2013 NHC first round results?

SSBrew - 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
sweetcell said:
how about not having a big fat "PLACE AWARDED" box on the cover page? they could even go so far as to print on that cover page "Placement will be announced at a later time, once all judging is complete". seems simple to me.
Click to expand...

The "place awarded" thing is boilerplate on the BJCP coversheets that accompanies all scoresheets. It has nothing to do with the AHA or NHC. In a regular BJCP competition those are filled out by the head judge at each table.
 
right, so come up with a new template for NHC - one without the place awarded box. that box makes sense for just about every competition except NHC. i think that NHC is important enough to merits its own boilerplate :D
 
AnchorBock said:
Or, like in my case, where a 30 squeezes it's way into mini BOS (judged by recognized and certified) and gets 1st place in Mini BOS which had a Grand Master III judging....something funny going on there.
Click to expand...

One thing to keep in mind here is that mini-bos for the first round had a fresh bottle. Maybe the second bottle was that much better than the other one. Also, it could be that the first judging pair was being very conservative with their scores. A lot of judges get stuck in ruts from 25-35 and don't give much outside of that. When the pair pushes on their top 2-3 beers (never four; only 3 can place), those are probably the legitimately best 2-3 beers in the flight. At the end of the day, for better or for worse, for judges, the score given to a beer places it onto a continuum for the beers that they have judged in their flight. Putting too much worth into a beer score isn't really a great focus. Beating out other beers is.
 
noblesquirrel said:
One thing to keep in mind here is that mini-bos for the first round had a fresh bottle. Maybe the second bottle was that much better than the other one. Also, it could be that the first judging pair was being very conservative with their scores. A lot of judges get stuck in ruts from 25-35 and don't give much outside of that. When the pair pushes on their top 2-3 beers (never four; only 3 can place), those are probably the legitimately best 2-3 beers in the flight. At the end of the day, for better or for worse, for judges, the score given to a beer places it onto a continuum for the beers that they have judged in their flight. Putting too much worth into a beer score isn't really a great focus. Beating out other beers is.
Click to expand...

Yea that makes sense, but that's the very issue people are pointing out. A beer can advance with a 30 and beat out a beer with a 45. It's an imperfect system though and I choose to compete in spite of that.

I'm not hung up on the 30, but it would really have been nice to get a scoresheet from the judges that did the mini BOS because the scoresheets I got back had no useful feedback whatsoever. I guess since it got 1st out of probably 30+ beers I'll just rebrew the same recipe with no changes since I don't have any useful feedback to go off of other than the fact that it got 1st.
 
noblesquirrel said:
One thing to keep in mind here is that mini-bos for the first round had a fresh bottle. Maybe the second bottle was that much better than the other one. Also, it could be that the first judging pair was being very conservative with their scores. A lot of judges get stuck in ruts from 25-35 and don't give much outside of that. When the pair pushes on their top 2-3 beers (never four; only 3 can place), those are probably the legitimately best 2-3 beers in the flight. At the end of the day, for better or for worse, for judges, the score given to a beer places it onto a continuum for the beers that they have judged in their flight. Putting too much worth into a beer score isn't really a great focus. Beating out other beers is.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much my point. Why give out scores at all unless you place? Have the judges give feedback and comments and if they deem it good enough place it into the mini BOS. In the end the scores don't really matter anyways especially if your focus is "beating out other beers".
 
AnchorBock said:
Yea that makes sense, but that's the very issue people are pointing out. A beer can advance with a 30 and beat out a beer with a 45. It's an imperfect system though and I choose to compete in spite of that.

I'm not hung up on the 30, but it would really have been nice to get a scoresheet from the judges that did the mini BOS because the scoresheets I got back had no useful feedback whatsoever. I guess since it got 1st out of probably 30+ beers I'll just rebrew the same recipe with no changes since I don't have any useful feedback to go off of other than the fact that it got 1st.
Click to expand...

