I have found competition results/scorecards to be completely useless to better my brewing. There are 2 or 3 scorecards from most competitions and I find that the judges critiques (in the same competition) can differ by a large amount. So much that their input opposes each other. Obviously the score numbers are in the same range, but the written critiques are far from the same.
My last competition entry one judge said it had astringency. The other judge said it had no astringency...What am I to take from this? I either have a problem or I don't. I also have had an entry where one judge says it lacked aroma and I needed to dry hop the beer more while the other judge said it had wonderful hop aroma.
I understand that each individual has their own taste perception, but I would think that two judges sitting side by side, tasting and discussing a beer would write up somewhat agreeable critiques.
I've had beers win and had beers lose. When I win I get a medal/ribbon and prize with a critique that says it was wonderful and gives me small pointers that could bump it up a few extra points. And thus I know the beer was good...however, when I don't even place it's a bummer, but in my mind I'm thinking, "At least I'll get to find out what I did wrong and make it better next time". But this rarely happens. And the critique usually leaves me disappointed.
Do any of the judges here have any input on this type of thing? Should I be interpretting the results differently? Anyone else see similar results in their own competition critiques?
My last competition entry one judge said it had astringency. The other judge said it had no astringency...What am I to take from this? I either have a problem or I don't. I also have had an entry where one judge says it lacked aroma and I needed to dry hop the beer more while the other judge said it had wonderful hop aroma.
I understand that each individual has their own taste perception, but I would think that two judges sitting side by side, tasting and discussing a beer would write up somewhat agreeable critiques.
I've had beers win and had beers lose. When I win I get a medal/ribbon and prize with a critique that says it was wonderful and gives me small pointers that could bump it up a few extra points. And thus I know the beer was good...however, when I don't even place it's a bummer, but in my mind I'm thinking, "At least I'll get to find out what I did wrong and make it better next time". But this rarely happens. And the critique usually leaves me disappointed.
Do any of the judges here have any input on this type of thing? Should I be interpretting the results differently? Anyone else see similar results in their own competition critiques?