2014 BJCP Guidelines

[nimboden]

I know these guidelines are still in as a draft but I feel a lot of them are going to stay with only slight changes to some. What do you folks think of them? Likes, dislikes etc..

I'm excited to finally see separation of the wide array of IPAs. While I do feel there needed to be an addition and separation of many categories. I'm afraid that with there being so many new categories competitions are going to be combining styles that have low entries and judges will be spending days judging every style of IPA you can imagine. Anyways that's just me, what do you think?

 

[billl]

I know these guidelines are still in as a draft but I feel a lot of them are going to stay with only slight changes to some. What do you folks think of them? Likes, dislikes etc..

I'm excited to finally see separation of the wide array of IPAs. While I do feel there needed to be an addition and separation of many categories. I'm afraid that with there being so many new categories competitions are going to be combining styles that have low entries and judges will be spending days judging every style of IPA you can imagine. Anyways that's just me, what do you think?

Eh - I don't think the labels will change the nature of entries, so I'm not worried. It might take a year for local contests to adjusts, but that kinda comes with any change.

 

[Darwin18]

I'll be curious to see how competitions lump the categories together. I like the 2008 guidelines because it makes "sense" for judging but some of the new changes are not as intuitive at least to me.

 

[progmac]

Overall, I really like the changes. Particularly to the lager section. I admit to being a bit perplexed by Australian Sparkling Ale, but I'm sure there is good reason for it.

My only fear is more on the shoulders of judges...I'm worried that by defining more and more types of beer that judges will be more and more unwilling to consider various interpretations of a given style.

Then again, a lot is on the shoulders of judges. My hope is that more people become judges and perhaps even that judges start to focus on becoming experts of a narrower band of styles.

 

[mcartt11]

I like some things and don't like others. Overall, it seems like they went for sweeping changes when in my opinion tweaking was really all that was needed.

 

[nimboden]

Overall, I really like the changes. Particularly to the lager section. I admit to being a bit perplexed by Australian Sparkling Ale, but I'm sure there is good reason for it.

My only fear is more on the shoulders of judges...I'm worried that by defining more and more types of beer that judges will be more and more unwilling to consider various interpretations of a given style.

Then again, a lot is on the shoulders of judges. My hope is that more people become judges and perhaps even that judges start to focus on becoming experts of a narrower band of styles.

I agree that a lot is on the shoulders of the judges but in my experience with competitions that is not always a good thing. I judge in all my local competitions with the last one having 600+ entries, what worried me was the qualifications of the people I was judging along side of. While the organizers did their best to match experienced with inexperienced judges. This in turn put extra stress on the experienced to educate the others, in a sense making the judging biased.

What I hope to see is more specific competitions for certain styles. Making it easier to find "experts" for those certain styles instead of trying to get everyone for one mass competition.

 

[progmac]

I agree that a lot is on the shoulders of the judges but in my experience with competitions that is not always a good thing. I judge in all my local competitions with the last one having 600+ entries, what worried me was the qualifications of the people I was judging along side of. While the organizers did their best to match experienced with inexperienced judges. This in turn put extra stress on the experienced to educate the others, in a sense making the judging biased.

Another interesting point. Judges helping newer judges should not confuse a lack of experience with the process with a lack of palate and then bully them into agreement.

 

[nimboden]

Another interesting point. Judges helping newer judges should not confuse a lack of experience with the process with a lack of palate and then bully them into agreement.

I agree, I believe it's valuable to educate and explain the process of judging to new judges. But I do feel their needs to be some prior qualifications before judging at a certain level. I've never encountered judges bullying others into agreement, what I have seen are these inexperienced judges blindly following others at the table; where you could say anything and they would agree with you. I know this is inevitable and some people have a fear to speak their mind in afraid of being wrong or disagreed with, but it does suck to judge with these people and be judged by them. It will be interesting to see with such expanded guidelines coming how competitions handle some styles that no one may be familiar with.

 

[progmac]

I agree, I believe it's valuable to educate and explain the process of judging to new judges.

That's what it's all about!

 

[m00ps]

I loved it from the get-go because we no longer have the oxymoronic BLACK india PALE ale. Though having a brown IPA category seems kinda dumb. I also like how IPA doesn't stand for anything anymore. Makes for a good conversation piece while sipping brews

But all in all, I don;t really endorse the idea of judging beer to style. I understand there needs to be a line somewhere but to me, styles exist just so people have an idea of what they are getting into before they drink it. So you dont have stout lovers trying IPAs by accident. I think judging a beer's quality by how closely it resembles another beer isn't really fair. Like you wouldn't judge all movies by how closely they resemble Gone With the Wind or the Godfather. Or music by how close it is to the Beatles or something.....please dont attack me

 

[nimboden]

I loved it from the get-go because we no longer have the oxymoronic BLACK india PALE ale. Though having a brown IPA category seems kinda dumb. I also like how IPA doesn't stand for anything anymore. Makes for a good conversation piece while sipping brews

But all in all, I don;t really endorse the idea of judging beer to style. I understand there needs to be a line somewhere but to me, styles exist just so people have an idea of what they are getting into before they drink it. So you dont have stout lovers trying IPAs by accident. I think judging a beer's quality by how closely it resembles another beer isn't really fair. Like you wouldn't judge all movies by how closely they resemble Gone With the Wind or the Godfather. Or music by how close it is to the Beatles or something.....please dont attack me

I totally agree with you, that's why most of what I brew isn't to style. But I feel at least even with my stranger beers with these new styles I could make them fit into more categories than before where most of my brews fell under speciality.

