"Pork" Burnt Ends?

[didisea]

This weekend, I had a judge give me a comment card from my pork entry, saying that "Burnt End a little chewy." In my box is a section of what I call "chunks," which are about the size of my girl thumb, that are not cut in nice cubes like I would do for brisket burnt ends. Just wondering if I missed the memo on this new style of pork?

[ModelMaker]

It's becoming a pretty standard offering 'round these parts. Pork square ends!! However due to pork not having the same amount of internal fal as brisket point these PBE (pork burnt ends) are most often more hard and grisely than soft and delicious.
Ed

[5string]

I would chalk it up to an inexperienced judge who reads way too many forums and gets excited by catchy "buzz words" without having a clue as to what they actually are. Real burnt ends are neither chunks of pork or even cubes of brisket point. They are simply the thin overcooked or "burnt" edges or tips of a cooked brisket that have been trimmed and sauced after the cook. The way most briskets get trimmed for competition, there are no thin edges, tips, or "ends". Somewhere along the way, someone cut up some cubes from the point, cooked them a little longer and called them burnt ends.
Delicious indeed, but not "burnt ends".

[Scottie]

It's becoming a pretty standard offering 'round these parts. Pork square ends!! However due to pork not having the same amount of internal fal as brisket point these PBE (pork burnt ends) are most often more hard and grisely than soft and delicious.
Ed


A CBJ shouldn't prejudge... Just saying.....


:-P

[thesemicullen]

I've had a couple of entries with squared chunks presented in a burnt-end fashion. I don't know if it's a burgeoning trend, just that I've seen it. I would still refer to them as chunks.

[gmag]

I noticed last weekend judges calling them pork burnt ends and talking specifically about how hard they are to eat. I said, "You mean pork cubes?" They looked at me like I was an idiot.

Anyway, to my surprise, if judges see pork cubes, they expect burnt end tenderness. Take that for what its worth. The judges also said they have seen a significant increase in people putting pork cubes in their turn in box over the last 12 months. I am going to go out on a limb and say I think Kosmos Q has something to do with that.

[midwest_kc]

I would almost guarantee the Kosmos DVD have a lot to do with it. Especially if they are looking like burnt ends, as that's how they look on there. He calls them that also. It really bothers me when I hear that. You can refer to 5string's post for why I dislike it. It's the same thing.

Though, I am guilty of calling cubed point burnt ends. I didn't for a long time, but it just got painful explaining to people why they weren't burnt ends, and were, in fact, chunks or cubes of brisket/point. I got tired of doing that, so I just fell in line. I refuse to call something not brisket burnt ends, though.

[ModelMaker]

A CBJ shouldn't prejudge... Just saying.....


:-P


Actually I was speaking from past experience, not prejudging. The next one I run into will be judged as if it were the very first I've ever seen...just sayin...

I have consistenly refered to competion style "burnt ends" as "square ends" knowing full well what actual old school burnt ends are. However unless your cutting up multiple briskets your not going to have many "true" burnt ends. Thus the era of cubed points.
Ed

[tduffy]

I did this last weekend and scored in the top 10. They were nice and tender or they wouldn't have went in the box. I wasn't going for "burnt ends". I just wanted to show multiple areas of the butt. I had slices, pulled chunks from around the bone and cubes from the center of the butt.

http://i1314.photobucket.com/albums/t570/travis_duffy1/porkbox_zpsa601d6f2.jpg (http://s1314.photobucket.com/user/travis_duffy1/media/porkbox_zpsa601d6f2.jpg.html)

[5string]

I did this last weekend and scored in the top 10. They were nice and tender or they wouldn't have went in the box. I wasn't going for "burnt ends". I just wanted to show multiple areas of the butt. I had slices, pulled chunks from around the bone and cubes from the center of the butt.

http://i1314.photobucket.com/albums/t570/travis_duffy1/porkbox_zpsa601d6f2.jpg (http://s1314.photobucket.com/user/travis_duffy1/media/porkbox_zpsa601d6f2.jpg.html)

That's a 9 point box for sure no matter what you call it!

[tduffy]

I did receive all 9's in appearance.
It scored
999
988
977
989
998
989

Judge #3 wasn't happy with something. oh well, his score was dropped

[Big Mike]

Like I said, thats a good looking box. I would be happy to eat anything in there.

