From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Fri Apr 28 04:06:47 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["24818" "" "28" "April" "1995" "02:18:26" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "525" "JudgeNet Digest #1031 (Apr 28, 1995)" "^Date:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3) with X.500 id EAA18306; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 04:06:45 -0400 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.3) with SMTP id EAA18300; Fri, 28 Apr 1995 04:06:43 -0400 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA29325 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Fri, 28 Apr 95 04:06:39 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA06254 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 95 03:38:16 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA23781; 28 Apr 95 02:18:26 EST (Fri) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9504280218.AA23781 at synchro.com> Date: 28 Apr 95 02:18:26 EST (Fri) From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1031 (Apr 28, 1995) JudgeNet Digest #1031 Fri 28 Apr 1995 JudgeNet 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 Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publishers: SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery Anti-Prohibitionists may also be interested in LiBeerty: The Libertarian Beer Digest Subscription info: libeerty-request at synchro.com Contents: Re: Big beers agin ("Lee C. Bussy") is malt perfect is a 19 beer? (MJL) Contradictory Judging Guidelines (Tom Leith) re: scoring (Btalk) Calibration beers (Ted_Manahan) "Calibration" Beers ("Rad Equipment") "Calibration" Beers Time:8:19 AM Date:4/27/95 Apology to judge from Arizona (Lowell Hart) More on judging, scoring, and "big beers" (uswlsrap) "19" beers (uswlsrap) Santa Rosa exams (GSMITHBEER) Advancement To Next Level (TimStrange) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 05:59:01 +0000 From: "Lee C. Bussy" Subject: Re: Big beers agin Al K says in 1030 about Big Beers: > Yes, but we're not supposed to be judging according to commercial examples. > Never forget that the entrants were supposed to enter beers based upon the > 1995 Guidelines and we should judge them according to the same guidelines. The more I read this the more ludicrous it sounds. I suppose a scratch and sniff along side the guidelines next? Enter beers according to style guidelines. Nobody said that an ordinary can't have 1.050 if it tastes like an ordinary. The guidelines are seriously lacking in this respect. If a judge were to grade my beer with a good commercial example in mind I would not have a problem with it. What you're saying is we should just forget commercial examples and grade based upon technical proficiency? Great. A room full of Dave Miller Scotch Ales. Can't get myself worked up over that. No I say. Commercial examples are the best indication we have of style. If a commercial brewer decides that he needs an OG of X to gain the style characteristics he needs then it is up to him. Well, maybe this would make it easier.... think about a BJCP test without the commercial examples part.... it would go alot quicker. All we would have to do is recite the 20+ styles guidelines and be done with it. - -- -Lee Bussy | Screaming on the Internet with | leeb at southwind.net | Windows 95!!!! 32 Bit made simple! | Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 08:29:56 -0400 (EDT) From: MJL at UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU Subject: is malt perfect is a 19 beer? First of all, chalk me up as one who gives a beer a score, then assigns the numbers to fit. I've forgotten if "we" call this top-down or bottom-up and I'm too dense to figure it out. John states in the last issue that assigning scores to subcategories of a "19" beer first might lead to an inflated score. If the fault was microbial in nature, it would get points off in the flavor and overall categories. My question is this: if this "19 beer" is as BAD as the 19 beers I've had, how can you even taste the malt characteristics over the overwhelming say acetic tang of the fault? Further, if an flaw masks other components even though those components may be alright, can we judge them as such, if we can't perceive them? I think not. Mike Lelivelt Univ of N Carolina Dept of Microbio/Immuno ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 08:31:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Tom Leith Subject: Contradictory Judging Guidelines John DeCarlo writes: >If you blindly adhere simply to the guidelines on the score sheet, you >have two contradictory sets of guidelines: > 1) The individual category guidelines (6 for appearance, 2 for color, > etc.). > 2) The overall score guidelines (must get less than 25 for being out of > style). > >Bob's approach would give a great beer that is simply too strong (a >Dopplebock instead of a Bock) a few points off for aroma and flavor and >Bob would have a tough time giving it less than 25. But the scoring >system demands that you do this. I think John is absolutely correct on this point in principle, but has unfortunately chosen a poor example. I seriously doubt that there are five among us who can reliably estimate original gravity of a beer within 10 points, and if I remember my style guidelines right, bocks gan go as high as 1070 and dopplebocks can go as low as 1070. A comparison between Bock and Munich Dunkel might illustrate the point better. Or maybe between a Marzen and a lighter-color Munich Dunkel. In this case especially, there is a distinct flavor contrast between Vienna malts & Munich malts. In fact, it is mostly this contrast that distinguishes the styles. Is it even possible to make a proper Marzen/Ocktoberfest from Munich malt?? I'm thinking "no". So what would we do about this? The flavor difference is nearly all the difference... And how `bout the difference between Porter & Stout? Even if some brewers' recent commercial offerings betray "confusion" on the topic, we