Better turn in your best...

[TooSaucedToPork]

This has been going on forever...

As a cook you control your own fate. No one chooses the meat you put in that box but you. If you place mediocre burnt ends in a box ("because that's what judges want") with the best brisket slices you ever cooked, then you just screwed the pooch. Your score is on you, not the judge.

I am also a judge, and I DO NOT average. I take my Judging Reminder on Page 15 -

"You should sample some of each type presented and base your score on the overall taste/tenderness/texture of all samples."

and combine it with the general information Recap on page 21

2. Judge the sample the way it is submitted.
3. Judge each item on its own merit. KCBS judging is not comparative
4. Your standard for judging should remain constant throughout the judging process for
that contest. Score every sample in each criterion on the individual reference points
printed on the score card.

So if my overall impression of an entry is tarnished by a bad burnt end or slice...if a Chicken wing is phenomianal but the chopped is trash...if the money muscle is divine but the slices were sand...

You get judged on the worst....and a comment card will tell you why I did what I did. I will tell you that your brisket slices were the excellent, but you put in below average burnt ends that took you from a 9 to a 5.

I'm there to BE FAIR and BE IMPARTIAL to every entry...does it hurt me to do this to a fellow team...HELL YEAH IT DOES, honesty sometimes cuts you to your core. But as you all know, the old, I'll give em a seven to insure they aren't knocked out is worse...

The pity 7 is KCBS's participation award...and those suck.

 

[bradgreer]

So if I understand correctly (not saying it is right or wrong) if I put excellent slices (9) in and mediocre BE's (6) it would get scored the same as if I did not turn in the slices at all (6)? If so, how is that judging the slices on their own merit?

 

[Jorge]

This has been going on forever...

As a cook you control your own fate. No one chooses the meat you put in that box but you. If you place mediocre burnt ends in a box ("because that's what judges want") with the best brisket slices you ever cooked, then you just screwed the pooch. Your score is on you, not the judge.

I am also a judge, and I DO NOT average. I take my Judging Reminder on Page 15 -

"You should sample some of each type presented and base your score on the overall taste/tenderness/texture of all samples."

and combine it with the general information Recap on page 21

2. Judge the sample the way it is submitted.
3. Judge each item on its own merit. KCBS judging is not comparative
4. Your standard for judging should remain constant throughout the judging process for
that contest. Score every sample in each criterion on the individual reference points
printed on the score card.

So if my overall impression of an entry is tarnished by a bad burnt end or slice...if a Chicken wing is phenomianal but the chopped is trash...if the money muscle is divine but the slices were sand...

You get judged on the worst....and a comment card will tell you why I did what I did. I will tell you that your brisket slices were the excellent, but you put in below average burnt ends that took you from a 9 to a 5.

I'm there to BE FAIR and BE IMPARTIAL to every entry...does it hurt me to do this to a fellow team...HELL YEAH IT DOES, honesty sometimes cuts you to your core. But as you all know, the old, I'll give em a seven to insure they aren't knocked out is worse...

The pity 7 is KCBS's participation award...and those suck.

Just for the sake of discussion, without passing judgment...

If a brisket box has slices worthy of a 9, and burnt ends worthy of a 5 and you give that box a 5 are you still judging the entry as presented?

 

[tduffy]

Just for the sake of discussion, without passing judgment...

If a brisket box has slices worthy of a 9, and burnt ends worthy of a 5 and you give that box a 5 are you still judging the entry as presented?

Nope. so basically this judge gives you the lowest possible score for what you put in the box. There to be fair but gives the lowest score possible. Now that's rich. And if there were no burnt ends in the box would probably be scored down for that too.

The one thing I've learned from this thread is all a person should ever dare put in their pork box is a row of money muscle slices and that's it. Anything else has no other purpose other than for judges to find a reason to ding your score.

 

[DUBBAGA]

I am also a judge, and I DO NOT average. I take my Judging Reminder on Page 15 -

"You should sample some of each type presented and base your score on the overall taste/tenderness/texture of all samples."

and combine it with the general information Recap on page 21

2. Judge the sample the way it is submitted.
3. Judge each item on its own merit. KCBS judging is not comparative
4. Your standard for judging should remain constant throughout the judging process for
that contest. Score every sample in each criterion on the individual reference points
printed on the score card.

I do not agree that your application of these procedural directives is accurate according to KCBS' intention. Of course, that is based on my interpretation, which could be incorrect.

