The sting of BJCP critique!

[the_bird]

Maybe I'll see if they need help stewarding.... sounds like a better first step.

 

[TexLaw]

I always thought it would be neat to take the same beer and submit it under 2 or 3 different categories, I wonder if the judges would even notice. I know the beer would be scored differently based on how well it fits the style, but it might be fun just to try.

That happens all the time, especially if you have a beer that rides the line between a couple subcategories. Many of those subcategories (and even some categories) are pretty dadgum close to each other and even overlap.

Chances are, the judges would not notice for at least a couple reasons. First, unless you are very short on judges, most competitions won't seat the same judge on two flights from the same medal category (and that includes all subcategories). Second, even if the competition would do so, it's still unlikely that the judge will judge two flights from the same medal category. For those two reasons, you probably won't have the same judge try both entries.

Even if the judge does try them both, though, it won't matter much to that judge. I know I've thought something like "I may have had this beer earlier today," but I don't dwell on it. I'm judging THAT entry, not the one from before, and I don't want to think about that one from before. I'm focused on the entry I have in front of me.


TL

 

[Buford]

The push for extreme is what bothers me a little. I don't want extreme, I want something that fits the style. As someone said at the last BJCP exam study session I was at, "In comps, what used to be IPAs are now APAs, Imperial IPAs are now just IPAs, and 'what the eff were you thinking?!' is the new Imperial IPA".

 

[Bobby_M]

Rather than start another thread, I thought I'd post here for back-story goodness. In any case, I licked my wounds and submitted again for comp. I pulled a Bronze with an American Amber at a relatively small and obscure comp in Hilton Head, SC. I'm still waiting to see the score sheet, but it's plenty encouraging.

 

[Revvy]

Rather than start another thread, I thought I'd post here for back-story goodness. In any case, I licked my wounds and submitted again for comp. I pulled a Bronze with an American Amber at a relatively small and obscure comp in Hilton Head, SC. I'm still waiting to see the score sheet, but it's plenty encouraging.

Congrats DOOD!!!!

I'm still waiting for the sheets for the first 2 comps I ever entered, which were this summer. I did it more for the evals. then to place (which I didn't in either) but still I am kind of dreading the initial reading, before the ego gets out of the way, and I actually re-read them for any suggestions for improvement.

 

[BierMuncher]

Way to get out there and try again.

Nothing like some validation on what you already believed.

 

[the_bird]

Congrats, Bobby!

If you'd still like another opinion, my offer still stands...

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I refuse to enter competitions period. I abhor stylism in beer by the simplistic narrow margins it creates. More so now than before I knew any BJCP judges personally. I have never chosen a beer because it was a style. More often than not I grab the beer cause I have never tried it and the label was nice.

the judges I have known, excepting a few, were more about exercising their thesaurus in written word than they were about anything else. And in some cases I get the impression that "flaws" are manufactured (subconciously perhaps) because there is no way to make the "perfect beer" so there HAS to be something "wrong" with the beer.

I have attended beer evaluation workshops, doctored my own beers, sampled Enthusiast altered Bud, and to date I still have a hard time discerning "flaws" that these judges use to drop the numbers. and several of them smoke waaaaaay more than I do.

meh. I don't need no stinkin' medal.

 

[EdWort]

Good luck Bobby! Homebrew Competitions are a lot like BBQ Competitions in my experience and is the luck of the draw if the judge likes your beer, period.

I get disappointed when I don't place, but then again, I don't need the validation of the judges. I get that from my neighbors, and that's more than I can ask for.

It's nice to get a medal or ribbon every once in a while, but ya gotta take it with grain of salt with some of the judges out there.

Did you bottle your Amber when kegging or did you bottle forced carbed beer?

 

[Fingers]

More often than not I grab the beer cause I have never tried it and the label was nice.

Really? You've never been in the mood for a nice roasty stout on a cold winter's night or a crisp lager in the summer? I had my first lambic about two months ago. I remember seeing one in the store in the big city and getting all excited because I'd never had a lambic. The label meant absolutely nothing to me. Never does.

 

[Bobby_M]

Good luck Bobby! Homebrew Competitions are a lot like BBQ Competitions in my experience and is the luck of the draw if the judge likes your beer, period.

