I agree with JP on Mini Best of Show

[Jims]

If the point of the mini best of show is to normalize scores and compinsate for potentially incorrect scores, then I say mini best of show scores should be changed if they are outside of a threshold in the same way that judges must agree on a score range during normal judging.

Something like this mini best of show 3 beers that will place were given a 40, 41, and 42 and the judges decide the 40 is the best - fine, thats reasonable. However, in the rare case where the scores are 33, 40, and 41 and the judges like the 33 to win the mini BOS - I say rescore those beers as there is something obviously wrong on somebody's score sheet. I like mini best of show, just don't think that the normalization factor gets properly disclosed.

[Mylo]

If the point of the mini best of show is to normalize scores and compinsate for potentially incorrect scores, then I say mini best of show scores should be changed if they are outside of a threshold in the same way that judges must agree on a score range during normal judging.

Something like this mini best of show 3 beers that will place were given a 40, 41, and 42 and the judges decide the 40 is the best - fine, thats reasonable. However, in the rare case where the scores are 33, 40, and 41 and the judges like the 33 to win the mini BOS - I say rescore those beers as there is something obviously wrong on somebody's score sheet. I like mini best of show, just don't think that the normalization factor gets properly disclosed.

The whole point is to advance a beer that might not have advanced, if just the score was taken into account - and to avoid advancing a beer that was not as good as another, because the judges were real generous with the scores. It's a bell curve. Some judges are very generous, some are real tight asses with the points. MOST of the judges are fair and spot on. The first round of NHC is just there to thin the herd for the second round. Don't concern yourself with the points - just the results and the comments. You can sleep well knowing that some of the "luck of the flight" has been removed by using a mini-BOS round.


Mylo

[Nate Diggler]

People get too hung up on the initial scores that the judges give... I think of it like a team's record going into the playoffs. It puts you in good position, but doesn't gaurantee you'll win.

Judges at any given table advance the best beers at that table that were tasted head to head against each other.

Those beers go to a mini-BOS (the next round in the playoffs) and then are again judged against each other head to head, the best again advancing, in ad nauseam.

[Otterbrew]

Being one of the Judges at the West Region first round, there is no way one panel of judges could taste all of the beers in a flight, and promoting the best 1 or 2 tasted by each judging pair, still made these Mini BOS troublesome. Also, the higher ranked judges were the ones selected to choose the Mini BOS winners, leaving the less experienced behind. My feelings on this issue have changed as a result of judging, and seeing the large nubers of entries in some of these categories; there is no other way to do it.
I have to say that the quality of the entries I got to taste/judge were great (I got lucky).
Congrats to those moving on..
-Greg

[uncle_bad_touches]

I think the only way to improve the situation would be to perhaps add another preliminary round of judging prior to the first round. This way we could eliminate a good chunk of the entries that wouldn't have much of a chance of advancing. This would do two things - a) have more qualified judges judging each entry, and b) reduce the mini-BOS round to a manageable number of entries so that at least a partial score sheet could be filled out for each. I know DOZE was experimenting with the new short-hand score sheets for our club only comps. I think they still need some work, but would be a useful tool for the final judging.

I would also like to see more than two judges per entry. It's too easy to be swayed by a more experienced and/or more opinionated judge when there's only two of you. It also makes it more likely that pairs of judges will score more generously/stingy than another pair of judges within the same category.

The problem with all this is that it requires more time from the volunteers that are already hanging it out there to make sure that everything goes off without a hitch.

[BDawg]

One of my National Judge friends and I had a conversation about this very topic. I expressed my displeasure with the results of a couple of MY OWN flights in this regard. He pointed out, and I quote from his email:

"I basically think that all faults get compounded as the beer warms up so something that may have been subtle upon opening would be highlighted later. So in a way, while one may be more relevant to the instantaneous consumption, the later tasting is probably more indicative of the overall profile of the beer."

This is a great point. One of the beers I sent forward with a high score warmed up and tasted very phenolic, especially compared to the others in the mini-BOS. Likewise, a beer that I had earlier given a relatively low score (34) warmed up and the flavors shined through, lifting it to 3rd place in the mini-BOS, above the phenolic beer which I had earlier placed 1st in that same flight.

I don't blame the cellarman. There are >500 beers to keep track of and move about.
I also stand by my (our) perception in the earlier scoring. The warming process made the flavors more pronounced, helping one and hurting the other beer. In both cases, I still think we called it right.

[Fritz Eye]

I agree to disagree.

The way I see it using an American IPA as an example, one flight's judges may not have a great tolerance for bitter and hoppy beers for any numerous reasons, whether they are from England, East Coast or just plain do not like hops, it happens. These judges may find the prototypical American IPA way too hoppy and only score it 31 or so.

In another flight of "similar" beers you may have judges that are used to hops or may even be hopheads and score similar beers at 40 and above.

It would be a good experiment to have the same flight of beers judged by two sets of different judges and see what happens.
Case in point, you enter one show and get 41 points and then you enter the exact same beer in another show 2 weeks later and it only gets a 32. 32 is a nice score, but is is no 41 and am I sure most people feel cheated when this happens.
I myself feel fortunate when this happens to me as I feel a fooled one set of judges in a competition.

So you have similar beers getting varied scores, but once you take the best from each group and combine them into one flight and have them judged by one set of judges, then all the variables are thrown out the window and now you have consistancy.
The creme de la creme will then rise to the top.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Cheers.

[Chupa LaHomebrew]

But Fritz, John Naegele always requests not to judge IPA's!
Seriously folks, if you are a judge and you can't judge a category fairly, just ask not to be on it.
I think JP had some good points on the show, but I also think that once he judges a few comps he will be able to see things from another perspective. The example given of a beer that scores 10 points lower, and takes first in category, is an extreme example which really shouldn't happen that often in real life.

And +1 it's the results and feedback that count, not the point score!


Judge Strong