PDA

View Full Version : KCBS Appearence Scoring


dmprantz
02-01-2010, 05:33 PM
I've been holding on to this for some time, since I took my CBJ class at The Jack last year, and I figure now is as good a time as any to bring it out. There is another thread about garnish in this forum right now, but it's already long and I didn't want to intrude into those conversations which appear to be winding down, not to mention that this covers more. I have issues with the KCBS rules regarding appearance and garnish as defined in the KCBS rules and the instructions which judges get.

My first problem is with the use of garnish. I know it is optional. I know some teams don't use it. I know others claim that you can't win without it, so it's always done with painstaking detail. I will use garnish or not as the rules allow, but I don't like it. My biggest complaint is what a judge is supposed to do with garnish: A judge is supposed to ignore the garnish and judge the meat, but the judge has to look at the garnish to make sure it's legal. A judge isn't technically allowed to score up for good garnish, but a judge can score down for bad garnish, and even though it is optional and not to cause a score up, many people seem to think that is ignored. I think the rules are very complex and should be simplified: Treat garnish like sauce. Keep it optional, but allow it to be judged as part of the dish. That's my thought on the matter. The other option, of course, is to get rid of it entirely, and I wouldn't complain at that, but if it's going to stay, does any one else think it makes sense to stop telling judges to both ignore and score it at the same time? And what's so wrong with allowing a much wider array of greens?

My other issue with this is the entire appearance score. If you notice, I've called it appearance, because that's what's in the 2009 KCBS rules. To me, the appearance of BBQ means how much do you want to eat that. Does that sound wrong to any one? More times than not though, when I've discussed this with other teams and heard it discussed, people mention presentation, as in how is the meat presented to you. Are the pieces uniform? Were the ends of the brisket cut to fit the box? Are all pieces the exact same size and shape? Does the meat jump out at you from the "garnish" and scream "Eat Me?" Was the pork arranged in a nice circle that was appealing to the eye? These presentation types of judging sound more like plating than what I would consider appearance of the meat. All the while, judges are told to ignore smoke rings. Created with TenderQuick or not, smoke rings make the meat look better! Bark can be enhanced with chemicals, yet judges look at that, don't they? Can some one point to exactly what judges are supposed to look for when they judge "appearance?" Unfortunately, I don't think there's any rule changes to be made here. It's impossible to say that you must ignore symmetry and random piles of pulled pork over organized presentations. I do think there are a few things that the BOD should consider though, and I'd like to offer some suggestions:

1) Spell out in the rule book somewhere what constitutes a good appearance score. Is it how appetizing the meat looks, or how well it is plated, or is it both? If it's already spelled out, please point it out to me, as I miss things somewhere. Whatever the case is, make it plain and easy to understand.

2) Perform much, much, much, much better training in the CBJ area around this issue. As I said, I took a class within the past six months, appearance scoring was not mentioned much. We were told to look for things like rotten greens and sloppy sauce, but at the same time told "if it looks like something you'd wanna eat...." I think the appearance score should be more cleanly defined and taught.

3) Require that all judges for sanctioned contests over the next year or so have this drilled into their heads. Make sure people pay attention during the CD playing and that reps repeat it. This also goes into the category of continuing education for CBJs. I think there is too much ambiguity out there for what constitutes a good appearance.

So there. Those are my thoughts as both a CBJ and a competitor. I'd like to do well at contests, but I think the rules regarding the use of garnish are inconsistent and difficult to enforce, and the appearance category is weakly defined. Unfortunately, I fear that the people on this forum who do well in contests will largely chime in and say "I like it the way it is (because I win)" but what do you all think? Is it unreasonable to not so much change rules, but disambiguate and clarify them?

dmp

Buster Dog BBQ
02-01-2010, 06:06 PM
"To me, the appearance of BBQ means how much do you want to eat that."

I would guess a non-garnished box would make your mouth water a little less. There is a lot the garnish can hide to make the food look more appealing. Think of food commercials. Most make the food look great then you order it and the appeal is gone.

We used to use lettuce. I thought the boxes looked good and we would score in the 7-9 range. Well, all parsley and now we are consistently 8-9 because the box looks better. I felt it was one thing I could improve on, just like improving on the meats.