I get disappointed when I don't place, but then again, I don't need the validation of the judges. I get that from my neighbors, and that's more than I can ask for.

It's nice to get a medal or ribbon every once in a while, but ya gotta take it with grain of salt with some of the judges out there.

Did you bottle your Amber when kegging or did you bottle forced carbed beer?

It was BMBF'd about two weeks prior to the judging. I personally find the beer to be slightly astringent so I'm wondering if that will be noted on the sheet. If my brew club would move to a more official feedback mechanism for our flight beers, I'd be less likely to spend the entry fees.

With my luck, winning bronze will be tainted by a discovery that there were only three beers at that table.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Really? You've never been in the mood for a nice roasty stout on a cold winter's night or a crisp lager in the summer? I had my first lambic about two months ago. I remember seeing one in the store in the big city and getting all excited because I'd never had a lambic. The label meant absolutely nothing to me. Never does.

The ONLY beer I have tried that I just couldn't drink was a Old Speckled Hen. It was obviously skunked beyond recognition. I swapped 3 sixers of the stuff before I gave up trying. Still haven't had the nerve to try it again due to poor shelving practices by the majority of the package stores here.

My point is, I try it mostly cause I have never had this or that breweries offering. I rarely take note of the style until I open the bottle excepting winter seasonals. If I did that I would probly skip over a lot of what is on the shelf (there are way too many IPA, DIPA, TRIPA's on the shelves considering teh "hop crisis") I have never felt the need to pour one out but, I generally don;t care for the spiced beers. Had a Kirsendonk/Kirkendonk (?) once that was nice for a winter warmer but I still wouldn;t rush out to get a case. I can still apreciate what the spice brings to the complexity. I'd just rather have things like clove, pepper, nutmeg, etc. either come from the yeast or be in my food.

I just tend to enjoy beer for what it is, rather than what I think it should be based on a style guideline.

[steps off podium and trips over microphone coord]

 

[FlyGuy]

I refuse to enter competitions period. I abhor stylism in beer by the simplistic narrow margins it creates.

Perhaps you are missing the point of BJCP competitions. To brew a simply 'great' beer is always based on personal taste, which is entirely subjective and varies from person to person based on the types of beers they prefer.

To overcome this issue, and to introduce a fair and objective way to evaluate beers, BJCP competitions use beer styles. The goal of competition brewing is to brew beers as close to style as possible, and the one who gets the closest is supposed to be the winner (I know, this is the idealist interpretation, and that doesn't always happen ITRW -- but lets debate that another time). The process of evaluation is always based on the style, not how 'great' the beer tastes, and it has to be this way to be objective. The purpose of the style guidelines is NOT to define the 'best' beers out there, but rather to define targets for different types of beers (based on the best commercial examples) that one can brew competitively.

Anyways, my point is that beer styles aren't meant to be restrictive or limit creativity. They have a very specific purpose, and that is almost solely to make the process of judging more objective. IMO, if you want to brew competitively, the target of your brewing should be to make the best possible example of a particular style. And if you want to be creative and brew what you like, then one should also recognize that BJCP competitions aren't really designed to evaluate and give praise to these types of beers (with the possible exception of the specialty categories).

 

[olllllo]

I don't want to pile on.

The best beers are the ones where you can taste the brewer's intent.
The BJCP framework allows you to execute and be evaluated on this intent.

I've drank some slightly soured homebrewed pale ales in my time. Finished them and everything because sourness makes them re-freshing and I enjoy sour flavors. Sourness was clearly not the brewer's intent and I have to judge it as such.

Sometime someone will hand you a beer without any style help and you might say, "wow this has a lot of phenolics." Did I drink a strange lager or was it a saison. Without the style intent, is it a compliment or a criticism.

 

[Brewsmith]

I would love to get into judging. I have submitted beers to several comps and done fairly well. At the LA County Fair this year I chatted with one of the guys doing serving at the commercial beer venue. It turns out he organized one of the comps that I recently placed in. He suggested that I start judging and extended an offer to judge in his comps. I think I'm going to take him up on the offer. I'd still like to go through the BJCP program. Anyone on here have any suggestions before I dive into that?

And as far as styles being limiting, I've never found that to be the case. Each style has a range, and for the really out there, "not to style" beers, there's catagories for those, too. Ultimately, it is good beer that will win at competitions.

