points needed to make up for the 1 point test deficiency would be an easy achievement to attain your National rating. That means that you would only need 12 judging points and 10 other points to attain National. Could you then achieve the Masters level using the additional point total described in the paragraph above? These are uncommon suggestions, but I think they add to this discussion. It is time to bolster the membership of this organization with higher level members. Part of the problem in getting good performance out of our volunteers is that too many able and willing people are excluded from participation. The existing volunteers are just overworked. We need to have more members to enlist as volunteer, but test graders and other responsibilities are limited to National and above member levels. We need to get more high level members and we need to get them involved. Martin Brungard Tallahassee, FL _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ ********************************************************************** * 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: roxanne hastings Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 01:03:23 -0700 Subject: alternate path I want to say that I am in favour of the alternate path for a Master Judge. It shows that the BJCP program has reached a level of maturity when we can say there is more than one way to reach the same end. It also shows that we recognize that experienced judges are a valuable asset to our program. In general I would far rather be judged by a Certified Judge who had scored 70 but been steadily judging for 10 years than a National judge who had 85 but had just a few years and beers under his belt. To my mind, experience is always the most valuable asset and I would like to see it rewarded more efficiently than we have done in the past. I have been judging for over 10 years and am currently a National Judge. Although I am regarded as one of the top judges in my region and I travel to many shows in western Canada I have stopped judging BOS rounds. Why? Because although I am often the most experienced judge at the competition there is nothing I can do with those points. So I've made sure that less experienced judges have an opportunity to do BOS so that they can get those hard to come by points. Now this if often dissapointing for the organizers because they clearly want the best judges at the table in BOS and it doesn't do top service to the competitors. If I had the chance to apply those points towards a Masters I would not so graciously turn down those opportunities to do BOS :-) But one thing that does concern me is the suggestion about rewriting the tastings portion of the exam. Now most of us will agree that the ability to actual judge and score beer is more important than all the book knowledge that is shown in the essay portion. Why then is the tastings only worth 30%. I asked this question for 10 years as a beer judge and when I became an exam grader I found out why. Because it is the most subjective part of the whole exam and the most incredibly bitching part to grade fairly. There are many reason for this but it is a sad fact. Much depends on the quality of the proctors and their ability to judge and score right on the mark. Most times this is not a problem. But sadly I've seen cases where this has failed miserably e.g proctors have wildly different perceptions and scores are off by well over 10 points. What then? In terms of rewriting the tasting part for the Masters the irony is that anyone writing the exam for the purpose of becoming a Master judge is most likely going to be far more experienced, perceptive and better at judging than the proctors! Your experience may differ but it would certainly be true in my region. Not to say that experienced graders can't identify an exceptional potential judge in this fashion but it would not be a sure thing and I think we need a more objective way of promoting people into these positions. I think the original email on this subject that used a formula that gave points for judging, grading exams etc, i.e. that tried to objectively recognize actual experience and service to the judging community was the most simple and straightforward way of dealing with the situation. Not perfect but that would be too much to hope for. Roxy Hastings BJCP National ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Wible Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:47:35 -0500 Subject: Re: "unevaluatable" beers Yeah, we've all had the beer that looked or smelled so bad that you couldn't even get it past your nose. a) What about spitting? Wine judges do this. You could always take a sip, evaluate what you can, and if it's really that wretched you can spit it into the dump bucket. b) Has anybody ever gotten the impression from one of these REALLY bad beers you've had to judge that it was a bad beer that was just SO bad that it could only have been entered with the sole purpose of making a judge sick? I ask because I had this topic came up recently during a conversation with a member of another organization called the SCA, who also does these competitions, for homemade beer, wine, mead, cordials and spirits - outside the realm of the BJCP. One of their members told me this happens so often in their competitions that they've concluded that some people who are upset over judge's comments etc, or not winning an award are trying to make judges sick. I certainly would not rule this possibility out in BJCP competitions, either, especially with some of the beers we've seen. The SCA has also instituted a new and rather interesting rule in their competitions now, where each contestant who enters a beverage has to present 3 bottles, and the site collecting the entries will randomly choose one of the 3 bottles and make them actually drink it before accepting the other 2 for the entry. This would make mail in's impossible, but it does protect their judges. While I agree that each entrant has paid a fee and deserves a fair evaluation of their beer, I don't think a judge should be obligated to be poisoned or made sick by an intentionally entered bad beverage, either. Does it go on? Maybe. What do you guys think? Bill ********************************************************************** * 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: Houseman, David L Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:01:04 -0500 Subject: The Passing of One of Our Own Jeff tried to send this to JudgeNet but it was rejected as spam so he asked me to forward to JudgeNet for him. Fellow Judges, I am saddened to report to you all that homebrewer Steve Ford, of Overland Park, Kansas, passed away on Wednesday, March 10th, of a blood clot. Steve was an active, loved and respected member of the Kansas City Bier Meisters, the American Homebrewers Association and the Beer Judge Certification Program, and was a regular poster to HBD. Steve was one of only 36 BJCP Master Judges and a valued exam grader. Steve's fellow judges' thoughts are with Steve's family, friends and club members. Today, there is beer in heaven, and we imagine that Steve has been welcomed there by Bill Pfeiffer and George Fix. The K.C. Bier Meisters have a memorial page at http://www.kcbiermeisters.org/SteveFord.htm His Kansas City Star obituary is at (cut and paste) http://www.legacy.com/kansascity/LegacySubPage2.asp?Page= LifeStory&PersonId=2019732 Steve's candidate bio for a seat on the AHA Board of Advisors is at http://www.beertown.org/homebrewing/election.html Jeff Renner AHA Board of Advisors Please honor Steve's memory by voting in the AHA board election -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner`at`comcast.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 ********************************************************************** * 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 * **********************************************************************