From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Sun Mar  5 06:36:04 1995
Status: O
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
	["24989" "" " 5" "March" "1995" "05:13:09" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "533" "JudgeNet Digest #988 (Mar 05, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil]
	nil)
Received: by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.2)
	with X.500 id GAA06702; Sun, 5 Mar 1995 06:36:01 -0500
Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.2)
	with SMTP id GAA06696; Sun, 5 Mar 1995 06:36:00 -0500
Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA23664
  (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Sun, 5 Mar 95 06:35:57 -0500
Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP;
        id AA23763 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 95 06:25:45 -0500
Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5)
	id AA24620; 5 Mar 95 05:13:09 EST (Sun)
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet)
Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk
Message-Id: <9503050513.AA24620 at synchro.com>
From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator)
To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients)
Subject: JudgeNet Digest #988 (Mar 05, 1995)
Date: 5 Mar 95 05:13:09 EST (Sun)


JudgeNet Digest #988				   Sun 05 Mar 1995


			 THE BEER JUDGE DIGEST

                 digest submissions: judge at synchro.com
          administrative requests: judge-request at synchro.com
    send cancellations & rank updates to the administrative address
	  messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored

          FTP Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu in /pub/judge
        WWW Archives: http://guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu/Beer/Judge
              Gopher Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu

                 Editor: Chuck Cox <chuck at synchro.com>
       Archivist: Spencer Thomas <spencer.w.thomas at med.umich.edu>

      Publishers: SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery


Contents:
  quoting Karen B.                         (Jay Hersh)
  A few Queries                            ("Kieran O'Connor")
  Reply to Jim Busch                       (WALZENBREW)
  True Democracy:  A Modest Proposal       (TAyres)
  Reposting of private messages, Garetz's book, etc... (Andrew Patrick)
  Re: Reason for Judging // She said...    (Dennis Davison)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 19:03:53 EST
From: Jay Hersh <hersh at x.org>
Subject: quoting Karen B.


>Let me quote K. Barela from her editorial in Z. "I'm a homebrewer-and proud of
>it. In the end it doesn't really matter what the judges think of my homebrew."
>Does this tell us that the expectations of the homebrewers entering competitions
>are out of line and its not the judges that need education but the brewer, or is
>this just really showing her overall contempt toward the judges? Maybe both??

and Robert L. Lamothe says

	I'll back Karen on this one.  Because she's right.  This is after all
a hobby.  Many of my friends who brew have yet to develop past the pre-hopped
kit stage.  Yet they are enthusiastic about the hobby and love the beer that
they produce.  While I personally participate in contests to find out how to
improve my beer, many homebrewers aren't that serious about.

and I say...

Bob you miss the point. your friends attitudes are fine, granted entering
competitions isn't for everyone. no one is asking to judge their beer.
submitting your beer to a competition is *totally* voluntary. As such remarks
by the Pres. of AHA disparaging judges seem to me to be somewhat ill thought
out. If you don't care what judges think of your beer then why enter??

Judges are tasked with picking the bbeers that are the best ones within the
category they judge. They take the task seriously and study and train to do a
good job. People who enter do so for the purpose of having their beers so
judged with the hopes that they are found correct in their beliefs that their
bbeer is a worthy example of the style. Not surprising then is the fact that in
New England, land of many judges, some of the most consistent winners are also
some of the more active judges. They know the level of quality of their beers,
and the level of competition they face.

the fact is that for those who do enter what the judges think mdoes matter, and
as Pres. of the AHA I feel Karen could have chosen her words more carefully to
convey the same intent (her pride in the beer she has crafted) without it being
subbject to misinterpretation as a slam against the community of judges,
especially at a time of such turmoil in that community.



	JaH

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 09:37:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "Kieran O'Connor" <koconnor at mailbox.syr.edu>
Subject: A few Queries

here's a few topics not related to the current topics of debate.

I wass assistant organizer of our club competition last fall, and will be 
the organizer for this fall's. One of the problems we had, and I know 
other competitions have, is judges/stewards who sign up, and then don't show.

I understand that people have problems which prevent them from 
coming--car troubles, kids, etc, but we certainly were streched at our 
competition--and we could have used a few more judges (who couldn't!). 

Anyway--here's a suggestion. What if we penalized "confirmed" judges one 
point if they don't show or call. I mean I don't want to be a dink about 
this--but it seems only fair--you get a point for judging-and lose one 
for not.