Now the style creep happening, I agree. Pale Ales shouldn't need to be IPAs to score well. I submitted my Pale Ale in the nationals this year. It did ok but not great. Most of the comments were related to not having enough malt and hops. I know that mine is about even with Sierra Nevada as far as bitterness, body, and hop flavor and aroma. When they're asking for more at that point something's wrong.

 

[Bob]

I refuse to enter competitions period. I abhor stylism in beer by the simplistic narrow margins it creates.

This is a joke, right?

The styles are lamentably broad, and in many cases overlap to the point the same beer can be entered in three or more categories. Read up the thread a bit.

The margins aren't "narrow"; they barely exist. They aren't "simplistic" in the slightest.

I've said it in other threads, and it bears repeating here: The style categories have nothing to do with brewing. They have everything to do with drinking. They are there as a frame of reference for the drinker to approach what you've brewed. Humans love categories and pigeonholes. It's part of human nature. We are also lazy; it's just simpler to say "American Pale Ale" than "An amber-to-straw-colored, fairly dry ale with pronounced bitterness and a distinctly American hops flavor and aroma profile."

If you feel style constricts you, don't use the terminology if you don't want. But I'm gonna tell you something: I don't care what you've brewed in your entire career. You put either a glass of it or the recipe in front of me, I'll put it in at least one BJCP category. It is impossible to brew totally out of at least one style.

More so now than before I knew any BJCP judges personally. the judges I have known, excepting a few, were more about exercising their thesaurus in written word than they were about anything else. And in some cases I get the impression that "flaws" are manufactured (subconciously perhaps) because there is no way to make the "perfect beer" so there HAS to be something "wrong" with the beer.

I have attended beer evaluation workshops, doctored my own beers, sampled Enthusiast altered Bud, and to date I still have a hard time discerning "flaws" that these judges use to drop the numbers. and several of them smoke waaaaaay more than I do.

Ah. Now the truth comes out. You dislike competition because you feel the judges unqualified, and that the descriptors used by judges are useless because you can't use them.

I just wish to point out something: That you have a hard time discerning flaws doesn't mean they don't exist. I know I can detect them. I trained my senses to detect them.

Sounds to me like you're not invested enough in the process to really learn it; you've admitted you don't like the process, so you don't really want it to work. It's like a husband who's dragged to the marriage counselor - counseling only works if both parties want it to work. You don't want the judging process to be validated in any way, so you - consciously or subconsciously - prevent yourself from allowing it to work.

If you don't want to compete, no one is holding a gun to your head. Some people, including me, think it's a worthwhile way for brewers who are interested in perfecting their beers (to style) or technique to do so.

Maybe that's just me.

Cheers,

Bob

EDITED TO ADD: Please permit me to apologize. I am overly harsh above. My intent is unchanged, but I should not have been so scathingly abrasive.

I just tend to enjoy beer for what it is, rather than what I think it should be based on a style guideline.

[steps off podium and trips over microphone cord]

I tend to enjoy beer more if I can sense it through the framework of a style descriptor. If the label says "Porter", I have some idea of what it's going to be like before I plunk down my credit card.

[steps off soapbox, trips over trombone and falls through bass drum]

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Cheers,

Bob

EDITED TO ADD: Please permit me to apologize. I am overly harsh above. My intent is unchanged, but I should not have been so scathingly abrasive.

No apology needed I have thick skin and I am not afraid to defend my point of view on the world regardless of who agrees or not. My views are mine own, flawed or not, they are still mine.

A few comments.

In the context of the narrow margins of a guideline. All to often I have listened to judges comment that Beer A is perceived as too alcoholic to fit in the style of intent thus, it is scored poorly because it was not eneterd in a category that "allowed" for a stronger FG. Now, I can understand the difference between a beer intended to fit within a style that maxes at say 5% and the actual beer comes in at 9% being a valid issue. But, if the style maxes out at 5% and the judges perception says it's more like 6% and thus MUST be fitting of another category and is scored down because of this, I take offense (for lack of better words).