There are so many good competitors out there that this is a detail that if overlooked or you get lazy on it could be the difference in winning and losing.

mobow
02-01-2010, 07:47 PM
I think it would be interesting to hear from some of the competitiors. When you get your scores do you find a wide range on your appearance score or do the judges usually agree within a point? keith

dmprantz
02-01-2010, 07:50 PM
I would guess a non-garnished box would make your mouth water a little less.

You mixed issues. The quote about how much you want to eat it was in deference to uniformity of individual pieces: Having everything trimmed down, to the exact same shape, smoke ring, sauce smudges, and whatever else, all without instructions to look at that from a CBJ instructor or KCBS itself. My biggest complaint about greenery is that that judges are supposed to look at it for the potential to DQ or score down but not score up, and then seem to end up scoring up anyway if it's there.

dmp

Rub
02-01-2010, 08:13 PM
I think it would be interesting to hear from some of the competitiors. When you get your scores do you find a wide range on your appearance score or do the judges usually agree within a point? keith
This weekend in Lakeland I made 4 putting greens that were all as close to perfect as I can get. My meat all looked spot on, IMO. Prettiest boxes I've ever made, absolutely no reason they shouldn't have been straight 9s. I've done over 130 contests which equates to over 500 boxes built. Appearance scores were:
Chicken - 999978
Ribs - 999998
Pork - 688899
Brisket - 899789
I can live with and understand the occasional 8, but the 7's and 6, no way. OK, rant over.

Rookie'48
02-01-2010, 08:17 PM
This is just my thought on appearance: A 9 means that I want to grab the box out of the Table Captain's hand and dig in right now :biggrin:. I judge down from there.

Buster Dog BBQ
02-01-2010, 08:21 PM
You mixed issues. The quote about how much you want to eat it was in deference to uniformity of individual pieces: Having everything trimmed down, to the exact same shape, smoke ring, sauce smudges, and whatever else, all without instructions to look at that from a CBJ instructor or KCBS itself. My biggest complaint about greenery is that that judges are supposed to look at it for the potential to DQ or score down but not score up, and then seem to end up scoring up anyway if it's there.

dmp
But if 7 is considered average then why couldn't they score up?

Are the judges really supposed to be looking for DQ reasons? That was not taught in my CBJ class.

Plowboy
02-01-2010, 08:38 PM
But if 7 is considered average then why couldn't they score up?

Are the judges really supposed to be looking for DQ reasons? That was not taught in my CBJ class.

I think what he's saying is that the only thing you can do in regard to garish specifically to the KCBS rules is to either 1) ignore or 2) DQ in the case where the proper garnish wasn't used or was used for "marking/sculpting".

Other than that, there's nothing a judge is instructed to do with greens.

dmprantz
02-01-2010, 08:45 PM
I think what he's saying is that the only thing you can do in regard to garish specifically to the KCBS rules is to either 1) ignore or 2) DQ in the case where the proper garnish wasn't used or was used for "marking/sculpting".

Other than that, there's nothing a judge is instructed to do with greens.

Exactly. Judges are told to judge the meat, not the garnish, which means you aren't supposed to score up from a good garnish, but if the garnish is illegal or rotten, you can score down. :(

dmp

Buster Dog BBQ
02-01-2010, 08:56 PM
thanks for clarifying. My bad.

KC_Bobby
02-01-2010, 10:11 PM
And what about smoke rings? Judges aren't suppose to factor them in either.

















:twisted::biggrin:

chopshop
02-01-2010, 10:21 PM
:biggrin:did someone say parsley?:biggrin:

Redheart
02-01-2010, 10:34 PM
This weekend in Lakeland I made 4 putting greens that were all as close to perfect as I can get. My meat all looked spot on, IMO. Prettiest boxes I've ever made, absolutely no reason they shouldn't have been straight 9s. I've done over 130 contests which equates to over 500 boxes built. Appearance scores were:
Chicken - 999978
Ribs - 999998
Pork - 688899
Brisket - 899789
I can live with and understand the occasional 8, but the 7's and 6, no way. OK, rant over.