Here's another one. i was talking with a judge who is not on e-mail, 
explaining the AHA survey to him (he was completely confused by the 
survey, and said he had no clue to its background) and he brought up a 
point I thought interesting.

He said that in the BoS's he's judged--they filled out judging sheets on 
all the beers. That someone who loses can at least find out how he fit 
into the overall scores of the BoS  entries.

I told him that I'd not seen it done that way at the 5 competitions I've 
been at--and that it seemed like a lot to ask for after these judges had 
already spent 1/2 a day judging. I told him that consensus judging seems 
the way that most competitions have gone.

I'm wondering if BoS judges coudlnt use some sort of modified judging 
sheet--perhaps we could write general comments and a "off the top of our 
head" score down. That would make yanking out beers a bit easier--and 
might provide some feedback to BoS entrants.

Just a few thoughts-


Kieran

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kieran O'Connor

E-Mail Address: koconnor at mailbox.syr.edu
Syracuse, N.Y. USA

                 In vino veritas; in cervesio felicitas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 14:02:13 -0500
From: WALZENBREW at aol.com
Subject: Reply to Jim Busch


I wrote in Digest #982 (2/27):

<I don't like the ideas I've seen of letting persons who
<haven't gone through the process of studying for and taking
<the test become full-fledged members of the BJCP.

Jim Busch replied in Digest #983:

<This is nonsense. I didnt *study* for the exam in any formal
way.
<I learned it through experience/travel/brewing/tasting.  Also,
<it is a bit self aggrandizing to state that one needs to be 
<BJCP or *anyone approved* to be good at judging.  There are
certain
<individuals with world renowned credentials and/or experience
that
<could care less about what some sanctioning body considers to
be
<worthy.  Do we care if Pierre Celis is a BJCP master judge, or
<is better to just allow him to judge Belgian ales?  Would you
discount
<his appraisal over a Certified judge?

In response to this I only have to cite something that exists
in my profession (engineering).  We have what is called the
"Professional Engineering Examination".  Each type of
engineering has its own exam.  Passing this exam makes you a
"Registered Professional Engineer" in the state you took it in,
and is required by law in most states before an engineer can,
for example, sign off on a construction drawing or testify as
an expert witness.  This is similar to the Bar exam that
lawyers must take and pass before they can practice.

Passing this exam doesn't guarantee that you're the best
engineer in the world, or even that you won't make mistakes. 
What is says is that you have proven to the world that you meet
a minimum level of engineering knowledge.

Sure there are lots of good engineers out there who haven't
taken the PE exam, but passing it shows the world that you are
what you say you are and know the minimum needed to practice. 
It acts to increase the confidence level of all persons who
deal with you professionally.

The BJCE is another certification exam that's really no
different.  Of course there are the Michael Jacksons out there
that everybody knows could run rings around any of us, but what
about John Doe who comes in off the street and wants to judge
at your competition?  How do you know he's got the knowledge
and experience to give the brewers a fair evaluation?  This is
the value of the exam.

The exam and experience point scale system has given beer
judging an aura of professionalism and acted to remove a lot of
the subjectivity that we had 8 to 10 years ago, when score
sheets were worthless.  OK Jim, so you're one of the lucky ones
that didn't have to study to pass the BJCE.  Some of us weren't
so lucky, but taking the BJCE and passing is a guarantee, like
the engineering PE, that you have attained a certain minimum
level of knowledge in beer brewing, style knowledge, and
tasting.  I can't see any other practical way to maintain this
degree of professionalism and objectivity.

If Pierre Celis wanted to judge a competition of mine I would
(gratefully) let him judge any Belgian style without 
hesitation.  But I'd have to have some assurance that he was
familiar with the style if he wanted, for example, to judge
Cream Ales, because as a competition organizer I am ultimately
responsible for the quality of the score sheets I send out.

I wrote:

<One of the things
<I've noticed about the exam is that you pretty much HAVE to be
<a brewer to pass it.  This is how it should be.

Jim replies:

<This is more complete nonsense.  I dont want a damn judge
telling
<me how to get more malt complexity in my pale ale, I want them
<to judge it as a pale ale, and tell me how they liked it, and
<how it compares to general pale ales.  This whole buisness of 
<making wild guesses as to the cause and corrective actions by
merely
<tasting a sample without any knowlege of my brewery,
<ingredients and
<techniques is pure guesswork.  Ill do that part, thank you.