In your example the burnt end deserving a 5 was so poor that it negated any impact that the excellent slice had on your overall impression of the box in it's entirety. I would expect that one sample bringing down the other by 4 points would have to be inedible, or very close.

Although we are both judges who follow the current instructions as we understand them, it is clear that not everyone is judging consistently as a group... and subsequently presents the table of death dilemma

 

[TooSaucedToPork]

It was an extreme example...AND ONLY HAPPENED WITH 1 ENTRY.

It sticks out in my mind to this day. It was 2012, the slices were perfect...but the burnt end submitted tasted like salty fat and sucked every bit of moisture from my pallet. It then , after the salt, had that metallic creosote taste that lingered bitter.

I could have given the team a 7...an Average of 5 plus 9. The burnt end was indeed a four...but I gave it below average because I couldn't bring my self to put a four on the card...it really was soul crushing.

But to give a 7 to such a terrible example was also gut wrenching...especially since the slices were just about perfect.

What to do? Give a 7 to that burnt end...that left an overall impression of bitterness and disgust...

or tell the truth, fill out a comment card and explain the why. I understand I hurt a teams feelings, and chances at a call, but I was honest with them. I judged that entry fairly and did not stray from the KCBS rules.

What if I had just given the pity 7...would they have learned of their mistake. Would that have been fair to the team whose lone slices were indeed above average?

Its a judgement call that I hate, but as a cook...I would want honesty and integrity over politics and protection of my feelings.

Neil

 

[tduffy]

It was an extreme example...AND ONLY HAPPENED WITH 1 ENTRY.

It sticks out in my mind to this day. It was 2012, the slices were perfect...but the burnt end submitted tasted like salty fat and sucked every bit of moisture from my pallet. It then , after the salt, had that metallic creosote taste that lingered bitter.

I could have given the team a 7...an Average of 5 plus 9. The burnt end was indeed a four...but I gave it below average because I couldn't bring my self to put a four on the card...it really was soul crushing.

But to give a 7 to such a terrible example was also gut wrenching...especially since the slices were just about perfect.

What to do? Give a 7 to that burnt end...that left an overall impression of bitterness and disgust...

or tell the truth, fill out a comment card and explain the why. I understand I hurt a teams feelings, and chances at a call, but I was honest with them. I judged that entry fairly and did not stray from the KCBS rules.

What if I had just given the pity 7...would they have learned of their mistake. Would that have been fair to the team whose lone slices were indeed above average?

Its a judgement call that I hate, but as a cook...I would want honesty and integrity over politics and protection of my feelings.

Neil

How about giving the cook the benefit of the doubt and instead of looking at it as giving that poor burnt end a 7 think of it as giving that perfectly cooked and tasty slice a 7 and fill out a comment card telling the cook that his burnt end sucked but slice was excellent? Is that not an option? Because I sure as hell don't think the whole box was worthy of a 5 in my opinion.

 

[TooSaucedToPork]

Just for the sake of discussion, without passing judgment...

If a brisket box has slices worthy of a 9, and burnt ends worthy of a 5 and you give that box a 5 are you still judging the entry as presented?

1. Judge the sample the way it is presented.

Yes, It was presented as 2 separate items. (see below)

3. Judge each item on its own merit. KCBS judging is not comparative

I understand that this probably supposed to refer to separate ENTRIES but it uses the word ITEM and as there are 2 separate items in the box, and judging is not comparative...they are each judged separately (as stated below highlighted in bold)

The rest of the judges manual uses the words ENTRIES referring to a team turn in, but the word ITEM in this phrase indicates each single piece of a turn in...not the entry as a whole.

4. Your standard for judging should remain constant throughout the judging process for
that contest. Score every sample in each criterion on the individual reference points
printed on the score card.

The team has provided 2 different samples.

 

[DUBBAGA]

If Super Bowl LI had a halftime show which included live performances of Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, Billy Joel, The Cure, Depeche Mode and Justin Bieber, and I was asked to give it a collective score from 2 - 9 based on my overall enjoyment of the presentation, although Justin Bieber would be a 2, I can almost guarantee that he wouldn't have sullied my overall feelings sufficiently to give it anything less than a 6 or 7

Perhaps that soul sucking burnt end was beyond Bieber?

 

[TooSaucedToPork]

How about giving the cook the benefit of the doubt and instead of looking at it as giving that poor burnt end a 7 think of it as giving that perfectly cooked and tasty slice a 7 and fill out a comment card telling the cook that his burnt end sucked but slice was excellent? Is that not an option? Because I sure as hell don't think the whole box was worthy of a 5 in my opinion.