Lakeland was my first KCBS competition. My scores were crazy over all categories. I admit my boxes could have used some work but what I cannot understand is how I could get 999776 on brisket taste. Since I am new to the comp circuit my emphasis will be working on consistent taste scores, then I will worry more about the appearance. But I understand you brother and your rant.

dmprantz
02-01-2010, 10:35 PM
And what about smoke rings? Judges aren't suppose to factor them in either....:twisted::biggrin:

I see the smileys, but I think I covered that. I think it's silly to not consider them when judging appearance, but one thing at a time.

dmp

KC_Bobby
02-01-2010, 11:19 PM
Oh yes - sorry I guess my mind must have been wondering by that point. :shock:

How about strips of bacon garnish? (I just saw a commercial for Beggin Strips)

Buster Dog BBQ
02-02-2010, 07:09 AM
Lakeland was my first KCBS competition. My scores were crazy over all categories. I admit my boxes could have used some work but what I cannot understand is how I could get 999776 on brisket taste. Since I am new to the comp circuit my emphasis will be working on consistent taste scores, then I will worry more about the appearance. But I understand you brother and your rant.
Could have been a dry piece. That's the thing with individual pieces of meats is one has a chance of drying by the time judge 6 gets it.

mgwerks
02-02-2010, 10:16 AM
What about eliminating the garnish altogether? that way the meat would have to stand on it's own...

Lake Dogs
02-02-2010, 10:48 AM
What about eliminating the garnish altogether? that way the meat would have to stand on it's own...

Dont go there; mistake! Been there, done that, have the scars!!!


> I think the rules are very complex and should be simplified: Treat garnish like sauce. Keep it optional, but allow it to be judged as part of the dish. That's my thought on the matter.

Lost in my earlier crap was this very point I was trying to make but
didn't. The rules where garnish is involved are complex at best and
really are confusing. For the sake of the judges, I think it would be
better if simplified. Appearance is appearance. If the appearance of
the product is superior, then score it so. If the garnish supplied brings
down the appearance and looks sloppy, score it so.

Honestly, that's probably what's happening, even though the rule says
something about cannot be taking into account.

stlgreg
02-02-2010, 10:49 AM
Exactly. Judges are told to judge the meat, not the garnish, which means you aren't supposed to score up from a good garnish, but if the garnish is illegal or rotten, you can score down. :(

dmp


As a judge I can tell you I dont factor the garnish itself in on the score. However the garnish does factor into how good the meat looks. After judging 5 contests or so you may get a better idea.

I dont look at the parsely to decide what kind of score to give. I am looking at the meat. Like you say I am looking for how much I want to eat that piece of meat. However there are a lot of things that go into decision. Like "same exact size and shape" or "how it is plated". Platting does relate to how much i want to eat it. It can illustrate how much the cook likes what he is turning in.

Ok, you watched Pitmasters i am sure. remember when Paddio Daddio just tossed his chicken in the box? Now change the way that chicken looked on the outside to something you really wanted to eat. it still wouldnt look as good as something you have already seen. The score will not be good. he took no care in making his presentation. Every molecule in that box tells the judge a story and that story is how good his BBQ is.

Sure illegal garnish will cause the score to go down. When the garnish rules were conceived they decided which garnishes can be used to achive a certain affect. The look that was decided at the time to be at that ime. Just look at red leaf lettuce. It can leave an entirely different effect on the meat. Or look at kale. It would real easy to use. I am sure everyone would be using kale if we could. No effort to use it and it looks good.

You have to be careful with what you say spell out what consititues a good appearance score. Its a slipperly slope. The more you define the more you take away from innovation. I have seen some spectular boxes. If you say for a box to look good it must have the chicken must have the right tone of red. Well now you have to have red sauce. What if you say so much of the bone has to be showing - boneless is out. To clarify without limiting is the issue.

Alexa RnQ
02-02-2010, 11:31 AM
Ok, you watched Pitmasters i am sure. remember when Paddio Daddio just tossed his chicken in the box?
That was Paul from Pablo Diablo. I know that John from Patio Daddio takes great care with his KCBS boxes. :smile:

Carry on!

Southern Home Boy
02-02-2010, 11:31 AM
I've been following a few of these threads on the garnish question and it's quite apparant that folks are pretty passionate one way or the other (but then what about BBQ isn't passionate??:wink:).