OK Jim, this is your opinion.  But I've found that for
everybody who feels your way there are about a dozen or more
who appreciate comments like this.  Remember, many people who
send in entries to competitions are beginners or are otherwise
not as involved in this to the level we are.  I find that
"process comments" are more appreciated than felt to be
condescending.  It all depends on the attitude expressed in the
comments.  I, for one, would rather get a page full of process
comments, even if most are wide of the mark (such as assuming
an extract beer is all-grain) than the kind of crap I used to
get back in the mid-1980s, when all I'd see on the score sheet
were some numbers.

A large part of the process of judging beers at a competition
is to help the brewer.  If someone lacks brewing experience,
that individual, in my opinion, may still turn in an acceptable
score sheet - but the comments, particularly on beers with
problems, will not be as good as those obtained from someone
who maybe experienced the same flaw in his/her beers and can
offer some process advice.

I wrote:

< Also, based on my experience with
<having commercial brewers as "guest judges" at some
<competitions that I've organized: I've found that commercial
<(regional or micro) brewmasters tend to have a "vertical"
<knowledge of beer with a narrow focus around the styles they
<make (they know these pretty well).  They can become totally
<lost trying to judge anything else.

Jim replies:

<Well, thats your experience, its not mine.  I guess it all
depends
<how well trained a given areas brewers are.

Just because somebody makes money brewing beer doesn't mean
that person is an expert.  OK, if the brewer is a member of the
Institute of Brewing and passed their internationally
recognized examination, that person could leave us in the dust,
but there are a lot of professional brewers that lack the kind
of diverse, style-oriented brewing and tasting experience that
we get being homebrewers and active members of the BJCP.

One personal experience (of many) I've had was judging Munich
Dunkels at a large regional competition, at the same table as
the brewmaster of a well-known microbrewery far removed from
the Western PA area.  This individual wanted to give first
place in the category to a dunkel that had more diacetyl than
Old Foghorn.  Not only could he taste it, he said he liked the
added "sweetness" the diacetyl gave.  Everyone else at the
table knew he was wrong, but most were afraid to challenge him
because of his commercial status.  Of course, all the beers he
brewed were ales (and were excellent).  Other times I've
seen/known of "brewmasters" that started brewing for the first
time when their JV Northwest or BRD plant first came on-line,
using recipes out of the manufacturer's "cookbook".   Not every
commercial brewer is a Greg Noonan or a Garrett Oliver.

Once again, I still can't think of any other way than through a
certification exam to guarantee that judges at least meet
certain minimum qualifications.

On another topic - Bruce Stevens' proposed style judging credit
plan (qualify judges on individual styles) may have some merit,
but I feel it would prove unwieldy to administer, and certainly
would be extremely difficult if not impossible to implement
now.  Let's get the basics established first, then go back and
consider refinements like this.

Finally, to John Carson, Jr (#983) who says:

<The AHA has decided to do what they are doing in an effort to
<improve the  program.  AHA does not want to destroy a good 
<thing (i.e. the BJCP).   Rather, the AHA wants to reform the 
<program so that it can better serve  its members.  Lets try
<to help the process so that everyone is a winner.

Sorry, John, but I have a bit of trouble believing that the AHA
is doing what they're doing out of altruistic motivation.  A
lot of us here feel that the AHA's "reforms" (really a separate
new program) would include having the absolute final say as to
how the program was organized and administered.  Remember - the
AHA did not consult with their Board of Advisors before
deciding to quit the BJCP.  If the AHA is truly interested in
improving the BJCP, why are they so adamantly opposed to an
independent BJCP run by the participants?  They could easily
support such a program with no loss of face.  If you can figure
this one out please post it - we'd all love to see an answer
that doesn't involve terms like "control" and "power play".

Read Louis K. Bonham's post in Digest #982 for more information
on this.

Greg Walz
Pittsburgh PA
WALZENBREW at aol.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 14:42:13 -0500
From: TAyres at aol.com
Subject: True Democracy:  A Modest Proposal

As a Master Judge, homebrewing club president, homebrew supply store coowner,
and a homebrewer for 12 years, I bring a lot of different perspectives to the
ongoing controversy regarding the BJCP and the future of organized beer
judging in the U.S.