So...Give a team something they haven't earned??? How was that fair and impartial to a team that turned in only slices that were above average? (7)

I'm a cook too brother, I want to win because my food is best, and I want fair and impartial judging. My "overall impression" was not of the perfect slice...it was of how that burnt end effected my palate. If the burnt end submitted was average (6) I could have seen giving the 7...but is was not.

I didn't do it to be mean, or to be a dick, or to teach a lesson, or because I thought I could do better. I did it because that was fair and impartial. I'm also a cook...I wouldn't want a 5. I did it because rule 4 on page 21

Your standard for judging should remain constant throughout the judging process for that contest. Score every sample in each criterion on the individual reference points printed on the score card.

 

[TooSaucedToPork]

If Super Bowl LI had a halftime show which included live performances of Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, Billy Joel, The Cure, Depeche Mode and Justin Bieber, and I was asked to give it a collective score from 2 - 9 based on my overall enjoyment of the presentation, although Justin Bieber would be a 2, I can almost guarantee that he wouldn't have sullied my overall feelings sufficiently to give it anything less than a 6 or 7

Perhaps that soul sucking burnt end was beyond Bieber?

The soulsucking was the decision I had to make...not the burnt end. It hurt to write that score...but it was fair and impartial.

 

[Jorge]

1. Judge the sample the way it is presented.

Yes, It was presented as 2 separate items. (see below)

3. Judge each item on its own merit. KCBS judging is not comparative

I understand that this probably supposed to refer to separate ENTRIES but it uses the word ITEMS and as there are 2 separate items in the box, and judging is not comparative...they are each judged separately (as stated below highlighted in bold)

4. Your standard for judging should remain constant throughout the judging process for
that contest. Score every sample in each criterion on the individual reference points
printed on the score card.

The team has provided 2 different samples.

If the slice is a 9 and the burnt end a 5, I don't think either of those two scores is fair or accurate to the entry as a whole. If you'd sampled just the burnt end, which is permissible, I have no issue with a 5. I'd have the same issue if you chose to ignore the burnt end, and give the entry a 9.

I think you interpretation of 'items' is overly narrow. We'll have to agree to disagree............

 

[Big Poppa]

Here comes my turd in the punch bowl.

To only focus on a few negatives when you get to keep overjudging is kind of strange.

I printed up SUAC aprons and shirts for me and friends. It helped me greatly.
Shut up and cook. It means do your best and focus on what you are doing. The next thing is that I convinced myself that the judges are always right...just like my wife. what I mean by that is that we have tremendous data available to us through sites like bbq scores. If you look after 5 or ten cooks at your tenderness and see that it is lagging, that is telling you what to work on. On a collated basis they are telling you something.

Ill just tell you another thing I do....when I think I got hosed I put the score sheets away and have a little board meeting with myself on Wednesday. I look at the pictures and the scores and usually I figure out that maybe it was more accurate than how I felt right after the heat of the battle.
The more a cook cooks the less sympathy I have over a table of death. Lets say a cook who cooks 10 comps throws away nothing. I feel horrible for the table of death there. A cook with twenty cooks throws away 40 boxes....40 cooks and they throw away 140 boxes. But with the 40 they kept do you think any of those were angel scores?

In the BBQ Scores Cooks surveys we did last year Pitmasters said that they believe they hit the table of death 25% of the time. They said they hit the angel table 2.5% of the time. Thats a 1,000 cook sample. How many times at a comp do you hear about someone before awards say "My such and such sucked today...then they get first place....After awards I rarely hear someone say I hit the angel table. I believe that pitmasters could be more objective too.

At a recent contest where I RGC'd I got 7 comment cards. Things like "Perfect color, Perfect spice, Perfect tenderness!, Great Shape....nearly perfect in everyway but maybe some more flavor at the center" They gave me an 8 in tenderness. A 9 is for excellent, there is no perfect number. Same contest I get 999 from four judges in pork and a 998. The 6th judge was 766. One point from a 180 and 766? I think that is an area where a judge is so different that there should be some discussion with them from a Rep or KCBS.

I believe that judging needs a ton of help. I think it along with the cost is really not helping comp bbq in the post pitmasters era.