shouldn't be confused ourselves. I think the guidelines definately require that a stout in the porter category should certainly score less than 25. And again, the flavor difference is the whole difference. Given the score-sheet, what can we do with this? More grist for the mill..... t ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 10:03:59 -0400 From: Btalk at aol.com Subject: re: scoring I'm glad to see the subject of scoring beers come up. It is an area of judging that has perplexed me ever since I started entering contests, and then judging. I believe it is an area that needs discussion So much emphasis is put on identifying the good and bad characteristics of a brew, that how this should be recorded on a score sheet is rarely addressed. In my early judging experiences, no one said ' Hey Bob, this is what gets 3 points worth of body and here's why..' Allocating score points, for me, is one of the hardest parts of judging a beer. It is part of the (constructive?) feedback that is supposed to be the result of entering a contest, IMHO. Quite a few times I've adjusted final scores downward because it 'did not exemplify style...'. I've gotten score sheets back that say 'this is great. I wouldn't change a thing', earning 36 points! If it is so great, why not over 40. Perhaps that -is- sacred ground;) Just some rambling thoughts while waiting for the caffiene to kick in. Regards, Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 08:38:58 -0700 From: Ted_Manahan Subject: Calibration beers > as much as possible each table > of judges was given a calibration beer that was a known representative > example of the style they were about to judge. In my opinion, this is a dangerous practice. The reason is that many styles have a wide range of acceptable characteristics. To present SNPA as the true avatar of American Pale Ales will encourage judges to knock points off a darker pale ale, even though it could be well within the AHA guidelines. Certain categories are more closely defined. Bohemian Pilsners and German Bocks don't support much variation, if you want to be true to style. But in general you can't assume that one commercial example will provide a benchmark for an entire category. What homebrewed brown ale is _not_ an American Brown? For this reason, I like the idea of selecting a calibration beer from one of the light styles, and using it across all judging tables. In fact, I'd say it is best to use American Light Lager. Many judges need to be explicitly told that you judge to style, not to what you like. Ted Manahan tedm at cv.hp.com 503/715-2856 ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 1995 09:37:01 U From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: "Calibration" Beers Subject: "Calibration" Beers Time:8:19 AM Date:4/27/95 Personally I think the use of the term "Calibration" when applied to a beer fed in advance of the actual entries at a competition is confusing. As an organizer, I use the first beer of the flight as a "throw-away" or dry run entry. My purpose in using this beer is to give the judges a chance to see how they work as a panel and to do so without having to worry that they will have to practise on a "real" entry. While it isn't mandatory to provide beers which are in style, it is preferred. I try to give them a beer which is in the category that they will be judging so that they are not thrown by a style which is radically different than the rest of the flight. I try to impress on them that the "calibration" beer is NOT to be considered an ideal example of the style even though it may score better than the rest of the flight. It should be used by the judges to discuss the basics of the style so that they understand each other's slant on the style better prior to attacking the true entries. Unless you are doing a look alike category (like Steam) there is no need for an ideal example. In fact, providing an ideal example could be detrimental since few categories have very narrow parameters. I try to use homebrew for these beers. Frequently I will use one of the entries which lost out in the preliminary round. One which I know (from the first round judges' comments) is not infected or way out of style. If I have to use commercial beers I almost always alter them in some way. I add some hop oil or let them go a bit flat or oxidize slightly. Whatever works. So the term "calibration" is not used relative to the specific flight but rather between the judges. The goal is not to try to train the judges but to allow them some practise or warm-up space. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 11:42:36 -0700 From: Lowell Hart Subject: Apology to judge from Arizona RE: NHC 95 It has just come to my attention that we have done someone in Arizona a grave injustice. We had a response over the telephone from a judge who saw my previous call for judges. I just found out that the recipient of that call lost/spaced out/screwed up the judge's information and as such we did not confirm them as coming. (Not you, Joseph, we've got you down) I would like to humbly apologize for our group really blowing the chance to get another judge, one who was enthusiastic enough to offer to do some serious travelling to help us out. Whoever you are (I never had this information) please drop me a note here, or call us, at the coordinates below. We can still use you, we will still welcome you, and we still (hope upon) hope to see you. Please contact me either way. JudgeNet and e-mail have made for an excellent method of communications for the organization of this event. I have picked up a couple-three judges as a direct result of JudgeNet, and we used e-mail to confirm and communicate with several others. Thanks for listening. Now go judge at the NHC.... Lowell Hart Organizer's Henchman NHC Western Regional, Fresno, California San Joaquin WortHogs lhart at cati.CSUFresno.edu 209-237-5823 voice 209-237-7203 fax ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 16:51:50 EDT From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Subject: More on judging, scoring, and "big beers" Well, if nothing else, my post did succeed in getting the discussion back to judging issues :-) John DeCarlo writes in response to my comments on reverse-scoring judges: >I guess it depends on how arbitrary you are. I will go ahead and state that I >try and come up with a score first, then I try and faithfully fill in the >various subcategories. I inevitably end up with a much higher score and >have to figure out where I went wrong with the individual scores and make >corrections. I do the same thing after talking with other judges if I feel I >missed something or was too harsh or easy on a particular beer. Obviously you can do reverse-scoring well or you can do it arbitrarily; I hope my comment was not interpreted as a blanket condemnation of reverse scorers ;-> I'll admit to forming an impression and a rough score range that I expect to hit, starting with a very broad range at perceiving nose and appearance and refining that range as I taste it. But having an idea that something is a low- 30s beer isn't quite the same as saying, "this is a 31 and I'm going to do whatever it takes to make the numbers add up that way." (And there are people who do that.) I still insist on scoring according to the characteristics and weighting specified. If that means my "low 30s" initial impression evolves into 34--or a 29--I figure I've done an honest job on scoring and (I hope) given the brewer an indication of my perceptions of different characteristics. A score like that is reasonably consistent with my initial impression. I don't feel any need to "adjust" it to force that 31; scoring "accurately" on the components ought to give the brewer more information than an arbitrary set of numbers that add up to what I initially think the total "ought" to be. Obviously, discussion with the other judges may cause me to adjust my scores-- but my "adjustment" has to be based on a particular set of characteristics, not merely a desire to make scores closer. It's not a matter of "I can drop (or raise) two points," but "I can go down (up) two points on flavour because of (x)." I have to be convinced that I went too easy or dealt too harshly with a particular flaw. And sometimes another judge will bring my attention to something I missed the first time. These scoring categories aren't exact; there's a little room to move around and still be consistent. But ultimately, the components should drive the total rather than the other way around. You shouldn't _assume_ that something "went wrong" with the components when you "inevitably" get a higher total. Maybe it's that initial impression that you should be questioning sometimes. John hits it on the head, though, when he points out the contradictory guidelines (excellent, very good, good... v. components). Still, I have to go with what's going to give the brewer better information. Quite often, I'll concede to another judge that I'm giving an entry a "very generous 27" on a beer that's out of style and/or flawed because I don't think there are three or more points that can be cut because of the distribution of points dictated by the scoring system. I will note the problems verbally and make it clear that the beer is not according to style or has problems (a) and (b). He will have no illusions that the beer is a wonderful, flawless example of the style, despite a summary box that says "Good: 25-29." I think that's much better, and more honest than to give the beer a 2 on appearance (because you have to find the points somewhere) when you've (accurately) written that the beer has "beautiful clarity, nice colour, and fair head retention." A description like that says 4 or 5, and if you score it 2, the brewer is going to be able to point to that as evidence that the judge doesn't know what s/he is talking about and will discredit the entire evaluation and perhaps dismiss the validity of beer judging altogether....and won't be particularly open to using the evaluation for identifying problems and improving technique, ingredients, or recipe formulation. As Al notes, in a different context (as he tells us what he's entered--does that mean that all the judgenet subscribers have to recuse themselves from those categories in the Chicago region because they now know the identity of one of the entrants? ;-) Al--with all the entries you have, Dennis is going to scream at you for disqualifying all his judge assignments :-) :-) ) WRITE IT DOWN. An intelligent verbal comment is going to mean a lot more than the minor problem of a total score that doesn't fit the good/very good/excellent box. The problem with the score total categories is that you have very little room between the unwritten 19 rule (which I break only on rare occasions) and 24 for a beer that doesn't exemplify style. No, maybe I wouldn't give that hypothetical doppelbock-entered-as-bock a 24, but it wouldn't get a 35, either. Remember, except for drinkability, those components are "as appropriate for style," so my component scores (except for appearance, and parts of the others) aren't going to be as high as he suggests. So maybe the score will be high 20s instead of low 20s. It's still not going to get an award (even if that means not giving a third place, which is another can-o-worms). > tough time giving it less than 25. But the scoring system demands that you do this. Yes, there are conflicting "demands," but the demands of the individual components are more compelling. You can make the comment that it's not true to style to get around the "demand" of the total. I will say that I think it's more a doppelbock and that's why it didn't score higher, and that's going to say a lot more to the brewer than will screwing around with the individual numbers in such a way that damages the credibility of the evaluation. As for the contaminated but otherwise "perfect" beer, I disagree that I would feel compelled to give it a score in the 30s (John's typo/error on appearance points notwithstanding). "Perfect" doesn't