[ModelMaker]

I did receive all 9's in appearance.
It scored
999
988
977
989
998
989

Judge #3 wasn't happy with something. oh well, his score was dropped

Looks like judge #3 was happy, he thought your meat was excellent looking and above average in taste and tenderness. A 7 is not a bad score.
Ed

[big matt]

Looks like judge #3 was happy, he thought your meat was excellent looking and above average in taste and tenderness. A 7 is not a bad score.
Ed

Maybe in years gone by a 7 was agood score..7's can end your day in today's comp landscape

[Smokin' Gnome BBQ]

Maybe in years gone by a 7 was agood score..7's can end your day in today's comp landscape

7 is the new 5 :doh:

[Scottie]

A 7 is death...

[bbq.tom]

A 7 is death...

Looking at a 7 from both sides of the tent:

Cooks - a 7 is death (if you get more than one at a table).
Judges - a 7 is "above average" and NOT a "bad" score. If the entry is decent, but nothing special it gets a 7. A "bad" score is 5 or below (actually a 3) according to KCBS.

[tduffy]

Looking at a 7 from both sides of the tent:

Cooks - a 7 is death (if you get more than one at a table).
Judges - a 7 is "above average" and NOT a "bad" score. If the entry is decent, but nothing special it gets a 7. A "bad" score is 5 or below (actually a 3) according to KCBS.
yep, when there is hundredths of a point separating us, sevens take a person out of the running pretty fast.

[Vince RnQ]

The only reason that a 7 can hurt a team badly these days is because of all the ridiculous over-scoring that is going on now. There was a 26 team contest in Conway, AR last weekend and the 18th Place Overall team had a 674.7544. That's an average score of 168.6886 over the four categories.

Are you friggin' kidding me?

We were the GC at a contest in Santa Clara, CA recently and we had ten 7s on our raw score page. Our total score was 678+ as was the RGCs. Clearly a number of 7s didn't kill is because the judges there weren't giving everything they saw all 8s and 9s.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Judges who don't use anything other than an 8 or a 9 are just as bad as judges who don't use anything other than a 6 or 7.

[gettinbasted]

The only reason that a 7 can hurt a team badly these days is because of all the ridiculous over-scoring that is going on now. There was a 26 team contest in Conway, AR last weekend and the 18th Place Overall team had a 674.7544. That's an average score of 168.6886 over the four categories.

Are you friggin' kidding me?

We were the GC at a contest in Santa Clara, CA recently and we had ten 7s on our raw score page. Our total score was 678+ as was the RGCs. Clearly a number of 7s didn't kill is because the judges there weren't giving everything they saw all 8s and 9s.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Judges who don't use anything other than an 8 or a 9 are just as bad as judges who don't use anything other than a 6 or 7.

To be fair, I did have a decent cook :wink:

[big matt]

The only reason that a 7 can hurt a team badly these days is because of all the ridiculous over-scoring that is going on now. There was a 26 team contest in Conway, AR last weekend and the 18th Place Overall team had a 674.7544. That's an average score of 168.6886 over the four categories.

Are you friggin' kidding me?

We were the GC at a contest in Santa Clara, CA recently and we had ten 7s on our raw score page. Our total score was 678+ as was the RGCs. Clearly a number of 7s didn't kill is because the judges there weren't giving everything they saw all 8s and 9s.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Judges who don't use anything other than an 8 or a 9 are just as bad as judges who don't use anything other than a 6 or 7.Agreed 100%..IMO maybe the new tracking of judges has brought the scores up as nobody wants to be singled out as the low man?

[Vince RnQ]

To be fair, I did have a decent cook :wink:

If that was your team I cited, I meant no personal offense and apologize if I offended you. That was not my intent. That contest was just the most recent example of an ongoing trend of obvious over-scoring (is that really a word?).

If the judges aren't going to use all the numbers then the ones they do use have very little meaning.

[gettinbasted]

If that was your team I cited, I meant no personal offense and apologize if I offended you. That was not my intent. That contest was just the most recent example of an ongoing trend of obvious over-scoring (is that really a word?).

If the judges aren't going to use all the numbers then the ones they do use have very little meaning.

No offense taken. I was just having a little fun. I agree with your main point and Arkansas does score notoriously high. I'm pretty sure everyone at that competition was way over-scored with the exception of me!

I think consistency in scoring and getting away from our current three point system would be the ultimate goal, but how...

[thesemicullen]

I'm pretty sure everyone at that competition was way over-scored with the exception of me!

I know that you're kidding, but this exact sentiment is what bothers me with the whole "Judges score too high!" diatribe. I think there is SOME validity to the argument -- 9s are given out too easily, not enough 7s or 6s are used -- but over the past few years, I've also noticed that the quality of barbecue at competitions in this region has gotten a lot better.