 

[TooSaucedToPork]

If the slice is a 9 and the burnt end a 5, I don't think either of those two scores is fair or accurate to the entry as a whole. If you'd sampled just the burnt end, which is permissible, I have no issue with a 5. I'd have the same issue if you chose to ignore the burnt end, and give the entry a 9.

I think you interpretation of 'items' is overly narrow. We'll have to agree to disagree............

The rest of the judges manual uses the words ENTRIES referring to a team turn in, but the word ITEM in the phrase indicates each single piece...not the entry as a whole.

I have no problem changing the way I judge to adhere to rules. If a Rep told me to Average the entries, I would forever on average the items in an entry. I have yet to be told by a rep to change the way I judge.

Like I said, I'm not trying to hurt a team, just trying to be fair, honest and impartial.

 

[bradgreer]

http://www.kcbs.us/downloads/2016_cbj_manual.pdf

I was looking at the manual and on page 15 under judging reminders towards the bottom it says "You should sample some of each type presented and base your score on the overall
taste/tenderness/texture of all samples"
I know from a previous response that judges are not required to sample everything, but am I interpreting the wording wrong when it says "base your score on the OVERALL taste...etc? IF multiple items are sampled is an overall score supposed to be given?

 

[TooSaucedToPork]

http://www.kcbs.us/downloads/2016_cbj_manual.pdf

I was looking at the manual and on page 15 under judging reminders towards the bottom it says "You should sample some of each type presented and base your score on the overall
taste/tenderness/texture of all samples"
I know from a previous response that judges are not required to sample everything, but am I interpreting the wording wrong when it says "base your score on the OVERALL taste...etc? IF multiple items are sampled is an overall score supposed to be given?

Page 21

1. Judge the sample the way it is presented.

Note it does not say ENTRY...It was presented as 2 separate samples. (see below)

3. Judge each item on its own merit. KCBS judging is not comparative

I understand that this probably intended to refer to separate ENTRIES but it uses the word ITEM and as there are 2 separate items (or more) in the box, and judging is not comparative...they are each judged separately (as stated below highlighted in bold) as the rest of the judges manual uses the words ENTRIES referring to a team turn in, but the word ITEM in this phrase indicates each single piece of a turn in...not the entry as a whole.

4. Your standard for judging should remain constant throughout the judging process for that contest. Score every sample in each criterion on the individual reference points printed on the score card.

The team has provided 2 different samples.

Like I said above to Jorge...If a rep tells me to average the entries, I will. They haven't though...and nowhere is the word AVERAGE or COMBINE ENTRY SCORES.

 

[bradgreer]

Too bad it's so ambiguous...:sad:
They are leaving too much for personal interpretation.

Moral of the the story -

1. Turn in only your best product.
2. SUAC!!
3. Have some fun for phark sakes!!

 

[ckelly]

Page 21

4. Your standard for judging should remain constant throughout the judging process for that contest. Score every sample in each criterion on the individual reference points printed on the score card.

So ... are you filling out 2 score cards for every brisket box submitted w/ slices and burnt ends? 3 for every pork box with MM slices, pulled and chunks?

Or ... I have a slice that I would rate a 9, a burnt end I would rate a 5. Do I assign a score of 14?

That's how I could interpret that particular statement.

 

[Jorge]

In the BBQ Scores Cooks surveys we did last year Pitmasters said that they believe they hit the table of death 25% of the time. They said they hit the angel table 2.5% of the time. Thats a 1,000 cook sample. How many times at a comp do you hear about someone before awards say "My such and such sucked today...then they get first place....After awards I rarely hear someone say I hit the angel table. I believe that pitmasters could be more objective too.

^^Truth! Statistically high scoring judges and tables have a greater impact. Whether they occur as often is unknown unless there has been some analysis I haven't heard about. For a low scoring judge to impact results there has to be at least one more at their table. A high scoring judge's score counts, always. A ToD puts 6 teams at a disadvantage per category. A ToA puts the entire field-6 teams at a disadvantage per category.

 

[Roast Beast]

In the BBQ Scores Cooks surveys we did last year Pitmasters said that they believe they hit the table of death 25% of the time. They said they hit the angel table 2.5% of the time. Thats a 1,000 cook sample. How many times at a comp do you hear about someone before awards say "My such and such sucked today...then they get first place....After awards I rarely hear someone say I hit the angel table. I believe that pitmasters could be more objective too.

Some of that is the Dunning-Kruger effect. One of those things that, once you've heard of it and know what it is, you see examples of everywhere.