 

[brewfun]

But all in all, I don't really endorse the idea of judging beer to style.

Unless you are simply handing your beer to someone without any comment at all, you certainly are defining "style." Every time you explain, you're creating a definition. That's not an attack on what you're saying, just the reality of how we all present our beer to others.

I understand there needs to be a line somewhere but to me, styles exist just so people have an idea of what they are getting into before they drink it.

There, see? The Style Guidelines are just flavor frames. Each is designed to show the characteristic balance any beer needs to fit that flavor frame. Within the frame, you'll have lighter versions and more robust, but each needs to exhibit the balance of the style.

Once a group of style variations cluster around a different but describable sort of balance, they deserve and need a separate definition.

I think judging a beer's quality by how closely it resembles another beer isn't really fair. Like you wouldn't judge all movies by how closely they resemble Gone With the Wind or the Godfather. Or music by how close it is to the Beatles or something.

This is the most interesting, insightful and accurate statement you made, IMO. Describing a style around just one example is creating a category of clones. Luckily, that doesn't happen too often. The BJCP guidelines try to be inclusive of a range, without being so broad that anything goes.

 

[Homercidal]

I like that the newer guidelines are more flexible and offer more historical styles, but I think it looks like the task of judging is going to get even harder to navigate.

IIRC correctly from the NHC panel it looks like the BJCP is going to push for more emphasis on style ranges. Educating judges that it's not right to knock a beer if the bitterness is within range, for example, even though it's not as bitter as the previous sample.

And getting judges to be descriptive in their assessment without jumping to any brewing-related conclusions. For example, "Notes of oxidation" or "Stale, maybe oxidized" shouldn't lead a judge to give advice such as, "Oxidized. Use oxygen caps." Describe what you taste and let the brewer find a solution for themselves, as they are the ones who know their process and equipment. It's too easy to jump to conclusions.

All in all I think it's a large jump from the 2004 guidelines and there is a reason it took so long and such a large leap was made, but it will take time to adjust to it IMO.

 

[helibrewer]

I've never understood the wine and beer industry's obsession with competitions and judging, other than for marketing reasons. The idea of dropping "India Pale Ale" for "IPA" because these beers didn't historically go to India is obtuse. How many Scottish ales go to Scotland or Russian Imperial Stouts go to Russia...12C very clearly states the historical origin of IPA. It just enforces the fallacy of categories to begin with.

 

[butterpants]

And getting judges to be descriptive in their assessment without jumping to any brewing-related conclusions. For example, "Notes of oxidation" or "Stale, maybe oxidized" shouldn't lead a judge to give advice such as, "Oxidized. Use oxygen caps." Describe what you taste and let the brewer find a solution for themselves, as they are the ones who know their process and equipment. It's too easy to jump to conclusions.

.

I disagree. I'm a certified judge and feel not only do I need to provide an unbiased evaluation of an entry from a sensory standpoint but providing critical feedback to include brewing process (and packaging) techniques. That's part of what being a judge is all about. Helping people fix their stuff.

If you took BJCP tasting exam and didn't offer solutions to fix people's issues, you wouldn't pass.

 

[Darwin18]

Homer - I totally agree with you. It's a big change and one that is going to take some time to get used to. I'm personally not very excited about it. I understand the need to make changes to reflect current and historical styles but it should have been done at an incremental level instead of all at once.

One thing that I really dislike as someone who enters competitions semi-regularly is how the 2014 guidelines lump lagers in with ales. Yes it makes sense if you're trying to classify beer styles but I don't like the idea of a light lager going up against a cream ale or a vienna lager going up against an Alt. Obviously competitions can split, reorganize, or do whatever they want but the first most part they follow the categories in the guidelines.

http://www.bjcp.org/docs/2014 BJCP Style Guidelines (DRAFT).pdf

 

[Homercidal]

I disagree. I'm a certified judge and feel not only do I need to provide an unbiased evaluation of an entry from a sensory standpoint but providing critical feedback to include brewing process (and packaging) techniques. That's part of what being a judge is all about. Helping people fix their stuff.

If you took BJCP tasting exam and didn't offer solutions to fix people's issues, you wouldn't pass.

Offering suggestions based on good practice isn't the same thing as telling someone that they did something wrong in their process. It's impossible to know what happened in their brewing process.

I don't mean to avoid giving any advice, but merely to avoid making inferences on their process.

In any case, the new guidelines aren't going to help much with the real problem with the BJCP and that is not having enough experienced judges. When someone has only judged ONE competition before and is expected to be the mentor to a guy who has ZERO experience, there is a problem.

 

[butterpants]

Offering suggestions based on good practice isn't the same thing as telling someone that they did something wrong in their process. It's impossible to know what happened in their brewing process.

