What would be so wrong about seeing winners' competition scores?

[lostcheesehead]

I just got my results back from a homebrew competition I've participated in several times over the years, and two of my scores were pretty good: 39.5 and 41. In previous years, I've gotten scores of 42.5 and 44.5 back, but the only time I've won a medal is with a 36.5 beer, and that got silver in its category.

So I guess what I'm getting at is, I've never seen a competition that posts the score of the winners in each category. Wouldn't it be nice for the other brewers to see how close (or far) they came to winner's circle? The Olympics do it, so why not homebrew competitions?

Or maybe other competitions do in fact do this, and I need to get out more. Any thoughts?

 

[gometz]

I don't see the benefit either though. Really once you are in the top 3 you're likely separated by the judges preference more than mistakes.

 

[Darwin18]

It's not worth the hassle and grief the competition organizers will hear.

"My beer only scored a 37.5 but it's better than Jeff's beer that scored a 40.5. I've had Jeff's beer and it's not that great. Those judges are soooo dumb."

Stuff like that would be everywhere. Don't even try explaining mini-BOS to people who haven't seen it or been part of one.

"But my beer scored higher why didn't it place higher..."

It's not worth the hassle.

 

[JohnSand]

Those are great scores Cheese!
And I agree, I'd like to know how far I am from medals. Even if there were a ranking of all competitors without listing scores. Am I last, middle, or right near the top?

 

[AnOldUR]

The actual numbers are somewhat subjective. Knowing and comparing them is meaningless and confusing. Different judges will score high or low. Some may start low in case a better beer comes along. What matters is that the judge is consistent throughout the session. As long as the better beer gets a higher score, the number doesn’t matter. This is important to keep in mind when reviewing your score sheet for feedback as well. Look more at the group your beer falls into; … very good, excellent, outstanding. The comments will tell you more than the number.

 

[lostcheesehead]

Oh yes, I look forward to getting my sheet and reviewing the notes, but still... I wanna know how close I came! Like, great, my wee heavy scored a 41 and I am very proud of that, but did someone else blast it out of the park with a 50-point stunner? In the end it doesn't really matter, but personally I see it as added incentive to brew better.

As far as the hassle goes, I get that, too. I'm sure judges would get grief no matter how scores are presented and awards handed out.

 

[Talgrath]

I got a score in the high forties in one big competition that I entered...didn't even place (admittedly in a very popular category). Imagine the agony of being a mere .5 off though if you saw the score. Also keep in mind that some people might take losing by a close margin or a very wide margin very seriously (particularly if they know the other brewers) and that these competitions are supposed to be fun, it's a hobby after all. They don't show the scores as a way of helping to keep the peace.

 

[TheZymurgist]

It's because 1st, 2nd, and 3rd isn't based on the score. The judges take the three highest scoring entries, re-taste, and pick 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. If they showed the scores, people might see that 3rd actually scored slightly higher than 1st, but in a side by side taste, they decided one tasted better than the other.

 

[AnOldUR]

It's because 1st, 2nd, and 3rd isn't based on the score. The judges take the three highest scoring entries, re-taste, and pick 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

Only if there's enough beers in the category to have more than one table. Otherwise it does go by score. What you’re talking about only happens if there is more than one table and the best beers from each table go to a mini-BOS. The new judges don't see the previous scores and they don't re-score the beers. They discuss the entries and come up with the winners. Higher ranked judges will usually judge the mini-BOS's and the BOS rounds.

edit to say:
I recently had a score of 37 in the American IPA category (lots of entries) advance to the mini-BOS. It won the category. Imagine how PO'd someone would have been if they found out their 45 was crushed by a 37.

 

[Darwin18]

I had a cream ale score a 47 at a comp last spring and it ended up 3rd in the category. I'm okay with that.

 

[TheZymurgist]

Only if there's enough beers in the category to have more than one table. Otherwise it does go by score. What you’re talking about only happens if there is more than one table and the best beers from each table go to a mini-BOS. The new judges don't see the previous scores and they don't re-score the beers. They discuss the entries and come up with the winners. Higher ranked judges will usually judge the mini-BOS's and the BOS rounds.

edit to say:
I recently had a score of 37 in the American IPA category (lots of entries) advance to the mini-BOS. It won the category. Imagine how PO'd someone would have been if they found out their 45 was crushed by a 37.

Gotcha. A bjcp judge explained it to me in much more vague terms than that.

 

[blakelyc]

This is the problem, where you switch from scoring beers against an idealized notion of style to judging on the basis of subjective goodness. The former can be judged somewhat objectively, but the latter can't.... So you get these situations where lower scoring beers win mini-BOS and BOS rounds. That's perfectly okay and keeps judging anomalies in check.

Personally, I think scores definitely should be posted for beers that place in competition. competitors should know how it all works, and I can't think of any situation where transparency would hurt... Especially where the BJCP is concerned. It can only help both the judges and the competitors.

 

[Phunhog]

I used to argue for the same thing but realized that the actual numeric score is pretty subjective. I rarely enter comps anymore for that reason. Past the stage where I am looking for feedback......the goal was to place/win. So receiving a 38 but not placing in one comp and then winning your category with a 35 became kind of pointless. Like I said the actual numeric score is close to irrelevant.

 

[TheZymurgist]

This is the problem, where you switch from scoring beers against an idealized notion of style to judging on the basis of subjective goodness. The former can be judged somewhat objectively, but the latter can't.... So you get these situations where lower scoring beers win mini-BOS and BOS rounds. That's perfectly okay and keeps judging anomalies in check.

Personally, I think scores definitely should be posted for beers that place in competition. competitors should know how it all works, and I can't think of any situation where transparency would hurt... Especially where the BJCP is concerned. It can only help both the judges and the competitors.

I disagree. If you've ever stewarded, or even judged, scoring isn't an exact science. I certainly agree that subjectivity should (and can) be left at the door, but when it comes to assigning a number to a certain aspect of beer, it's pretty difficult.

When you have three beers, all within a couple points of each other, I think it's necessary to revisit blindly and pick the one that is the best example of the style, again, leaving bias aside.

And now, we can sit back and watch this thread devolve into a lynching of judges and style guidelines....

 

[blakelyc]

I disagree. If you've ever stewarded, or even judged, scoring isn't an exact science.

I have, and I have.

I certainly agree that subjectivity should (and can) be left at the door, but when it comes to assigning a number to a certain aspect of beer, it's pretty difficult.

When you have three beers, all within a couple points of each other, I think it's necessary to revisit blindly and pick the one that is the best example of the style, again, leaving bias aside.

Interesting comment, but not related to what I wrote. My comment actually stipulated that mini-BOS and BOS judging helps to keep scoring anomalies in check (since there's no way to justify point-level granularity in the scores). And I even said that that's perfectly fine.

Never did I suggest that it was inappropriate. My comment was that we all know how this works, and I don't think there's any situation for which transparency in the system is a bad thing. Hence my feeling that scores for winning beers should be published.

And now, we can sit back and watch this thread devolve into a lynching of judges and style guidelines....

That certainly shouldn't happen, but it tends to occur when people get overly defensive about the competition system. Competitors should be completely aware of how the competition system works, and we should be open to continually improving the system since it helps homebrewers make better beer.

 

[TheZymurgist]

I have, and I have.



Interesting comment, but not related to what I wrote. My comment actually stipulated that mini-BOS and BOS judging helps to keep scoring anomalies in check (since there's no way to justify point-level granularity in the scores). And I even said that that's perfectly fine.

Never did I suggest that it was inappropriate. My comment was that we all know how this works, and I don't think there's any situation for which transparency in the system is a bad thing. Hence my feeling that scores for winning beers should be published.



That certainly shouldn't happen, but it tends to occur when people get overly defensive about the competition system. Competitors should be completely aware of how the competition system works, and we should be open to continually improving the system since it helps homebrewers make better beer.

My fault for posting before drinking coffee. I realize now I only absorbed the first line of your post, and basically reiterated what you said.

 

[AnOldUR]

When you have three beers, all within a couple points of each other, I think it's necessary to revisit blindly and pick the one that is the best example of the style, again, leaving bias aside.

I could be wrong, but from what I've read, this is not the case and is something that they are trying to emphasize in the new guidelines. The point is that they are only guidelines. In some cases they're very broad. In others more narrow. They're not trying to make every Pale Ale taste exactly like SNPA. Once it's been established that a beer fits within the style guidelines, it has to become a subjective call to determine which beer is best. The idea is to not undermine the creative aspect of homebrewing. When you enter any type of competition where taste is involved you'll be subject to the palate of a judge. It's something you may not always agree with, but you have to accept as part of the game.

 

[blakelyc]

I could be wrong, but from what I've read, this is not the case and is something that they are trying to emphasize in the new guidelines. The point is that they are only guidelines. In some cases they're very broad. In others more narrow. They're not trying to make every Pale Ale taste exactly like SNPA. Once it's been established that a beer fits within the style guidelines, it has to become a subjective call to determine which beer is best. The idea is to not undermine the creative aspect of homebrewing. When you enter any type of competition where taste is involved you'll be subject to the palate of a judge. It's something you may not always agree with, but you have to accept as part of the game.

Generally speaking, that's correct, but it leads to a situation where a lower-scoring beer places higher than a higher-scoring beer even within the same category. That's usually cited as the reason for not publishing winning scores... I think they should be published, because of your last sentence. Competitors definitely need to be aware of what's happening, and judges don't have anything to apologize for since that's how it goes.

Outside of BOS, I wonde how frequently it happens that way anyways. My experience has been that judges within a category are remarkably consistent.

 

[lostcheesehead]

Outside of BOS, I wonde how frequently it happens that way anyways. My experience has been that judges within a category are remarkably consistent.

Exactly. Anyone who's entered more than one competition understands that consistency between judges is extremely common. This thread was never intended to question judges, but rather explore the point of being transparent about the categorical judging and awards.

I think it could only help brewers and the competition process itself. If it happens that final rounds within categories are judged like the BOS, so be it - the process appears to work. If final category rounds are judged based strictly on points, so be it - the process appears to work. I don't see the harm in letting competitors know what they're working with, and what made the medal-winners the medal-winners, be it cumulative points or a sort of BOS je ne sais quoi.