Regarding the Thesaurus

I too have "trained my palate" to identify flaws and have been the "beer wench" at some local comps. therefore, I was able to try the beer as it was being evaluated. I have seen written commentary describing obvious flaws in a beer that just were not there. That too I take issue with but, to defend my position I simply choose to not participate in these events anymore rather than "call the judge out". I mean, he DID pass the exam so he MUST know more about it than I do. (want to insert "wink" but can't in edit mode)

Regarding my skill with the process

Admittedly, I have not commited the pertinent variables of styles into my cheese wedge. Isee no point for my use. One I can only estimate the path I am taking and can only verify a few points along the journey. I joined the club to get the feedback I needed to guage my skill and tweak my process. Along the way, I acquired enough confidence in my own skill to evaluate wther the beers "intent" was achieved satifactorily. So, beyond that point competition became less appealing, to me.

Meh.

 

[FlyGuy]

In the context of the narrow margins of a guideline. All to often I have listened to judges comment that Beer A is perceived as too alcoholic to fit in the style of intent thus, it is scored poorly because it was not eneterd in a category that "allowed" for a stronger FG. Now, I can understand the difference between a beer intended to fit within a style that maxes at say 5% and the actual beer comes in at 9% being a valid issue. But, if the style maxes out at 5% and the judges perception says it's more like 6% and thus MUST be fitting of another category and is scored down because of this, I take offense (for lack of better words).

Good example to illustrate your point.

One thing I would add is that if one is brewing competitively, the guidelines would be clear that 5% is the maximum, and therefore it only stands to reason that if the brewer deliberately (or accidentally) breaks that guideline, they should be penalized. Perhaps you are misguided when you take offense at this -- the rules are clear why a penalty would be given.

If you are being creative and want to push the boundaries of the style, the BJCP has a mechanism for this -- Category 23 - Specialty brews. Your 9% brew should go here, and probably be labelled as an Imperial version of the style. It would probably do very well.

Again, as Olllllo says, it is all about intent. Judges assume you are intending to brew within the guidelines of the style you enter, unless you tell them otherwise. It is entirely predictable that you would get penalized for a brew that was far too alcoholic to fit in the guidelines. Don't be offended by that, just recognize it for what it is and use the information to your advantage (e.g., understand that you should put your 9% brew in the specialty category instead).

 

[niquejim]

This is a joke, right?

The styles are lamentably broad, and in many cases overlap to the point the same beer can be entered in three or more categories. Read up the thread a bit.

The margins aren't "narrow"; they barely exist. They aren't "simplistic" in the slightest.

I've said it in other threads, and it bears repeating here: The style categories have nothing to do with brewing. They have everything to do with drinking. They are there as a frame of reference for the drinker to approach what you've brewed. Humans love categories and pigeonholes. It's part of human nature. We are also lazy; it's just simpler to say "American Pale Ale" than "An amber-to-straw-colored, fairly dry ale with pronounced bitterness and a distinctly American hops flavor and aroma profile."

If you feel style constricts you, don't use the terminology if you don't want. But I'm gonna tell you something: I don't care what you've brewed in your entire career. You put either a glass of it or the recipe in front of me, I'll put it in at least one BJCP category. It is impossible to brew totally out of at least one style.

Ah. Now the truth comes out. You dislike competition because you feel the judges unqualified, and that the descriptors used by judges are useless because you can't use them.

I just wish to point out something: That you have a hard time discerning flaws doesn't mean they don't exist. I know I can detect them. I trained my senses to detect them.

Sounds to me like you're not invested enough in the process to really learn it; you've admitted you don't like the process, so you don't really want it to work. It's like a husband who's dragged to the marriage counselor - counseling only works if both parties want it to work. You don't want the judging process to be validated in any way, so you - consciously or subconsciously - prevent yourself from allowing it to work.

If you don't want to compete, no one is holding a gun to your head. Some people, including me, think it's a worthwhile way for brewers who are interested in perfecting their beers (to style) or technique to do so.

Maybe that's just me.

Cheers,

Bob

EDITED TO ADD: Please permit me to apologize. I am overly harsh above. My intent is unchanged, but I should not have been so scathingly abrasive.



I tend to enjoy beer more if I can sense it through the framework of a style descriptor. If the label says "Porter", I have some idea of what it's going to be like before I plunk down my credit card.

