Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 01:10:02 -0500
Message-Id: <199602220610.BAA02557 at synchro.com>
To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients)
From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator)
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet)
Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk
Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1218 (Feb 21, 1996)

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

JudgeNet Digest #1218                              Wed 21 Feb 1996

                               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

        WWW Archives: http://www.umich.edu/~spencer/beer/judge

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

      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

     For BJCP General Information contact: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents:

  Competition announcement                 (Algis R Korzonas)
  2nd Annual Small & Tiny homebrew competition (Spencer W Thomas)
  Judge Education/Feedback                 ("Manning Martin MP")
  Difficulty of Brewing                    (Fred Hardy)
  Re: Difficulty of Brewing                (Algis R Korzonas)
  Quality of Judging                       (PGarofal)

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

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 96 14:26:06 CST
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Competition announcement


There has been a change in the location of the 1996
Brewers of South Suburbia competition.  It will still
be held on March 23rd, 1996 in the southwest suburbs
of Chicago, but the brewpub at which the judging was
to take place will not be able to accommodate us on
that date.  For more information please contact

Marty Nachel at 708-614-6258  or aleconner at aol.com

Please don't email me for info -- this is all the 
information I have.

Al.

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

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 04:26:32 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: 2nd Annual Small & Tiny homebrew competition

What: 2nd Annual Small & Tiny Homebrew Competition (BJCP recognized)
When: April 13, 1996
Enter: From April 1, 1996 to April 12, 1996
How: 2 bottles, $5/entry to Small & Tiny HC, c/o Spencer Thomas,
	1418 Golden Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48104

This competition recognizes those beers that are, despite their light
gravity, good-tasting and flavorful.  Beers that get shunted aside in
most competitions in favor of their more robust cousins.  Beers that
deserve recognition!  So, start brewing!

Any beer with an OG of 1.043 or less can be entered.

For more details, see the web page: 
	http://realbeer.com/spencer/AABG/Small_and_Tiny.html
or send me e-mail.

Judges, send me e-mail if you're interested in judging.

=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI        (spencer at umich.edu)

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

Date: 21 Feb 1996 09:14:16 U
From: "Manning Martin MP" <manning_martin_mp at mcst.ae.ge.com>
Subject: Judge Education/Feedback

Scott Bickham wrote:

>Though the BJCP is not in the business of judge education, I would
>support some kind of feedback for judges in the program.

How about attacking this in a proactive fashion?  It seems as if it would be
easy enough to compile a judging handbook with suggestions for filling out
score sheets, and examples.  These could even be style-specific, like some of
the comments on Phil Seitz's Belgian guidelines, where common faults and
particularly difficult aspects of each style are listed. 

The idea could be extended to include sample competition announcements, entry
rules, organizer's information, etc.  (I have myself saved several posted
announcements I thought were particularly good for future reference)  Maybe
this has been already been done (in the previous life of the BJCP), but even
if it has I am sure it could be updated and improved upon.  It could be put
up on the web for one thing.

MPM


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

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 09:51:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh at access.digex.net>
Subject: Difficulty of Brewing


Al respectfully disagrees with my suggestion that flipping a coin is as 
good a way to break a BoS tie as is some undefined "more difficult to 
brew" concept. I expect there to be disagreement, but let's make sure we 
agree on the context. My post assumed that the BoS round had already come 
down to a dead heat. Under that scenario, subtlies of balance and the 
like have already been considered and the beers have been found to be 
equally good representatives of their respective styles.

The opinions of well known beer experts (whom we all know and love) kinda 
leaves me cold. More difficult to brew is, IMO, so nebulous a concept 
that I still vote for flipping a coin. Now, we are talking of homebrew, 
not commercial stuff. It is not rocket science, and the perfectly 
balanced beer still depends on a good deal of luck as well as good 
management. I have no problem with more difficult to "brew" as a 
discriminator, if only someone could tell me what it means.