mean you have to give all the points. Having the "perfect" malt (or hops, body, conditioning, whatever) character doesn't mean it gets all the points for that component if the defect is so overpowering that it distracts from the perception of those components. Therefore, the score isn't going to add up as high as you might think. But, yes, it might be a 23 instead of a 19. And if 19 is the unwritten minimum, a 23 might be a more reasonable score (even if you're uncomfortable going that high) in that it distinguishes it from the problem beer that _lacks_ those other things. Anyway, I'd like to spend a little of my lunchtime eating lunch, so I'll being this commentary to an end (for now) Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino / Disoriented in Badgerspace / uswlsrap at ibmmail.com - ---THE INTERNET: Hardwiring the neurons of the global brain:--- One geek at a time.... - --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 18:49:25 EDT From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Subject: "19" beers As I was cleaning out the mail to which I had already responded, I noticed something in John DeCarlo's post that serves as the perfect argument for _not_ deciding a score before you've actually scored it. He wrote: >What about a contaminated beer with a sour flavor, but otherwise very nice.I >will instantly give it a 19, because of being seriously contaminated. Bob may >be forced to give it a 35 (everything was perfect except flavor and >drinkability, and he had to give it 5 because the malt and hops were good). > >In other words, I agree with Bob that you can't just give 0 for appearance on >a 19 beer to be arbitrary. But if the beer is a 19 because of serious >problems, I disagree that you should have to give it a 31 because aroma (10), >appearance (10), body (5), and flavor (6-conditioning, malt, hops). He said he would "instantly" give it a 19. There's the problem. That's little different from saying, "The beer sucks." I may well get that "19" impression about the beer also, but if you decide right then that you are going to give that score, you aren't doing the work you're expected to do as a judge. The brewer can get someone sitting down the bar to give him that much of an opinion As Greg Walz said, judging is work (work that's fun, and unpaid, but work nonetheless). Reverse-scoring takes a score and finds numbers that add up. _Judging_ requires the work, however unpleasant in this instance, of focusing on each component and giving it an honest score (which may well be 19 after you're all done). You may love getting to judge that 45-score IPA, but that 19-beer deserves the same effort. You might surprise yourself and find some beerlike characteristics. As I stated in my initial response, you _aren't_ going to find perfection, but you may find some things you didn't expect when you first decided that 19. (I've had beers of my own judged that way. I had a Belgian beer with coriander (entered in a "catch-all" category, for lack of the appropriate Belgian category) dismissed as "infected" and given the obligatory 19, and the comments reflected a lack of effort on the part of the judge to evaluate it fairly. Part of the problem was administrative--I identified the style and the spices, but it does not appear that the judges were given the information. But style and "special" ingredients aside, it may not have been a 35 beer, but it wasn't a 19 either. But this was a judge who probably didn't have much exposure to Belgian styles to be able to identify it, and wasn't told what it was either.) I can't blame a judge for not knowing a particular style and just happening to get one in a mixed-bag category; but I can fault someone for not doing the work to look for what a brewer may have done right, or at least to be somewhat specific about your perceptions. It isn't easy sometimes; bad beers can often be the hardest to judge, and I'm sure there are times when my judging hasn't measured up. But I'm going to make the effort to find something good about a problem beer. That score may still be 19, but the numbers that add up to 19 are going to be based on scoring each section of the scoresheet rather than making numbers fit a pre-conceived notion. Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino / Disoriented in Badgerspace / uswlsrap at ibmmail.com - ---THE INTERNET: Hardwiring the neurons of the global brain:--- One geek at a time.... - --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 16:42:21 -0700 From: GSMITHBEER at eworld.com Subject: Santa Rosa exams Posted for information I received two days ago a number of examinations from the Santa Rosa BJCP exam of 7 January 1995. That's right almost 15 1/2 weeks old. I finished grading them, but apparently the other BJCC members feel we cannot release the scores until we get a Co-Director to sign off and neither of them are available. Thus, palarysis....my apologies to those people in Santa Rosa but that's bureaucracy for you. - Tried my best to convince them to just get the scores out, but we must follow procedures. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 00:51:58 -0400 From: TimStrange at aol.com Subject: Advancement To Next Level Hello! Let me start by saying that although I've been a judge for over a year, I've just come on line and joined JudgeNet this week. Did I miss anything? I have a question someone might be able to help me with. My records say I should have become certified a few months ago. Since my test score was high enough to achieve this level, I was wondering when the BJCP and/or (dear I say it) AHA is going to send me notification of advancement. Is there someone I can right to? I realize they're probably very busy with the changing of the guards and all, but I could really use a new BJCP card. My Recognized one is getting a little worn out! Thanks for listening. Tim Dawson So many beers, TimStrange at aol.com Manchester, NH So little time!! Brew Free or Die! ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************