[steps off soapbox, trips over trombone and falls through bass drum]

Not so Grasshopper

I copied this from an earlier post of mine

I've thought about entering Comps before, but always worried if what I like would be what the judges like. I've read posts like this on several sites and the general thing I here is "needs more", whether it be hops, malt, spice, etc.

I now understand why some people do well at comps and others don't (IMO), after reading this on another site

QUOTE
" I am a very active judge and I agree that the tendency is to score the more flavorful beers higher, particularly with the less experienced judges. I sometimes have to "reel in" an enthusiastic but misguided judge who is blundering down this path, particularly as we get deeper into a flight or flights. I see the results of this trend in the Best of Show round somewhat frequently, too, with beers that have big flavor but are way out of balance and simply not a harmonious brew.

That said, there is a possibility (probability?) that your beer is not going to be judged by an experienced team, and you may (will) be faced with this situation often. So, you can fret about it, or you can adapt your competition recipes to compensate.

One strategy that addresses your specific issue of "needs more" is to deliberately brew a caricature of the style. Let's say, for example, you were attempting to brew an American Amber, of which a typical commercial example might be reddish in color, have lots of caramel malt, and be moderately hoppy (less so than a Pale Ale). You might design a beer with LOTS of caramel malt (on the order of 15%), mash it cooler (~148F) or step mash it with a longer rest in the beta amylase range to compensate for the reduced fermentability, select a typical and easily-identifiable American hop (like Cascade) that any judge will recognize and then use it judiciously, and ferment it with a very clean yeast (WLP001, WY1056, Fermentis US05) so as not to generate a lot of fruity esters that might interfere with your malt and hop profile.

Another example might be a Bock. "You want Munich malt? "I'll give you Munich malt!" Two-thirds light Munich, one-third dark Munich, then an extra pound of Melanoidin malt. One charge of German hops for bittering only, preferably something like Tradition that is a little higher alpha to reduce the hop bulk and the possible vegetal flavors you get from that. Ferment with the cleanest possible lager yeast you can find, like WLP833 or 838. Now you have a true malt showcase with the appropriate German character with nothing to interfere or to detract.

I don't disagree with Bill's suggestion to brew towards the upper end of the style guidelines, but I would caution you to always keep balance and cleanness first and foremost in your brewing. I am reminded of the advice I received from my primary flight instructor lo, these many years ago: "Basic airwork is key. If you've got decent basic airwork, and you're smooth, you can goon it up to a certain degree and you'll still be OK." What he meant, parenthetically, is that nobody would notice you gooning it up a bit as long as you were smooth about it and trending towards a correction for the deviation. Same thing with brewing: As long as you are keeping harmony and balance in mind, while still featuring those characteristics that need to be featured in a particular style, you'll do well.

Bottom line? Clean, clean, clean. Avoid muddling up your recipe by throwing the kitchen sink in there. Select those features of the style that need to be featured, choose a few ingredients (traditional or not) that will do it, and brew away. Good luck and God bless."
End quote



This guy sent 9 beers on to the next round brewing on his stovetop in the kitchen. It's all in appealling to what the judges are looking for, and I like to brew for my own tastes.

So I guess no one will ever know my name like they know Jamil(22 beers to rd 2), but I like what I make.

 

[Bob]

Um. What about that counteracts what I said? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Bob

 

[niquejim]

Um. What about that counteracts what I said? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Bob

What I'm getting at is that I don't want to brew a caricature of the style. That is not why I started brewing. The judging is flawed (to be expected with all volunteers) but that does not mean you, or them know more than the rest of us, but that you can recognize a caricature of the style. Good for you

I'm drunk forgive me

 

[Bob]

What I'm getting at is that I don't want to brew a caricature of the style. That is not why I started brewing. The judging is flawed (to be expected with all volunteers) but that does not mean you, or them know more than the rest of us, but that you can recognize a caricature of the style. Good for you

I'm drunk forgive me

Nothing to forgive, my friend! You're entitled to your opinion, and you're not wrong about the judging being flawed.

I will take issue that nobody knows any more than anyone else about a given topic. That's patently ridiculous. Knowledge differs. I know more about diagnosing problems in my beer now than I did when I started back in 1994/5; back then, I probably didn't know I even had problems. But now I can perform a sensory evaluation of beer and identify symptoms of problems.

