BJCP Study Sheet

[progmac]

Maybe something like this exists, but I made a BJCP study sheet calling out some of the more common attributes of different styles. This is based on the 2008 BJCP guidelines. I hope some of you find this useful, but if not, simply the process of making it was really helpful to me.

The only attachment I could add was an XML file. Here is a link to the excel doc:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lej2czky5bxjk3d/bjcp study sheet.xlsx

View attachment bjcp study sheet.xml

 

[biereblanche]

Nice job, looks like a lot of work went into that.

I would agree with you that "the process of making" a sheet like that is the biggest value - re-writing learned material increases recall.

Everyone would have a different "5 words," but that's a great detail, and probably what most newcomers to the BJCP really need to solidify the categories, styles, and the connections among them. When I started, the "summaries" in Brewing Classic Styles was more approachable than the guidelines in "setting the foundation" of categories and styles.

Beyond that, there are obviously lots of details left in the guideline, and I wouldn't recommend your spreadsheet as-is as a study tool, rather as a template that hopeful judges can recreate and fill to aid their memory.

 

[progmac]

Nice job, looks like a lot of work went into that.

I would agree with you that "the process of making" a sheet like that is the biggest value - re-writing learned material increases recall.

Everyone would have a different "5 words," but that's a great detail, and probably what most newcomers to the BJCP really need to solidify the categories, styles, and the connections among them. When I started, the "summaries" in Brewing Classic Styles was more approachable than the guidelines in "setting the foundation" of categories and styles.

Beyond that, there are obviously lots of details left in the guideline, and I wouldn't recommend your spreadsheet as-is as a study tool, rather as a template that hopeful judges can recreate and fill to aid their memory.

I'm glad you checked it out. I just realized i forgot 3 stout styles unfortunately.
It's an interesting tool, which I'm continuing to update. I've color coded some information and may upload a new version in the next few days.

It's also useful for memorization. For example, I ordered the sheet by body and then used that as an aid to memorize all of the body for the different styles.

This was a useful way for framing some information. Doing so has also made me wish that a truly standard range was used to describe aroma, appearance, flavor, and mouthfeel of each style. Sometimes malt is "rich," other times "strong," other times, "high." I assume those all mean the same thing.

The color descriptions i started to get a kick out of by the end of it. My favorite was Roggenbier, which had the profuse description, "Light coppery-orange to very dark reddish or coppery-brown"

 

[IslandLizard]

[...] Sometimes malt is "rich," other times "strong," other times, "high." I assume those all mean the same thing. [...]

First off, excellent job on your overview chart, thank you! Much easier to compare all those qualitative terms and descriptions when removed from all the prose.

Although I am not a judge, I would not call those equivalent. To me, "rich" infers complexity, while "strong" can mean more potent or assertive than just "high." And qualitative terms are the problem themselves to describe a beer, a style, or anything else for that matter.