Enhancing My Munich Dunkel: Feedback and Future Brews - Gold Winning Recipe

[bwible]

Congratulations. Without taking away from your win and delicious beer, the fact it got 29 in one competition and 40 in another shows what a load of ***** competitions are generally. I know loads of so-called judges and to be honest many don't know their arse from their elbow. Perhaps at the top end of town you couldn't argue with the results, but at least locally you'd be better off asking your grandmother what she thinks.

I used to think like this. Then I became a judge years ago. I judged for probably 7 or 8 years. Then life got in the way. I wound up in a job where I pretty much had to work every Saturday. As most competitions are on Saturdays I stopped being able to judge. I was in that job for 19 years.

During the time I judged, I found most of the guys doing it to be honest guys who tried hard. The exam is not easy to pass and requires alot of study. I studied with a bunch of guys twice a week for 4 or 5 months before I took it. And I still only got a 70. Thats when it was 10 essay questions.

A few things can happen. The order of entries is one. Palate fatigue is real. The first few entries are always going to taste the best. Its totally random whether the judges get your beer first, fifth, or seventeenth. Sometimes judges will latch on to one of the good early entries and compare everything to that and hold that one up. Of course, you can always get a bad bottle too. Sometimes a bottle is not ready and does better in a later competition.

Its not that judges are idiots who don’t know stuff or don’t try. They study, they pass an exam, and they don’t get paid to judge. Its all volunteer. And yes, sometimes **** happens.

 

[CodyRonan]

During the time I judged, I found most of the guys doing it to be honest guys who tried hard. The exam is not easy to pass and requires alot of study. I studied with a bunch of guys twice a week for 4 or 5 months before I took it. And I still only got a 70. Thats when it was 10 essay questions.

A few things can happen. The order of entries is one. Palate fatigue is real. The first few entries are always going to taste the best. Its totally random whether the judges get your beer first, fifth, or seventeenth. Sometimes judges will latch on to one of the good early entries and compare everything to that and hold that one up. Of course, you can always get a bad bottle too. Sometimes a bottle is not ready and does better in a later competition.

Its not that judges are idiots who don’t know stuff or don’t try. They study, they pass an exam, and they don’t get paid to judge. Its all volunteer. And yes, sometimes **** happens.

I don't doubt you, and even those I know, try hard. They (I can't speak for you) are so serious !!! But yeah most I know aren't that good. Of course some are. No doubt at the top end of town almost all are. I don't mean to slight all judges. But, at least where I am, don't take the results personally from a local competition - good or bad, as in many cases they don't have a clue as it turns out.

One guy I know who thinks he is an absolute ******* legend can't, as far as I can tell, even determine if a beer is badly infected. I mean, normal drinkers let alone brewers can tell with a whiff of the damn thing. Every beer he drinks "needs more hops". He's just an example, but he's been "Head Judge" at some competitions I've seen.

The quality may be better in your neck of the woods.

It reminds of Kipling's If....

If you can take the praise and the criticism of your beer,
And treat those two impostors just the same,
If you can handle those who say it’s 'the best' and 'the worst' with cheer,
And keep brewing on, without letting either affect your game,
If you can take a sip from your brew, and know when it’s right,
But not let a bad comment spoil your delight,
If you can keep your focus through each brew, trial, and tweak,
And never let praise or complaints make you weak,
Then, which is more, you’ll be a true brewer, my friend.

 

[bwible]

I haven’t entered any of my beers in any competitions for years. But i have different issues than individual judges.

First, I’m not out to prove anything.

Second, its always certain styles vs other styles and the idea that the whole thing is biased and inherently unfair.

How many times does somebody ever win a best of show with a cream ale, a blonde ale, a pre-prohibition lager, etc vs how many times does the shiny new toy win - New England IPA, “kellerbier” submitted with a fancy little description booklet, or whatever the latest fad is? Whatever shiny new thing they wave in front of judges. It all comes down to personal preference and individual preference and everybody has them. I won first place with mild ale many times in its category but it was just about always one of the first 3 eliminated from the best of show round every single time.