[ModelMaker]

A judge starts each contest with 72 - 9's in their pocket. I would have no problem giving away each and every one of them, but you gotta earn them.
If your meat is above average you get a 7 from me, I don't care how much money you spent this weekend, how long you worked overnight, etc.
What really bothers me is judges that only know 7,8,9. Head over to BBQ Critic and see judges bash the hell out of an entry and then give it a very good 8!!!
If every judge from this point on would asign their score by name instead of number I think scores would be a touch more accurate.
Ed

[Vince RnQ]

A judge starts each contest with 72 - 9's in their pocket. I would have no problem giving away each and every one of them, but you gotta earn them.
If your meat is above average you get a 7 from me, I don't care how much money you spent this weekend, how long you worked overnight, etc.
What really bothers me is judges that only know 7,8,9. Head over to BBQ Critic and see judges bash the hell out of an entry and then give it a very good 8!!!
If every judge from this point on would asign their score by name instead of number I think scores would be a touch more accurate.
Ed

Exactly! We're more than willing to take the risk with the money Alexa and I spend in order to compete and all we want in return is experienced and accurate judging. When we started competing, we got plenty of 5, 6 & 7 with the occasional 8 or 9. It gave us the type of feedback that allowed us to diagnose and correct our errors and soon the 5 & 6 became fewer and farther between and we saw a lot more 7, 8 & 9. That told us we were getting better.

How are teams supposed to improve if all they ever get are the top three numbers?

[thesemicullen]

Exactly! We're more than willing to take the risk with the money Alexa and I spend in order to compete and all we want in return is experienced and accurate judging. When we started competing, we got plenty of 5, 6 & 7 with the occasional 8 or 9. It gave us the type of feedback that allowed us to diagnose and correct our errors and soon the 5 & 6 became fewer and farther between and we saw a lot more 7, 8 & 9. That told us we were getting better.

How are teams supposed to improve if all they ever get are the top three numbers?

But that presupposes that the teams around you aren't turning in food as good/close to as good as yours. How do you know they're not?

I don't have problems giving 6s or 5s. I just haven't had to do so all that often.

[Vince RnQ]

But that presupposes that the teams around you aren't turning in food as good/close to as good as yours. How do you know they're not?

I don't have problems giving 6s or 5s. I just haven't had to do so all that often.

Do a comparison of contest scores over the last 4 or 5 years. Look at how much the scores have increased, on average, over that time period from the top of the score sheet to the bottom.

In July 2010, the average winning score for all the contests that month [48] was a 669.

In July 2014, the average winning score for all the contest so far [36] is 687.

Tell me again how scoring hasn't increased.

[thesemicullen]

Do a comparison of contest scores over the last 4 or 5 years. Look at how much the scores have increased, on average, over that time period from the top of the score sheet to the bottom.

In July 2010, the average winning score for all the contests that month [48] was a 669.

In July 2014, the average winning score for all the contest so far [36] is 687.

Tell me again how scoring hasn't increased.

I'm not arguing that scoring hasn't increased, nor am I arguing that judges couldn't stand to use the fuller spectrum of scoring. All I'm saying is that there's more to this phenomenon than judges scoring being artificially high. As I have said before, I have noticed a marked difference in the quality of barbecue across the board in the competitions I judge in this region over the past five years.

Maybe that means average needs to be redefined.

Another thing that's happened in the past five years is the explosion in interest in competition barbecue and the availability of material on how to cook award-winning 'que.

[DawgPhan]

Do a comparison of contest scores over the last 4 or 5 years. Look at how much the scores have increased, on average, over that time period from the top of the score sheet to the bottom.

In July 2010, the average winning score for all the contests that month [48] was a 669.

In July 2014, the average winning score for all the contest so far [36] is 687.

Tell me again how scoring hasn't increased.


meh you are only looking at less than a 3% increase in scores.

what you would want to look at would be score compression. Basically the average difference between the score that won a category and a score that 10th or something like that.

I think that would better illustrate that the scores are actually getting compressed.



So for example.

Dillard 2011
Grand was a 686 and 10th was 671 15points difference
Chicken 1st place was 177 10th place was 170 7 points difference

Dillard 2014
Grand was 695 and 10th was 685 10 point difference
Chicken 1st place was 177 10th place was 174 3 points difference

15 points means that the difference between grand and 10th is that on every meat one judge gave the top team a 9-9-9 instead of an 9-8-8.

So the difference between 10th and 1st is already very tight.

Shave it to 10 points and the difference is now just 1 judge giving a 9-9-9 instead of a 9-8-9. Just 1 taste point for 1 judge in each meat. That seems really tight.

For chicken it has gotten even worse. 3 points between winning a category and maybe not hearing you name called. 1 taste and 1 app point from one judge.

The scores have compressed a lot at the top. Lots of teams cooking great bbq, no doubt.