During the past several weeks, I've largely stayed quiet on JudgeNet,
watching as the situation has played itself out.  I've been encouraged by the
level of genuine concern and careful thought reflected in many of the
postings.  There are many people out there who care deeply about having a
well-organized, national beer judging program, respected for its integrity
and expertise.  Unfortunately, there have also been some people who've
allowed the discussion to degenerate to the level of personal enmity and
absurd, patently false allegations about others.  These have contributed
nothing constructive whatsoever toward efforts to shape the future of a
national beer judge program.  This is not about Bosnia-Herzogovena, folks --
it's about homebrew!  Surely as reasoned and presumably reasonable human
beings we can find a way out of the current impasse that will be satisfactory
to everyone.

That said, I'd like to float an idea among JudgeNetters that I've not seen
discussed anywhere to date.  My suggestion is driven by my concern that no
one's best interests are served by having two, competing judge certification
programs in operation.  I am referring, of course, to the proposed
"independent" BJCP and the new program now being developed by the AHA.  I
believe that the existence of two programs will be to everyone's detriment.
 Judges may eventually have to choose between the competing sanctioning
bodies or, at best, cope with the added expense and bureaucratic hassles of
staying recognized by both bodies.  Competition organizers -- the primary
"customers," if you will, of any sanctioning program -- may be denied access
to an adequate pool of qualified judges if those judges are split between two
competing programs.  Expenses -- and, correspondingly, entry fees -- for
competitions may well rise as organizers assure themselves access to a
broader pool of recognized judges by seeking approval from both sanctioning
bodies.    I could go on, but the bottom line is this:  no one wins and
everyone loses if there are two judge certification programs in place.  It's
as simple as that.

So to cut to the chase, here's my suggestion, which I'll flesh out in ensuing
discussions if the interest of others merits it.  With all the hand-wringing
and pious pronouncements about the need for "democracy" to hold sway in judge
program  decisions, has anyone ever given thought to simply asking the entire
body of current BJCP judges who they would like to be "sanctioned" by?  Just
as it is presumptious for the AHA to think it has some divine right to carry
forward with its own program, under the assumption that we judges will
blindly and blithely follow, so, too, is it presumptious for we JudgeNetters
who favor an independent BJCP to think that the majority of our fellow judges
agree.  My suggestion is simple:  why not put it to a nationwide vote?

I see the situation as analogous to two different unions striving to organize
a workplace.  In such a situation, the National Labor Relations Board would
organize an election and the workers would choose which of the two competing
unions is fit to represent them.  Why can't the 1,000+ beer judges currently
recognized by the BJCP have the same kind of choice?  Let the AHA and the
independent BJCP advocates make their cases in a coordinated, national
mailing, allow a reasonable amount of time for ballots to be submitted, and
let the best-articulated, best-devised program win!  Those on the losing side
would, of course, have to accept the will of the majority.

What do you think, folks?  Are we willing to submit our respective positions
to the people who really should be making these decisions -- the judges
themselves?  Are the AHA and the independent BJCPers willing to try true
democracy?  Or are we all so hung up on the righteousness of our respective
positions and power trips that we're unwilling to let the people decide?

I humbly suggest that organizing a nationwide vote on the future course of a
single, unified beer judge certification program be the first priority of the
newly constituted BJCC. 

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 14:15:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Andrew Patrick <andnator at mcs.com>
Subject: Reposting of private messages, Garetz's book, etc...

Well, speaking as someone who has had _my_ private e-mail messages publicly 
re-broadcast _without_ my express permission, I would like to say a word 
on Al K's behalf.

I am sure that he did not intend for this _private_e-mail_ to be made 
public.  Therefore, it _should_not_have_been_.  That is called 
Nettiquette, and in the olden days it was something that people paid
attention to.  Not so much, anymore I gather....  I have here 
the new book by Canter & Siegel 
(the 2 lawyers that spammed virtually every newsgroup in existance with 
their insipid Green Card Lottery advert)... they tell all readers of this 
silly manuscript that "Netiquette" is an antiquated set of rules meant to 
keep the newbies from making big bucks off of the Internet...  this is 
scary stuff...

Netiqutte is a logical set of rules for polite discourse on the 
Info-Bahn.  I recommend it.  It includes not publicly reposting people's 
private e-mails without their explicit permission.

And, for the record, I agree with Al's remarks concerning Mark Garetz'
"book".

Andrew Patrick
Certified Beer Judge; Brewing Instructor - College of DuPage County, IL
Founder, HomeBrew U BBS Network (Chicago/Milwaukee/Houston)


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 Mar 1995 21:38:01 -0600
From: ddavison at earth.execpc.com (Dennis Davison)
Subject: Re: Reason for Judging // She said...