I don’t brew New England IPA, Belgians, or sours and those win ALL the time.

There doesn’t seem to be any rhyme, reason, or fairness to any best of show round I ever watched - its whatever preferences the individuals doing it that day have.

 

[dmtaylor]

I haven’t entered any of my beers in any competitions for years. But i have different issues than individual judges.

First, I’m not out to prove anything.

Second, its always certain styles vs other styles and the idea that the whole thing is biased and inherently unfair.

How many times does somebody ever win a best of show with a cream ale, a blonde ale, a pre-prohibition lager, etc vs how many times does the shiny new toy win - New England IPA, “kellerbier” submitted with a fancy little description booklet, or whatever the latest fad is? Whatever shiny new thing they wave in front of judges. It all comes down to personal preference and individual preference and everybody has them. I won first place with mild ale many times in its category but it was just about always one of the first 3 eliminated from the best of show round every single time.

I don’t brew New England IPA, Belgians, or sours and those win ALL the time.

There doesn’t seem to be any rhyme, reason, or fairness to any best of show round I ever watched - its whatever preferences the individuals doing it that day have.

As a Certified judge myself, I will say... There is some truth to all this... but it's not all the time, not every competition. In the end, it really does depend on whether you get a$$hat judges with chips on shoulders or strong preferences, versus a good group of judges not afraid to speak their minds, challenge one another, and reward those who make stellar beers, even if the style is not a popular one. I myself have been part of all of these over the years, and I tend to be the advocate for the underdog so to speak. A few months ago I judged a BOS round where a judge tried to throw out a beer at the beginning of BOS and I said no wait a minute, there are worse beers on the table, and this beer I am speaking about ended up taking 3rd BOS or runner-up to the runner-up or whatever... and the number one BOS ended up being a German helles or some such thing, it was stellar and no one brought it up until the top 4 or 5 because it was a lovely beer with zero flaws, no one had anything bad to say about it. We actually declared it the BOS before figuring out who should take 2nd and 3rd, it was far and above. And it was not the Hazy IPA. The Hazy did take 2nd or 3rd even though I didn't think it deserved it. So.... there is some give and take, every set of judges is going to be different, and in the end it does depend a bit on who is willing to speak up or speak the loudest or whatever, which is kind of crappy but also just the way it is. And is it possible to get an entire panel of a$$hats? Sure it is. I recall another BOS round once where a National judge was advocating for the Hazy IPA to win BOS and the rest of us were all like "no way, it's got diacetyl, a serious flaw" to which the National reluctantly admitted he was blind to diacetyl. So we voted 3 to 1 or whatever to toss it out as a contender for even 2nd or 3rd BOS and this National guy went home ranting or crying or whatever and the rest of us just shrugged and said too bad so sad, just because you're a National doesn't mean you're a god, get over yourself. And I don't think he did get over it either. Yes, there are judges like this. A lot of them, unfortunately. But meanwhile there are also a lot of great judges with negligible biases who will give you meaningful feedback, regardless of whether or not they love the style they are judging. And a lot of these people are Recognized or not even ranked but helpers! I've seen some non-judges out there who I would rank better than a Certified or National guy any day. Just because you're not trained doesn't mean you're not helpful, as long as you're not timid and able to describe in detail what you are tasting. Judges run the gamut. I know I'm not perfect either, much as I try, but I like to think I'm able to describe my perceptions honestly and no I don't pull punches -- if your beer sucks I'm going to tell you, but if it's stellar then I'm not afraid to score it a 45 (but that's about my limit, 50 is like from heaven). So anyway... if you are still reading this then I'm sorry for the rambling, and you must be even more of an idiot than I am, or maybe I am more interesting than I should be, or something. Probably not.

 

[Broothru]

I haven’t entered any of my beers in any competitions for years. But i have different issues than individual judges.