Sorry, Al, I don't agree that it means the complex interplay of flavors, 
aromas, etc. If you mean "more difficult to get right" I can almost agree 
with you, but students of any one style will invariably argue that their 
specialty is the more difficult. Besides, the original posts focused on 
process. Our contention was (and still is) that there is nothing 
inherently more difficult in the process of making one style versus 
another. When it comes to process, everything is difficult until you know 
how. A judge who has never done a decoction mash may well think a Munich 
Dunkel is more difficult to brew than an English pale ale. The ale may be 
considered more difficult by a second judge since it is lighter in color 
than the dunkel. My argument is that they are equally difficult for a 
homebrewer to "get right."

It would be of great help to judges everywhere if the acknowledged 
experts could rank order beer styles in order of "difficult to get 
right." Then us mere judges could simply refer to the table when two or 
more beers came down to a dead heat during judging in either a mixed 
style flight or BoS.

Cheers, Fred

==============================================================================
We must invent the future, else it will  |          <Fred Hardy>
happen to us and we will not like it.    |
[Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"]   |    email: fcmbh at access.digex.net


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

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 96 11:01:59 CST
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Re: Difficulty of Brewing

Fred writes:
>Al respectfully disagrees with my suggestion that flipping a coin is as 
>good a way to break a BoS tie as is some undefined "more difficult to 
>brew" concept. <snip>
>
>The opinions of well known beer experts (whom we all know and love) kinda 
>leaves me cold. More difficult to brew is, IMO, so nebulous a concept 
>that I still vote for flipping a coin. Now, we are talking of homebrew, 
>not commercial stuff. It is not rocket science, and the perfectly 
>balanced beer still depends on a good deal of luck as well as good 
>management. I have no problem with more difficult to "brew" as a 
>discriminator, if only someone could tell me what it means.

To me, there are some obvious cases and some subtle cases.  Despite having
reached Master rank and having judged in quite a few BOS, every time I
sit down at a table and judge beer I learn a few more things.  If one is
open to learning and thirsts for knowledge, there is plenty there for the
taking.  Experience with brewing, tasting commercial beers and judging has
given me a feel for some of the really subtle nuances in certain styles
that escaped me as recently as a year ago.

>Sorry, Al, I don't agree that it means the complex interplay of flavors, 
>aromas, etc. If you mean "more difficult to get right" I can almost agree 
>with you, but students of any one style will invariably argue that their 
>specialty is the more difficult.

These two sentences seem contradictory -- I certainly meant "more difficult
to get right."  There will always be some disagreement at the BOS table --
let us hope that they most often have to do with selecting which near-perfect
beer is BOS.

>It would be of great help to judges everywhere if the acknowledged 
>experts could rank order beer styles in order of "difficult to get 
>right." Then us mere judges could simply refer to the table when two or 
>more beers came down to a dead heat during judging in either a mixed 
>style flight or BoS.

Your sarcasm does nothing to help this discussion or resolve this dilemma.

Let us remember that hopefully the BOS judges will be highly experienced
and will not need someone else's opinion of which beer is more "difficult
to get right."

Al.

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

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 12:35:19 -0600
From: PGarofal at USCCMAIL.uscc.bms.com
Subject: Quality of Judging

     I'd like to commend Scott Bickham on his well thought-out commentary
     concerning the quality of jugding. Many of us has had the experience
     of either judging with or having our entries judged by a judge who
     doesn't live up to their rank (including Recognized ;>).

     I'd just like to add that it's conversely a real pleasure to read the
     judging sheets from a thorough judge, such as Scott or Steve Stroud
     (from my own personal experience). These guys really make you re-think
     the mechanics of judging. Just as a poor judging sheet may inspire
     action (in my case, it sparked my interest in judging), a well-written
     score sheet, even for a poor entry, provides an ideal to shoot for.
     There is no shortage of criticism for poor judging, especially on this
     forum; perhaps we should occasionally applaud those who are doing an
     especially GOOD job!

     With the "competition season" upon us, we would all do well to pay
     attention to improved judging and constructive feedback. There are
     many thoughtful, careful, and thorough judges in our ranks. Why not
     aspire to become one of them?

     Peter Garofalo
     BJCP National judge

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

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