I don't mean to avoid giving any advice, but merely to avoid making inferences on their process.

In any case, the new guidelines aren't going to help much with the real problem with the BJCP and that is not having enough experienced judges. When someone has only judged ONE competition before and is expected to be the mentor to a guy who has ZERO experience, there is a problem.

You're right, I don't disagree. The BJCP testing process is pretty difficult and tasting exams are sparse. The lack of judges is partially their fault.... but don't forget this is all hobby/fun for most of us. Unfortunately your 5$ entry only guarantees a few things.... and having your beer graded by a non-asshat is not included.

 

[brewfun]

I'm a certified judge and feel not only do I need to provide an unbiased evaluation of an entry from a sensory standpoint but providing critical feedback to include brewing process (and packaging) techniques. That's part of what being a judge is all about. Helping people fix their stuff.

I think what Homercidal is saying is that there's a difference between feedback and approaching every beer as if it needs to be "fixed."

Something missed by most judges is that the evaluation itself is half of their feedback. Just describing what's in the glass without any style reference tells the brewer what you experienced that day. If that's what you meant by "unbiased evaluation," I applaud what you're saying.

Once evaluated, the description can be cross referenced to the guidelines, which places the evaluation into the proper competition context. THAT is the judge's real task.

If "credentials" help frame what I'm saying: I'm a GM V and Certified Cicerone.

 

[butterpants]

I think what Homercidal is saying is that there's a difference between feedback and approaching every beer as if it needs to be "fixed."

Something missed by most judges is that the evaluation itself is half of their feedback. Just describing what's in the glass without any style reference tells the brewer what you experienced that day. If that's what you meant by "unbiased evaluation," I applaud what you're saying.

Once evaluated, the description can be cross referenced to the guidelines, which places the evaluation into the proper competition context. THAT is the judge's real task.

If "credentials" help frame what I'm saying: I'm a GM V and Certified Cicerone.

You're right. I just don't like to see judge bashing threads. I try hard to provide an evaluation that I personally would like to receive and feel can make a brewer /beer improve.

Many judges are hyper-critical and I could see that being annoying to experienced brewers with a solid process already developed.

A healthy discussion never hurt anyone, right?

 

[ncbrewer]

To hit on a completely different aspect of the guidelines, I would like to see the bitterness expressed as the BU:GU (bitterness units:gravity units) ratio rather than as IBU's. The ratio gives a better description of the bitterness perception. A beer that has bitterness at the low end of the range and OG on the high end, or visa versa, wouldn't taste right for the particular style. A range for BU:GU would ensure that the bitterness perception is being described as intended.

 

[Homercidal]

I think what Homercidal is saying is that there's a difference between feedback and approaching every beer as if it needs to be "fixed."

Something missed by most judges is that the evaluation itself is half of their feedback. Just describing what's in the glass without any style reference tells the brewer what you experienced that day. If that's what you meant by "unbiased evaluation," I applaud what you're saying.

Once evaluated, the description can be cross referenced to the guidelines, which places the evaluation into the proper competition context. THAT is the judge's real task.

If "credentials" help frame what I'm saying: I'm a GM V and Certified Cicerone.

You're right. I just don't like to see judge bashing threads. I try hard to provide an evaluation that I personally would like to receive and feel can make a brewer /beer improve.

Many judges are hyper-critical and I could see that being annoying to experienced brewers with a solid process already developed.

A healthy discussion never hurt anyone, right?

I think that is one thing that Gordon Strong mentioned in his NHC panel: Judging is as much about how good the beer is as it is about the flaws. A lot of times a judge only mentions the flaws, or focuses on finding the flaws, rather than considering (and mentioning) the positive aspects of an entry.

Competitions and Judging are things that our club wants to engage in more. Especially the education of the membership about how competitions are run, how to taste beers, and how to judge. Hopefully this kind of interest is also going on in other clubs. It would give prospective judges a head start on the certification process.

I also want to mention to those who have never judged that it's actually work to taste a flight or two of beers and do a good job. Tasting is not fun and games. I've done it a few times and the mood is very focused and serious over the entire room. You see people actually relax when their flight is over. That may lessen to some degree as people gain experience and get better at tasting and writing their perceptions down on the scoresheet.

 

[Redleg]

I agree, I believe it's valuable to educate and explain the process of judging to new judges. But I do feel their needs to be some prior qualifications before judging at a certain level. I've never encountered judges bullying others into agreement, what I have seen are these inexperienced judges blindly following others at the table; where you could say anything and they would agree with you. I know this is inevitable and some people have a fear to speak their mind in afraid of being wrong or disagreed with, but it does suck to judge with these people and be judged by them. It will be interesting to see with such expanded guidelines coming how competitions handle some styles that no one may be familiar with.

I judged my first competition this weekend, nothing large but it was an experience. I will say that being around experienced brewers and judges is an advantage and knowing what causes particular issue is invaluable in discussing the entries. Had a great time seeing the creativity people have when brewing.

 

[butterpants]

I also want to mention to those who have never judged that it's actually work to taste a flight or two of beers and do a good job. Tasting is not fun and games.

Truer words have never been spoken.