From my perspective, the garnish makes sense and the more ambigous the rules, the better. That probably annoys the CBJs out there, but here's my reasoning:

BBQ is an art, not a science. Too much regulation both in how something is cooked/presented and how it's judged, moves the whole experience from the art end of the spectrum to the science end. Now, I recognize that this is a competition and there has to be rules to level the playing field, but in the end, the judges are judging an "Experience" not necessarily a product.

A huge part of that experience is the "look" of what it is you're eating. We all eat with our eyes first. This is one of the first things you learn in culinary school. The more "pleasing to the eye" the food is, the more the mind tells you it will taste good and more anticipation is built up. Anticipation whets the appetite. The mouth waters, the stomach pulses and the gastric juices begin to churn... all these physical factors tell the brain that food is coming. In our culture, these factors are almost universally associated with positive sensations.

So, usually, before the food is even smelled - which in itself is at least 85% of the taste of anything - the brain has already set the stage for a "good" or "bad" experience based on the visual input of what it looks like.

Therefore - IMHO - artistry in creating a visual display that enhances the experience of the food SHOULD be a part of the judging and anything that a cook can use to make that happen should be embraced.

Alexa RnQ
02-02-2010, 11:34 AM
Sure illegal garnish will cause the score to go down.

Another instance that I can think of where garnish would cause legitimate scoring down is when that garnish obscures the meat.

Lake Dogs
02-02-2010, 11:50 AM
I've been following a few of these threads on the garnish question and it's quite apparant that folks are pretty passionate one way or the other (but then what about BBQ isn't passionate??:wink:).

From my perspective, the garnish makes sense and the more ambigous the rules, the better. That probably annoys the CBJs out there, but here's my reasoning:

BBQ is an art, not a science. Too much regulation both in how something is cooked/presented and how it's judged, moves the whole experience from the art end of the spectrum to the science end. Now, I recognize that this is a competition and there has to be rules to level the playing field, but in the end, the judges are judging an "Experience" not necessarily a product.

A huge part of that experience is the "look" of what it is you're eating. We all eat with our eyes first. This is one of the first things you learn in culinary school. The more "pleasing to the eye" the food is, the more the mind tells you it will taste good and more anticipation is built up. Anticipation whets the appetite. The mouth waters, the stomach pulses and the gastric juices begin to churn... all these physical factors tell the brain that food is coming. In our culture, these factors are almost universally associated with positive sensations.

So, usually, before the food is even smelled - which in itself is at least 85% of the taste of anything - the brain has already set the stage for a "good" or "bad" experience based on the visual input of what it looks like.

Therefore - IMHO - artistry in creating a visual display that enhances the experience of the food SHOULD be a part of the judging and anything that a cook can use to make that happen should be embraced.

Kudos, well said, and would be great if the rules allowed it to be so.

Capn Kev
02-02-2010, 12:10 PM
Oh yes - sorry I guess my mind must have been wondering by that point. :shock:

How about strips of bacon garnish? (I just saw a commercial for Beggin Strips)


Now you're talkin' my language!! :grin: :eusa_clap

Southern Home Boy
02-02-2010, 12:26 PM
Kudos, well said, and would be great if the rules allowed it to be so.

Any rule that applies to a competition like this has to walk the line between creating an equal opportunity for all competitors and allowing for individual expression.

The way that I read the KCBS rules - and mind you, I'm still pretty much a Newb - the garnish rules attempt to do that. Are they perfect? Nah. But nothing is.

For my part, I'd like to see the restrictions eased a bit. Like STLGREG said, Kale is a great garnish, but then so are radishes, citrus, berries.... I mean the list goes on and on for what you COULD put in a box to really make your meat pop (:confused:...get your mind out of the gutter...)but eventually there has to be a line. I think the garnish rules for KCBS do a fine job of walking that line.

EatonHoggBBQ
02-02-2010, 12:31 PM
Exactly. Judges are told to judge the meat, not the garnish, which means you aren't supposed to score up from a good garnish, but if the garnish is illegal or rotten, you can score down. :(
dmp


A judge can score down if the garnish is rotten??? :shock:

michiana mark
02-02-2010, 01:00 PM
I've been following a few of these threads on the garnish question and it's quite apparant that folks are pretty passionate one way or the other (but then what about BBQ isn't passionate??:wink:).