First, I’m not out to prove anything.

Second, its always certain styles vs other styles and the idea that the whole thing is biased and inherently unfair.

How many times does somebody ever win a best of show with a cream ale, a blonde ale, a pre-prohibition lager, etc vs how many times does the shiny new toy win - New England IPA, “kellerbier” submitted with a fancy little description booklet, or whatever the latest fad is? Whatever shiny new thing they wave in front of judges. It all comes down to personal preference and individual preference and everybody has them. I won first place with mild ale many times in its category but it was just about always one of the first 3 eliminated from the best of show round every single time.

I don’t brew New England IPA, Belgians, or sours and those win ALL the time.

There doesn’t seem to be any rhyme, reason, or fairness to any best of show round I ever watched - its whatever preferences the individuals doing it that day have.

Actually, I did win a Best of Show six years ago with a Pre-Prohibition lager. But what chaps my saddle sores is the fact that I’ve never won anything in IPAs. The goal posts keep getting moved. Just as soon as I think I have it dialed in, some new kid in town takes all the ribbons.

How many sub-categories are there now that have the term “IPA” in them? Thirty-seven or some such?

 

[kmarkstevens]

As a Certified judge myself, I will say... There is some truth to all this... but it's not all the time, not every competition. In the end, it really does depend on whether you get a$$hat judges with chips on shoulders or strong preferences, versus a good group of judges not afraid to speak their minds, challenge one another, and reward those who make stellar beers, even if the style is not a popular one. I myself have been part of all of these over the years, and I tend to be the advocate for the underdog so to speak. A few months ago I judged a BOS round where a judge tried to throw out a beer at the beginning of BOS and I said no wait a minute, there are worse beers on the table, and this beer I am speaking about ended up taking 3rd BOS or runner-up to the runner-up or whatever... and the number one BOS ended up being a German helles or some such thing, it was stellar and no one brought it up until the top 4 or 5 because it was a lovely beer with zero flaws, no one had anything bad to say about it. We actually declared it the BOS before figuring out who should take 2nd and 3rd, it was far and above. And it was not the Hazy IPA. The Hazy did take 2nd or 3rd even though I didn't think it deserved it. So.... there is some give and take, every set of judges is going to be different, and in the end it does depend a bit on who is willing to speak up or speak the loudest or whatever, which is kind of crappy but also just the way it is. And is it possible to get an entire panel of a$$hats? Sure it is. I recall another BOS round once where a National judge was advocating for the Hazy IPA to win BOS and the rest of us were all like "no way, it's got diacetyl, a serious flaw" to which the National reluctantly admitted he was blind to diacetyl. So we voted 3 to 1 or whatever to toss it out as a contender for even 2nd or 3rd BOS and this National guy went home ranting or crying or whatever and the rest of us just shrugged and said too bad so sad, just because you're a National doesn't mean you're a god, get over yourself. And I don't think he did get over it either. Yes, there are judges like this. A lot of them, unfortunately. But meanwhile there are also a lot of great judges with negligible biases who will give you meaningful feedback, regardless of whether or not they love the style they are judging. And a lot of these people are Recognized or not even ranked but helpers! I've seen some non-judges out there who I would rank better than a Certified or National guy any day. Just because you're not trained doesn't mean you're not helpful, as long as you're not timid and able to describe in detail what you are tasting. Judges run the gamut. I know I'm not perfect either, much as I try, but I like to think I'm able to describe my perceptions honestly and no I don't pull punches -- if your beer sucks I'm going to tell you, but if it's stellar then I'm not afraid to score it a 45 (but that's about my limit, 50 is like from heaven). So anyway... if you are still reading this then I'm sorry for the rambling, and you must be even more of an idiot than I am, or maybe I am more interesting than I should be, or something. Probably not.

Pretty great stream of consciousness, minimal punctuation, semi-rant that is also informative and amusing to read. Well done, Sir!!!