The 2 bottles might start making the competition have more cases like you describe. With homebrewed bottles all varying in consistency to some extent. It would be really frustrating would be to score a 40+ and advance to the mini BOS and have a bad bottle. That could explain the reverse of what happened to you?
 
My two cents: If you want an "elite" competition, make one.

With the proper marketing and higher entry fees, you could narrow the field, pay decent judges and offer prize money. This is what I think the hobby lacks for some.

I think NHC is cool because anyone can enter. I think allowing a maximum number of beers per person is a reasonable constraint, not a qualifying minimum score.

As for giving everyone a score sheet and feedback, I think that is the minimum required for any worthwhile competition.

Some may feel that the process is inconsistent but it is a product of all subjective competitions. Think of those silly Olympic sports like ice dancing and rhythmic gymnastics. I think the beer judging I have seen is infinitely better than that nonsense.

Also a factor is the dearth of educated judges. Get involved. Take the BJCP exams. Get certified and judge. Have your friends and brewing buddies do it too. That is what I am doing...
 
Lots of frustration in this thread, eh? I can understand being impatient to get your score sheets, and God knows the process could be more efficient. But do try to keep in mind the nature of the competition. The point of BJCP competitions is the education of homebrewers and the promotion of the hobby, not necessarily ribbons and medals (though they're fun). Remember also that basically everybody involved in running the actual competition- judges, stewards, organizers, even the owners of the venue- is a volunteer, so it's not really like the AHA can crack the whip a whole lot. They do the best they can.

Sure, there's room for improvement, but if you're looking for a professionally-run, cutthroat competition, you may want to look elsewhere. And on a side note, if you want to get your scores early next year, (and you live nearby) you might want to sign up to steward. I did in Denver this last Saturday, and we got our score sheets right there (my brew buddy and I got first place in English Barleywines! Woot!)
 
coslor said:
Lots of frustration in this thread, eh? I can understand being impatient to get your score sheets, and God knows the process could be more efficient. But do try to keep in mind the nature of the competition. The point of BJCP competitions is the education of homebrewers and the promotion of the hobby, not necessarily ribbons and medals (though they're fun).
Click to expand...

You've never read Gordon Strong's books or heard him speak I take it? The man basically invented the scorched earth approach to the NHC that now, interestingly, has become impossible to repeat with the rule changes.

Not hating on the guy. Hate the game not the player. But you have to appreciate the approach because it worked for him.

The vast majority of people enter to win. To beat someone else. To be told they have the best beer in America. It's not some feel good "I want to get some feedback" event. That's what your local homebrew club is for. It's cheaper, too.
 
highgravitybacon said:
The vast majority of people enter to win . . . It's not some feel good "I want to get some feedback" event.
Click to expand...
I hope you're only speaking for yourself. Do brewers hang on to a glimmer of hope that they'll do well? Sure. But I suspect they also acknowledge that, chances are, the best they'll see is feedback on how to improve?

There will always be a group of talented and obsessive people participating in any large scale amateur competition. Wannabe pros who dominate the contest. The majority of us are everyday people with a great hobby, but lives outside of it. These are the ones that the AHA is catering to. The goal of the AHA is to promote and grow a healthy obsession with homebrewing and make it fun. The first round is an all-inclusive mass event. The final round is a way of showcasing our best.

Regardless of this, or that the regions are run by volunteers, there's no reason that we can't expect people to do the job they volunteered to do in an efficient manner. And it's only to be expected that we'll get a little anxious when they don't. If they can't handle the organizational tasks on the days of the event and then get score sheets out in a week, they shouldn't have taken on the job.
 
coslor said:
And on a side note, if you want to get your scores early next year, (and you live nearby) you might want to sign up to steward. I did in Denver this last Saturday, and we got our score sheets right there (my brew buddy and I got first place in English Barleywines! Woot!)
Click to expand...