[DawgPhan]

I'm not arguing that scoring hasn't increased, nor am I arguing that judges couldn't stand to use the fuller spectrum of scoring. All I'm saying is that there's more to this phenomenon than judges scoring being artificially high. As I have said before, I have noticed a marked difference in the quality of barbecue across the board in the competitions I judge in this region over the past five years.

Maybe that means average needs to be redefined.

Another thing that's happened in the past five years is the explosion in interest in competition barbecue and the availability of material on how to cook award-winning 'que.


the average has changed, you are just refusing to score by it.

[thesemicullen]

the average has changed, you are just refusing to score by it.

I'm willing to accept that argument.

But that brings up an entirely new dilemma given the shifting nature of "average."

[Pole D]

Maybe that means average needs to be redefined.



Problem for me is there is no definition of what average means since its subjective.

[bbq.tom]

But that brings up an entirely new dilemma given the shifting nature of "average."

Speaking of "average", in CBJ training we were told that "average" is bbq worldwide/nationwide and that we are to COMPARE what we get as entries to "average" in the world. Yet at the same time they are telling judges NOT to compare with anything that they've had before. Therefore, how can one establish "average" and compare to "average" without comparing??? Just a thought.

Having judged for a good many years now, I must admit that I truly believe that "average" competition bbq is MUCH better than "average" worldwide bbq! Therefore, my scores reflect "average" competition bbq as "above average" on the KCBS score scale. Believe me, I'm NOT just a 7-8-9 judge! I score an entry using the entire range of KCBS scores; HOWEVER, it is fairly rare for an entry to fall below "average" competition bbq at a contest, but when it does I will give it the score it deserves along with a comment card for the team.

Other thoughts about "average"???

[thesemicullen]

:boxing:Speaking of "average", in CBJ training we were told that "average" is bbq worldwide/nationwide and that we are to COMPARE what we get as entries to "average" in the world. Yet at the same time they are telling judges NOT to compare with anything that they've had before. Therefore, how can one establish "average" and compare to "average" without comparing??? Just a thought.

Having judged for a good many years now, I must admit that I truly believe that "average" competition bbq is MUCH better than "average" worldwide bbq! Therefore, my scores reflect "average" competition bbq as "above average" on the KCBS score scale. Believe me, I'm NOT just a 7-8-9 judge! I score an entry using the entire range of KCBS scores; HOWEVER, it is fairly rare for an entry to fall below "average" competition bbq at a contest, but when it does I will give it the score it deserves along with a comment card for the team.

Other thoughts about "average"???

Yes, this is where I'm coming from. Memphis barbecue is damn good and I kind of use the best of it as a measuring stick for average. Average competition que is better and I score accordingly.

[Smokedelic]

Speaking of "average", in CBJ training we were told that "average" is bbq worldwide/nationwide and that we are to COMPARE what we get as entries to "average" in the world.
This is a part of the CBJ training class I really have a problem with. When you're judging competition BBQ, your benchmark for what is "average" should be based on your experience tasting competition BBQ, not any BBQ you've ever had. And, yes, new CBJs will have a problem initially with setting a standard for "average", but should be able to dial it in with more experience. Let's not hamstring the whole judging process just because a new CBJ may not have ever experienced competition BBQ.

[Candy Sue]

No offense taken. I was just having a little fun. I agree with your main point and Arkansas does score notoriously high. I'm pretty sure everyone at that competition was way over-scored with the exception of me!

I think consistency in scoring and getting away from our current three point system would be the ultimate goal, but how...

"notoriously high"??? Really???

I don't believe I agree with that blanket statement (though Conway was high scoring). But, that's just a gut reaction not based in fact study!

[Dan - 3eyzbbq]

What happened to pork burnt ends?

[BMerrill]

About pork burnt ends. They will be in my next pork box.

A veteran CBJ once shared some simple wisdom about scoring.

9= You will eat it all and then tell you spouse about this excellent food.
8= Eat most of it and then tell your spouse how good it is hoping she/he doesn't want any.
7= Eat several bites, tell your spouse how good it is and offer him/her a bite.
6= Eat a few bites, tell your spouse its so/so and offer the remainder to them.
5= After taking one small bite you tell your spouse how bad it is. You think twice about letting him/her try it, but decide its best if they don't after contemplating the ride home together. You forego eating the rest. One bite is enough.
4= You are hesitant in trying it. After a quick taste, you were right and quickly spit it out because it taste as bad as it looks and smells. You quickly discard the rest.
2= Will not eat, can not eat, shall not eat. The cook shouldn't have turned in this crap.

[Head Foolz]

What happened to pork burnt ends?

The judges ate them all..... :thumb: