Grill Games Kenosha WI Table 646

[Clownkeeper]

As a competitor in this event, I would like to express my sincere condolences to my team and fellow competitors that had the misfortune to fall victim to judging on Table 646 better known as the "table of death" According to the official KCBS tally sheet, out of the 39 teams that competed, this is how this table ranked each category:

Chicken - 25th, 28th, 30th, 37th, 38th
Ribs - 12th, 25th, 33rd, 34th, 39th
Pork - 6th, 28th, 32nd, 33rd, 35th, 36th
Brisket - 18th, 19th, 21st, 28th, 35th, 39th

Otherwise it was a great event.

 

[Burnt at Both Endz]

Could it be that not very many top teams hit the table? I just ask because sometimes that skews the table results and the judges average.

 

[Clownkeeper]

I first thought that too, but looked closer and saw that 6 of the top ten teams including the GC were judged on this table and only one of the six was scored in the top half of that category.

 

[kenthanson]

Capital BBQ in Ottawa this year that was table 650.

 

[Ron_L]

As the owner of the 6th place pork from Table 646, I appreciate their judging abilities.

:-D :-D :-D

But, I do understand and recognize the scoring. 646 clearly was the TOD yesterday, but for some reason they liked our pork.

 

[mbarys]

I feel you. As the GC there and looking back at the scores, if I would have placed one place lower in pork, I was 28th, I would have not won GC or maybe have not been in the top 5. I thought it was the best pork I made this year too!

 

[Ron_L]

I feel you. As the GC there and looking back at the scores, if I would have placed one place lower in pork, I was 28th, I would have not won GC or maybe have not been in the top 5. I thought it was the best pork I made this year too!

If we had managed a top 10 in ribs you wouldn’t be GC either :becky:

Just kidding, Matt! You guys did a great job and we are thrilled that you won!

 

[Sledneck]

Some times i think they might be falsely titled. Maybe they are the" table of truth" ive been both a cook and a judge. I noticed cooler judges take the smallest bite and give all entries 999. Ive seen judges give low score make sense as to why when discussing it in between I like to think i always turned in my best but maybe its not as good as i think. Maybe I did turn in great food but many teams turned in food that was even greater. With so many classes today i think many teams are turning in very similar entries but maybe the others executed that one degree better.

 

[ModelMaker]

I don't understand why cook teams try to analyze to the nth degree what scores mean.
They're scores period! Unless you are sitting at the table and discuss with each judge about how and why then it's just your imagination going wild.
There will always be this supposed "table of death" because in any event there is a winner and a loser, can't change that.
But as a rule the winners still win somehow and the losers blame the table that ended up having the lowest score that day.
Ed

 

[Firefighter]

I don't understand why cook teams try to analyze to the nth degree what scores mean.
They're scores period! Unless you are sitting at the table and discuss with each judge about how and why then it's just your imagination going wild.
There will always be this supposed "table of death" because in any event there is a winner and a loser, can't change that.
But as a rule the winners still win somehow and the losers blame the table that ended up having the lowest score that day.
Ed

Cook teams analyze scores to try and see where they need to improve. You're correct they're just scores. They are scores for the judging of the meat turned in. Like I said the scores are looked at to help cooks where we need to improve. 8's and lower in tenderness to me means improvement is needed. And by they way there shouldn't always be a TOD!

 

[ModelMaker]

Cook teams analyze scores to try and see where they need to improve. You're correct they're just scores. They are scores for the judging of the meat turned in. Like I said the scores are looked at to help cooks where we need to improve. 8's and lower in tenderness to me means improvement is needed. And by they way there shouldn't always be a TOD!

Why would you change your procedures because you got 7's (above average) from several judges? How do you know your tenderness is a problem? Maybe you hit a table with judges scoring correctly. With great scores from any given table it might be a table full of 7,8,9 'ers.
If you get a comment card concerning tenderness then there is some solid (we hope) info for you.

And yes there will always at every contest be a table where the lowest score comes from.
Ed

 

[Okie Sawbones]

I don't understand why cook teams try to analyze to the nth degree what scores mean.
They're scores period! Unless you are sitting at the table and discuss with each judge about how and why then it's just your imagination going wild.
There will always be this supposed "table of death" because in any event there is a winner and a loser, can't change that.
But as a rule the winners still win somehow and the losers blame the table that ended up having the lowest score that day.
Ed

I've been on one of those so called 'table of death' spots. We even had the reps asking us what's up. We simply said, "Sorry, but the entries have really been poor." And they were. You can't lie about it - it just hurts other cooks who are turning in decent food. Occasionally you just happen to get a bunch of poor entries, with maybe one standout entry.

On the reverse side, the table of life. I've had times when everything that came across the table were honest 8's and 9's. It is just the law of randomness -- no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination.

 

[Ron_L]

I don't understand why cook teams try to analyze to the nth degree what scores mean.
They're scores period! Unless you are sitting at the table and discuss with each judge about how and why then it's just your imagination going wild.
There will always be this supposed "table of death" because in any event there is a winner and a loser, can't change that.
But as a rule the winners still win somehow and the losers blame the table that ended up having the lowest score that day.
Ed

Right or wrong, the scores are all the feedback we have from the judges. It is rare to get a comment card, and when we do they aren’t much help. What else would we use for feedback?

As far as the TOD, I agree, good teams consistently win, but to call the rest of us losers is a bit extreme. The teams that hit this particular table in pork, for example, are, for the most part, good cooks, including the GC that day. When a table has 5 entries ranked below 28th place, and at least three of them came from known good cooks, it looks suspicious. Yes, cooks have bad days, but I know these guys, and four more than one to have that bad of a day at the same time is unlikely. Multiply that by three other categories. It is even more unlikely 20-ish teams had a bad day.

Now, what to do about it? I have no clue. I do know that the Southwest Shuffle was used at this competition to seat judges. The reps (who we know and respect) said that historical stats for the judges weren’t available to them, so they went with the only other allowed option.

 

[Okie Sawbones]

Right or wrong, the scores are all the feedback we have from the judges. It is rare to get a comment card, and when we do they aren’t much help. What else would we use for feedback?

You have to admit with some of the attitudes of cooks towards judges, why would they bother? It doesn't stop me from sending out comment cards. Water off of a duck. In fact, I have increased comment cards

As far as the TOD, I agree, good teams consistently win, but to call the rest of us losers is a bit extreme.

Now don't go getting all PC on us, Ron. BBQ isn't T-ball. You have winners and losers. I don't think he meant it personally.

Now, what to do about it? I have no clue. I do know that the Southwest Shuffle was used at this competition to seat judges. The reps (who we know and respect) said that historical stats for the judges weren’t available to them, so they went with the only other allowed option.

At least you are honest about it. I hear a lot of complaining, without any rational answers other than Farking KCBS! Farking judges! I don't know the politics of KCBS, and I don't want to know -- been there, done that with gun clubs. But doesn't the membership have any voice at all in rule making? Any voice in making real changes?

 

[Ron_L]

You have to admit with some of the attitudes of cooks towards judges, why would they bother? It doesn't stop me from sending out comment cards. Water off of a duck. In fact, I have increased comment cards

Since it is blind, what not provide some decent feedback? I’m glad that you do, but that is rare.


Now don't go getting all PC on us, Ron. BBQ isn't T-ball. You have winners and losers. I don't think he meant it personally.

And I didn’t take it personally, but it is also not PC. Good (not great) teams are affected by this at every comp. This week we were fortunate that the table in question liked our pork, but it makes me wonder where it would have placed it it had hit any other table? Maybe it would have tanked, but maybe that table would have scored it higher and it would have been enough to make of the difference between 4th and GC. Of course, that is all conjecture, but a low scoring table does impact everyone, even the great teams.




At least you are honest about it. I hear a lot of complaining, without any rational answers other than Farking KCBS! Farking judges! I don't know the politics of KCBS, and I don't want to know -- been there, done that with gun clubs. But doesn't the membership have any voice at all in rule making? Any voice in making real changes?

It seems not. The membership has been asking for change for a long time, either in the form of judge recertification, different seating methods, etc, and nothing has really changed.

I’m not a judge basher. I’ve judged, and I am friends with many current judges, and I understand how subjective things can be, but when there is an such an obvious low scoring table like the example above, to me, that is an indicator that something needs to change.

 

[Okie Sawbones]

It seems not. The membership has been asking for change for a long time, either in the form of judge recertification, different seating methods, etc, and nothing has really changed.

I’m not a judge basher. I’ve judged, and I am friends with many current judges, and I understand how subjective things can be, but when there is an such an obvious low scoring table like the example above, to me, that is an indicator that something needs to change.

And I'm not saying there are not bad judges -- there are. I have said many times that judges need to be tested. And every year or two, they should have to pass an online test, similar to the judges continuing ed course online for judges to review.

But that is not the only problem that I see... I'll leave it at that.

 

[Ron_L]

Just to be clear, I am not saying that this table was bad judges. It is just a low scoring table. Some of my friends may have been at that table :-D.

 

[Firefighter]

Why would you change your procedures because you got 7's (above average) from several judges? How do you know your tenderness is a problem? Maybe you hit a table with judges scoring correctly. With great scores from any given table it might be a table full of 7,8,9 'ers.
If you get a comment card concerning tenderness then there is some solid (we hope) info for you.

And yes there will always at every contest be a table where the lowest score comes from.
Ed

I'm not going to change anything because of the score that I get from a TOD. I hit that dreaded table this summer placed like 20th in chicken. I thought it was some of the best chicken I've ever turned in. I cooked the same recipe at he next contest and was 1st place. I was answering your question as to why cooks analyze scores to the nth degree. As far as the comment made by Okie Sawbones that sometimes the BBQ is just bad I'm not gonna totally buy into that either. I know darn well that there is bad BBQ turned in, I'm guilty of turning it in. That said, look at the example on the original post. Out of all the entry's they judged that day there was only one entry worthy of a spot in the top 10 placing 6th place in Pork, I guess that's a lot of BAD BBQ for that table, or could it be a TOD. To me a TOD only poses a problem if all of the teams don't hit that table.

 

[Clownkeeper]

Just to be clear, I am not saying that this table was bad judges. It is just a low scoring table. Some of my friends may have been at that table :-D.

I totally agree. My post wasn't to complain about the judges, it was only to point out this particular low scoring table.

 

[Okie Sawbones]

Just to be clear, I am not saying that this table was bad judges. It is just a low scoring table. Some of my friends may have been at that table :-D.

I'd like to see the scoring history of the judges of that table. I know I have nothing to hide -- anyone is welcome to look at my scoring history. The only thing I see negative about showing judges scores is that some judges may falsely score higher to look good. I like transparency.