I was fairly certain that you were not supposed to find out whether you placed or not until they officially released their 1st round results through the AHA's website. They were certainly not supposed to record your place on your score sheet either. Seems some regions didn't read up on the basic rules. So now you have some possible, far fetched IMO, advantage over your fellow contestants. Consistency in this competition? What's that?
 
Darwin18 said:
I was fairly certain that you were not supposed to find out whether you placed or not until they officially released their 1st round results through the AHA's website. They were certainly not supposed to record your place on your score sheet either. Seems some regions didn't read up on the basic rules. So now you have some possible, far fetched IMO, advantage over your fellow contestants. Consistency in this competition? What's that?
Click to expand...

From another NHC thread showing that judges were instructed to mark the placement of top 3:

Lodovico said:
I spoke to Steve Cook, the guy in charge of the Kansas City site and these are his words pasted from an email:

As far as the results reported to individual brewers, the judges and stewards were instructed to put the place information on the cover sheet if the beer placed 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. There is no actual designation in the NHC competition for "Honorable Mention" other than the judges desire to let the brewer know they had a difficult time deciding which beer would advance in 3rd place. There is no advance for 4th (HM) place. Further, If there is no "place" designation on the cover sheet then that beer did not advance to the final round even though it made the cut to mini-BOS. Here are the exact instructions we have from Janice Gross at the AHA:

There are rules around the results of the competition, so I think a reminder is in order.

Please do these things:
Write 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place as appropriate on the cover sheets of the winning entries, and send all score sheets to the entrants ASAP following the competition.
Verbally announce the winners after the conclusion of the competition.

Please do NOT do these things:
Make hard copies of the competition results available.
Post the competition results on a website.
Email or electronically make available the results from the competition.

There is a perception of fairness, or the lack thereof, when we post competition results before all of the competitions have finished judging. Thanks.



How many comps have you guys entered and not taken at least 3rd with a beer that scored 43? I know I haven't.
Click to expand...
 
Ah, my bad. I had seen results from other regional competitions where they did not put the places on score sheets that had placed. Thank you for pointing that out.
 
i believe the point here is that the rules weren't consistently followed. the official AHA rules state that all placement information must be withheld until all judging is complete. the fact that the KC organizer has said the he instructed judges to write down results shows that some sites didn't adhere to the organization's rules - they went rogue. just because someone broke the rules doesn't mean the rules don't exist.
 
I believe the one thing we can say for certain is that there was a lack of consistency between the regional competitions. How about that? ;)
 
Darwin18 said:
I believe the one thing we can say for certain is that there was a lack of consistency between the regional competitions. How about that? ;)
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone could disagree with that but I'm sure someone will!
 
AnOldUR said:
. . . rogue to follow instructions?
Click to expand...

vs:


First Round Winners

Winners of the First Round Judging Centers will be reported once all 11 locations have completed judging and submitted the results to the National Homebrew Competition Director. By May 4, 2013 winners will be posted and competition entrants will be able to access full results via the online database used for registration.

Please do not contact site directors requesting results, as they are not permitted to release this information until the AHA has published all winners from all 11 judging centers. Thank you for your patience and cooperation.

http://www.brewingcompetition.com/ (and every regional sub-site)
Click to expand...

First Round Winners

Winners of the First Round Judging Centers will be reported once all 11 locations have completed judging and submitted the results to the National Homebrew Competition Director. By May 4, 2013 winners will be posted and competition entrants will be able to access full results via the online database used for registration. Please do not contact site directors requesting results, as they are not permitted to release this information until the AHA has published all winners from all 11 judging centers. Thank you for your patience and cooperation.

http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/competitions/national-homebrew-competition
Click to expand...

this is not a new rule.
 
Fine, except for that it says, "will be reported." There is no mention of individual results being written on scoresheets. To me, they are talking about reporting complete results to the public. There is a difference between publicly reporting results and handing out completed scoresheets even though they can both result in the same outcome.
 
