PDA

View Full Version : Should BBQ be judged for tenderness?


SmokyOkie
03-13-2012, 03:50 PM
Work with me here if you will please.

We currently judge for appearance, tenderness, and taste or flavor when we judge a KCBS contest.

If that is the case, where does moisture level and mouth feel come in?

I mean, if an entry looks great, is tender as can be and tastes great, where should we score down for it bing dry or the meat being grainy? It doesn't really fit the description of tenderness or flavor either one.

I think that instead of "tenderness", the judges should be instructed texture?

What are your thoughts?

landarc
03-13-2012, 04:04 PM
I would agree, but, as a person who is extremely sensitive to texture in eating, trying to explain that to people can be maddening, and maybe is impossible. So many people I have met don't seem to understand texture. They all get tenderness.

SirPorkaLot
03-13-2012, 04:14 PM
I would suggest that a dry piece of meat would fail on the appearance AND taste criterias.


Texture, while technical different from taste, is easy to capture in the taste criteria.
It is "Taste" and not "Flavor". Texture, tenderness and flavor all fall into "Taste".

If it has great flavor but is not the proper tenderness, then it should be scored accordingly.

I don't think the current criteria is an issue, insomuch as proper training of judges and table captains of what the falls into each criteria.

IMHO

smoke-n-my-i's
03-13-2012, 04:16 PM
I mean, if an entry looks great, is tender as can be and tastes great, where should we score down for it bing dry or the meat being grainy? It doesn't really fit the description of tenderness or flavor either one.

What are your thoughts?edited by me....

If, IMHO, it is dry, it effects the taste....
If, IMHO, it is grainy, it effects the taste....

so therefore, it will effect the taste/flavor score.

landarc
03-13-2012, 04:25 PM
See, therein lies the issue. To me, taste is specifically a sense, it really should be flavor. Taste, by definition, is the act of determining flavor of something by taking into the mouth. Therein, texture would not be a factor in taste, something can taste good, yet be grainy or dry. Something can be tender, yet be grainy, mushy, dry etc...

It could be argued, based upon the inclusion of grainy or dry in taste, that appearance is also not a required category, as something that looks awful will often not taste good to someone. Actually, I tend to think appearance is often over-rated in competition BBQ, as it is crazy, the parsley carpets, spritizing brisket to add shine etc...who eats shiny brisket for a real meal?

jason
03-13-2012, 04:59 PM
I mean, if an entry looks great, is tender as can be and tastes great, where should we score down for it bing dry or the meat being grainy?

If I had an entry that looks great, tastes great, and is tender, I don't think you would need to mark down a score about it being dry and grainy. Because dry and grainy meat wouldn't look great, taste great and/or be tender.

When I overcook something to the point that it's dry, it tends to be tough and chewy. So I think the tenderness portion of the score meets the criteria you are looking for.

SmokyOkie
03-13-2012, 09:12 PM
edited by me....

If, IMHO, it is dry, it effects the taste....
If, IMHO, it is grainy, it effects the taste....

so therefore, it will effect the taste/flavor score.

If I had an entry that looks great, tastes great, and is tender, I don't think you would need to mark down a score about it being dry and grainy. Because dry and grainy meat wouldn't look great, taste great and/or be tender.

When I overcook something to the point that it's dry, it tends to be tough and chewy. So I think the tenderness portion of the score meets the criteria you are looking for.


I have to disagree with you guys. Have you never cooked ribs that looked great and had a great flavor, but were just slightly overcooked to where they didn't have the juiciness that you were aiming for?

Have you never cooked a brisket that oozes juice, looks great and the flavor is spot on, it passes the pull test, but it kinda grows in your mouth when flavor eat it?

Flavor is flavor, tender is tender, but then doesn't moisture and texture fall into another area?

bbq.tom
03-13-2012, 09:23 PM
Me thinks you are over-analyzing the judging aspect. To me, the 'dry', 'mushy', 'grainy', etc. are all factors in the "Tenderness" criterion. That is where I reflect their score and have been doing so for many years/contests. In the book that I am writing about North Carolina restaurant barbecue I use "Texture" instead of "Tenderness" as a criteria; however, the use of "Tenderness" is what KCBS has dictated - So Mote It Be.

LongTong
03-13-2012, 09:23 PM
Judge for Texture/Tenderness and combine the two for an average just like you would judge different cuts of the same meat in one turn in box...

SmokyOkie
03-13-2012, 09:41 PM
I just think that the term should be changed to texture because that would encompass all of the above.

smoke-n-my-i's
03-24-2012, 11:21 AM
why complicate the process by wording, and personal judgement???? where is my judging manual when I want it to explain the category....

El Pistolero
03-26-2012, 01:42 PM
I think that instead of "tenderness", the judges should be instructed texture?

According to my CBJ manual, the three criteria are Appearance, Tenderness/Texture, and Taste. I know the score sheet says Tenderness, but in the CBJ class, and in the instructions given out before the judging session, the word texture is used as often as tenderness.

So really, I think we are judging for texture.