Lee says:

| The purpose of a judge and his feedback is to help the brewer to 
| better his beer.  You may know how to get more maltiness or less 
| diacetyl but a beginning/intermediate brewer might not.  This is a 
| very importand thing to do for the  brewer.  I can only guess that 
| the response from the HBD if this were to be posted there would be 
| about 10/1 in favor of tips to better one's efforts.  That seems to 
| be the response I get from brewers here anyway.

Yes, the purpose is to help the brewer not confuss the brewer. I've gotten
several score sheets where one judge says good malt and the other judge says
it needs more maltiness. This is confussing and contradictory. Who's right
when the beer scores 35 points. Is this personal opinion at this point? How
do beginners take this? I must admit in the 3+ years I've been judging
the caliber of beers have improved greatly. I'm seeing less infection and
off flavors compared to those earlier days. Most of my comments are
resorting to increasing or decreasing the malt or hops, changing hop, malt,
yeast varieties, etc. Comments like these are difficult if you don't know
what the recipe or process is. Is it all grain or extract/grain ? Would
raise the saccrification temperature be appropriate or would increase cara
malts be more so.

I just judged today at ABNormals competition, of the 13 beers: 1 was under
25 (Scottish Export should have been a Rauchbier) : 3 were between 25 and
29: 5 were from 30 to 35 : 4 were from 36 to 40. Everyone of these beers was
process failure. Good, clean but missed the mark on hops, malt, fermentation
temp, yeast, etc. I could say change to XXX yeast and the other judge could
say ferment warmer for more esters and fruityness. Are we both right? Yes.
Is it confussing to a beginner? Yes. I would rather see just the perceptions
of the problems. Tell me not estery enough. Let me try and find out what
will produce more esters. Let me read and learn or let me go back to my
homebrew store and ask them. What will the retailer ask the brewer ?
If it's a decent store, They'll ask the brewer what yeast they used and what
was the ferm temp. Now the store can better answer and guide the brewer with
correct information, NOT guess work.


Spencers comments on She Said it:

| No, it's a common attitude, even among judges.  There are (at least) a
| couple of issues:
| 
| 1. Judge fallibility.  Let's face it, we're none of us perfect.
| Factors such as state of health, position of a beer in a flight, etc.
| can easily affect our judgement.

You left out temperature of the beer as it's served. Some beers are great at
60 degrees but suffer at 55 degrees, and heaven forbid they get surved at 50
degrees. I just finished an informal survey of a Barley Wine in 3
competitions in the past 4 weeks. I was blessed to have one judge score the
beer in 2 of the 3 competitions. Comments varied because of serving temp.
Low score and light maltiness when it was served at 50 degrees to good score
and decent maltiness when it was served at 60 degrees.

I've been robbed of ribbons because judges don't know a beer style,
especially some of the exotic styles. I don't hold a grudge, I just GET EVEN..
No, not really. I just take it instride and hope that I may have helped teach a
judge. The next time he gets that beer style he may think twice.

| 2. Good beer but not in style.  This may be more what she was getting
| at.  I've made any number of beers that were (IMO) quite good, but
| didn't "fit" any of the defined styles very well.  Thus, they would
| not do well in competition.  Well, "I like them" and maybe I just
| won't enter them.  More for me to drink :-)

Yes, it is more of what she was saying. (These are my opinions not Karen's
or The AHA, Aob, etc. Standard disclaimer). READ the editorial PEOPLE. She's
summing up her experiences and recommends that people should enter, go to
competitions, etc... Some categories are very subjective when it comes to
judging, Specialty being one of them. I think she wrote an EXCELLENT
editorial on Judging, and the Spirit behind Homebrewing. I have had several
Herb, Specialty, Fruit, etc beers that I would love to have brewed myself.
They never got ribbons, because there were 3 others that were just a tad bit
better. I've brewed and received 40+ points on a couple of beers that never
got ribbons, because there were 3 others that were better. Yes, I'm
disappointed, but hey, unless multiple awards are given, nothing I can do
about it, except know that the judges had a damn good flight of beers, I
just wish I could get a flight like that sometime.

- --
Dennis Davison       ddavison at earth.execpc.com        Milwaukee, WI

Judge Director of the 1st Round of The AHA Nationals - Chicago,IL 1995
Organizer - Real Ale Fest - Chicago - October 13,14 1995

------------------------------


End of JudgeNet Digest
************************