AnOldUR said:
Fine, except for that it says, "will be reported." There is no mention of individual results being written on scoresheets. To me, they are talking about reporting complete results to the public. There is a difference between publicly reporting results and handing out completed scoresheets even though they can both result in the same outcome.
Click to expand...

I think the wording on their competition pages about results being reported could have been much clearer, because I initially read them as no one getting results until all were judged as well. Now, from the email Janis apparently sent to the competition folks, this is not what they meant.

I do find it interesting that she mentioned that releasing results to the public before all competitions are judged can be interpreted as unfair. Meanwhile, they encourage each site to send out the scoresheets, with results, as soon as possible, which actually does create an unfair situation (although it can certainly be argued how meaningful the advantage of knowing you are through to the second round earlier is). Seems the fairest way is to, in fact, withhold scoresheets until every site is judged and then have all scoresheets sent at the same time. But obviously that was not their approach.
 
Still waiting on scoresheets from St. Paul. I guess they dispatched a three-legged blind donkey up here to Soviet Canuckistan with the results.
 
I think the "advantage" is more of a convenience. I knew of my 4 entries I would rebrew 2 if they advanced. Based on the age I'd want the beers to be when judged for the final round I planned to brew my Special Bitter on 5/2 and my APA on 5/9. The "advantage" I have now is that I don't have to brew my Special Bitter since it didn't advance. Since I had already planned to brew on 5/2 I'm still brewing and I'll probably brew an Ordinary Bitter instead of the Special Bitter I had planned on.

Like I said - seems more like a convenience than an advantage.
 
Fun tidbit of info on how consistency in judging is all but impossible for any size homebrew competition (nevermind the NHC):

I recently took the BJCP tasting exam with 9 other people, and the organizer / judges were nice enough to send copies of everyone's sheets out to the group at the end. The last beer we tasted was an English IPA with what I thought was horrible oxidation / infection to the point where I wouldn't drink it by choice.

I'm not kidding you, the scores we assigned to it were 12, 13, 13, 14, 18, 19, 26, 28, 39, 40

A few people (including me) assigned basically the minimum score you should assign, a few people had it as a middle-of-the-road beer, and two thought it was good enough to approach a mini-BOS round.
 
cwheel said:
Fun tidbit of info on how consistency in judging is all but impossible for any size homebrew competition (nevermind the NHC):

I recently took the BJCP tasting exam with 9 other people, and the organizer / judges were nice enough to send copies of everyone's sheets out to the group at the end. The last beer we tasted was an English IPA with what I thought was horrible oxidation / infection to the point where I wouldn't drink it by choice.

I'm not kidding you, the scores we assigned to it were 12, 13, 13, 14, 18, 19, 26, 28, 39, 40

A few people (including me) assigned basically the minimum score you should assign, a few people had it as a middle-of-the-road beer, and two thought it was good enough to approach a mini-BOS round.
Click to expand...

Well, if it was an "exam" - I would hope some people "failed."

Overall, in my experience, I think that the judging in the "bigger" (300-1000 entries) comps. I have entered has been good. No doubt, some has been better than others. But, in general, I try to enter the same beer 3-5 times if I am REALLY looking for feedback. I would say 75%+ of the feedback I get is very consistent on the same beer - especially when it is a "national" or higher type judge. Some of the times when it is not consistent, I assume the possibility that I screwed something up when bottling, etc. which could account for the problem.

I have received some great feedback over the past year (entering 20 comps. or so) that has allowed me to make some substantial improvements to my beers. Any one of those comps, in isolation, would have been of far, far less value to me. Anyone who sends a couple beers in to one comp., once a year with the idea that this feedback alone is going to be highly useful is usually not going to get what they are looking for.
 
AnchorBock said:
I think the "advantage" is more of a convenience. I knew of my 4 entries I would rebrew 2 if they advanced. Based on the age I'd want the beers to be when judged for the final round I planned to brew my Special Bitter on 5/2 and my APA on 5/9. The "advantage" I have now is that I don't have to brew my Special Bitter since it didn't advance. Since I had already planned to brew on 5/2 I'm still brewing and I'll probably brew an Ordinary Bitter instead of the Special Bitter I had planned on.

Like I said - seems more like a convenience than an advantage.
Click to expand...

Well, I would argue that not having to rebrew beers on the chance that they might advance, vs knowing if they do or not and only brewing those that do is indeed an advantage. Particularly for anyone with multiple beers advancing and limited time.

But, as I said earlier, its arguable just how meaningful of an advantage it is. I just think its hard to argue that its not, directionally advantageous. I mean, even if it is only a convenience, isn't convenience an advantage? If not, we wouldn't prefer convenience. :p
 
BrewKnurd said:
Well, I would argue that not having to rebrew beers on the chance that they might advance, vs knowing if they do or not and only brewing those that do is indeed an advantage. Particularly for anyone with multiple beers advancing and limited time.

But, as I said earlier, its arguable just how meaningful of an advantage it is. I just think its hard to argue that its not, directionally advantageous. I mean, even if it is only a convenience, isn't convenience an advantage? If not, we wouldn't prefer convenience. :p
Click to expand...

Convenience may be an advantage, but it really is not a competitive advantage IMO. As far as if you had multiple batches to rebrew I would think anyone that believes they have a serious chance of advancing with styles they'd want fresh in June would already have plans to rebrew so, again, I see it as convenience without providing any competitive advantage.
 
AnchorBock said:
Convenience may be an advantage, but it really is not a competitive advantage IMO. As far as if you had multiple batches to rebrew I would think anyone that believes they have a serious chance of advancing with styles they'd want fresh in June would already have plans to rebrew so, again, I see it as convenience without providing any competitive advantage.
Click to expand...


Well, I have a lager entry that I would rebrew tomorrow if I knew it was advancing, that I will otherwise have to wait until 10+ days later to brew if I don't hear sooner. I will be gone this weekend, and will be house-sitting for some friends the week following, so no chance I will be able to brew until at least the following weekend.

10 days of lagering time seems like it could make quite a difference to me, especially when the original lagering time was around 2-3 weeks.
 
I do find it a bit odd that it's taking this long to post winners. Even if it's one person, posting the winners from each category shouldn't take very long. I'm not sure I'd re-brew any of my entries at this point, but if my IPA advances I'd consider it.
 
weirdboy said:
Well, I have a lager entry that I would rebrew tomorrow if I knew it was advancing, that I will otherwise have to wait until 10+ days later to brew if I don't hear sooner. I will be gone this weekend, and will be house-sitting for some friends the week following, so no chance I will be able to brew until at least the following weekend.

10 days of lagering time seems like it could make quite a difference to me, especially when the original lagering time was around 2-3 weeks.
Click to expand...

If I were you I'd be brewing a lager tomorrow.
 
AnchorBock said:
Convenience may be an advantage, but it really is not a competitive advantage IMO. As far as if you had multiple batches to rebrew I would think anyone that believes they have a serious chance of advancing with styles they'd want fresh in June would already have plans to rebrew so, again, I see it as convenience without providing any competitive advantage.
Click to expand...

This. I already brewed an alt with changes in mind to improve it for the second round. If I get through it will be ready in time.

Anyone get scores back from Atlanta yet?
 

Similar threads

oldschool
NHC 2023 First Round
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
kingmatt
kingmatt
J
My First Competition: Results, Disappointments, Improvements
Replies
15
Views
2K
mashpaddled
M
Rob2010SS
Difference between certificates and ribbons at National Homebrew Competition...
Replies
4
Views
663
Rob2010SS
Rob2010SS
F
Entering a Homebrew Completion? Tips?
Replies
30
Views
2K
fendersrule
F
C
My First Decoction Experience
Replies
24
Views
2K
BigEd
B
InkBird 300

Latest posts

Back
Top