I flatter myself that I do know more about beer and brewing than some people. It's taken me a long time and a lot of hard work (including painful trial and error) to earn that knowledge. Frankly, it's an insult to tell me that, after all that work, I don't know more than some guy who wouldn't know good beer if it painted itself purple and danced on a grand piano singing, "Good Beer Is Here Again".

Moreover, learning about style means knowing by sight, taste, and smell what the style should be. It means critically examining the benchmark examples in order to ensure you understand the "breed standard". For example, you shouldn't judge ESB if you've never had Fuller's, if you have no idea what it's supposed to look/taste/smell like. Now, if I'm judging ESB at a BJCP-sanctioned comp, and I get a bottle that could be Fuller's, it gets high marks from me, because yeah, it is a copy of the breed standard, and that's the point. Brewing to style is harder than not, because objective standards of quality exist, because your attempt can be judged against an objective standard. I suspect that's why lots of brewers don't like to admit it - they're afraid their beer isn't as good as they claim! After all, it's easier to say something is good if you don't have anything to which it can be compared: lark's vomit can be called "good" if there's no objective standard of what constitutes "good".

If that's not your bag, if you don't like trying to brew the perfect example of a style, don't compete.

But there's another side to competition that's been mentioned above - using the feedback to improve your brewing skills. You can ignore the numbers and concentrate on the commentary. Say you brewed something and entered it into the ESB category. The judges might remark on objectionable levels of diacetyl and a burnt-toffee note. That gives you two valuable clues to making better beer: give your ferment a good diacetyl rest, and stop scorching your wort. That's not bad, is it?

You know, this whole thing is ironic; here I am, defending competition, and I never compete! I'm defending competition because it is useful.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[Chad]

Inspector: It doesn't say anything here about lark's vomit!

Mr. Hilton: Ah, it does, at the bottom of the label, after monosodium glutamate".

Inspector: I hardly think that's good enough! I think it'd be more appropriate if the box bore a great red label: "WARNING: LARK'S VOMIT!!!"



And now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Chad

 

[mmb]

It was BMBF'd about two weeks prior to the judging. I personally find the beer to be slightly astringent so I'm wondering if that will be noted on the sheet. If my brew club would move to a more official feedback mechanism for our flight beers, I'd be less likely to spend the entry fees.

With my luck, winning bronze will be tainted by a discovery that there were only three beers at that table.

Now you don't need to send beers out to any contests. You're an "Award Winning Brewer!"

Time to print up business cards.

 

[TexLaw]

Congratulations, Bobby!

Now, back to the others pounding themselves into . . . something.


TL

 

[uwmgdman]

Sucks to get feedback like that, especially when you obviously had no problems with the beer, otherwise you wouldn't have sent it.

I echo what most have said here.

I entered my first competition too recently, like you, for the hell of it and to get some impartial feedback. I submitted 3 entries and I am awaiting the scoring sheets.

I'm curious to what they have to say, but won't get too excited or down depending what they say.

 

[budbo]

I read his comments and take heed. THIS is how you become a better brewer.

Better brewer? or this is how you learn to brew more true to style?

Like Pastor said, it is very subjective, I don't like RIS, can I learn to judge them? yes, can I be objective? yes, Would I know a really good RIS from a fair RIS? probably not, since I don't drink them to begin with.
I brew to taste, if I like it that's all that matters, I have made some that I hated but some of my friends loved, others I like, they didn't. Maybe I have just been blessed with friends who will tell me if a beer is good, drinkable, or sucks.

A judge taught me to brew, He critiqued many of my recipes, some he gave high marks to, others not. His favorite recipe he gave a 21 to. He told me "it tastes great, but misses the style"

Listening to judges may teach you to brew more to style but to say it makes you a better brewer is a bit naive. Everyone has their own taste. I have tried award winning beers that I didn't finish the pint, I have tried some of those 17s that I'd go back for more.

I still say comps and judging have their place, but it is a grain of salt kind of thing.

Amen

We actually need more qualified judges to raise the standard even higher. Maybe we should do some training through this forum.

So the question is, are their specialty judges like in Dog shows. Some are not qualified to judge "best in Show" but can judge "best in Class" while others are only qualified to judge "Best in Breed?"