From my perspective, the garnish makes sense and the more ambigous the rules, the better. That probably annoys the CBJs out there, but here's my reasoning:

BBQ is an art, not a science. Too much regulation both in how something is cooked/presented and how it's judged, moves the whole experience from the art end of the spectrum to the science end. Now, I recognize that this is a competition and there has to be rules to level the playing field, but in the end, the judges are judging an "Experience" not necessarily a product.

A huge part of that experience is the "look" of what it is you're eating. We all eat with our eyes first. This is one of the first things you learn in culinary school. The more "pleasing to the eye" the food is, the more the mind tells you it will taste good and more anticipation is built up. Anticipation whets the appetite. The mouth waters, the stomach pulses and the gastric juices begin to churn... all these physical factors tell the brain that food is coming. In our culture, these factors are almost universally associated with positive sensations.

So, usually, before the food is even smelled - which in itself is at least 85% of the taste of anything - the brain has already set the stage for a "good" or "bad" experience based on the visual input of what it looks like.

Therefore - IMHO - artistry in creating a visual display that enhances the experience of the food SHOULD be a part of the judging and anything that a cook can use to make that happen should be embraced.

I believe you nailed it as far as I'm concerned. For instance, I was at a comp this summer, in the judges tent, when chicken was brought to the table. As the table captain presented each entry, everyone judged for appearance. The energy at the table was at a normal level. As the last box was opened, all of a sudden the energy at the table went up. You could see judges setting up in their chairs, and an air of "Oh My"replaced the complacency. It was all due to this wonderful, sweet, delectable smell. TThat piece of chicken was probably the best I ever had. Appearance of the chicken in the box was exceptional, taste was incredible, texture was excellent, but it was all set up by that smell. Everyone at the table, said that was the best entry on the table. Just my .02

lunchlady
02-02-2010, 01:06 PM
This weekend in Lakeland I made 4 putting greens that were all as close to perfect as I can get. My meat all looked spot on, IMO. Prettiest boxes I've ever made, absolutely no reason they shouldn't have been straight 9s. I've done over 130 contests which equates to over 500 boxes built. Appearance scores were:
Chicken - 999978
Ribs - 999998
Pork - 688899
Brisket - 899789
I can live with and understand the occasional 8, but the 7's and 6, no way. OK, rant over.

I hear ya brother.
And you know what 9's look like.... look at your track record.

Here's my theory about the 6's and 7's... and I have talked to more than a few CBJ's about it as well, some of whom actually AGREED with me, which was a shocker... :shock:
I think judges that are seeing great boxes over and over and over again, have determined, whether consciously or UNconsciously, that those are AVERAGE-looking.
So now, your previously fantastic-looking parsley boxes, which scored 9's in every comp one or two years ago will eventually begin to come across as average. Here comes your 6's and 7's...

Think about it... the first time you ever saw a rack of ribs, straight off the cooker... you were wowed. Now, after however long you've been cooking ... maybe not wowed so much. It becomes average.

early mornin' smokin'
02-02-2010, 01:41 PM
i'm not gonna lie, the one comp im really looking forward to this year is Williepalooza on LI, no garnish allowed. Couldnt be happier, put your best foot forward, leave the greens for the vegans, and let the meat speak for itself

dmprantz
02-02-2010, 01:47 PM
You have to be careful with what you say spell out what consititues a good appearance score. Its a slipperly slope. The more you define the more you take away from innovation. I have seen some spectular boxes. If you say for a box to look good it must have the chicken must have the right tone of red. Well now you have to have red sauce. What if you say so much of the bone has to be showing - boneless is out. To clarify without limiting is the issue.

There was a lot in here to try to respond to, but this last bit is the most important. There's almost always a slope, slippery or non, but it's already started in the garnish area with only allowing certain types of garnishes. Am I crazy, or was cilantro recently added as an allowable garnish? Anyway, I digress. And as far as what constitutes a good appearance, my CBJ instructor told us exactly how to test texture: You should be able to press it against the top of your mouth, etc, and you should be able to take a bite of the rib, etc, and we already have "standards" of what constitutes good texture, so either he was teaching wrong, and there were BOD members there to correct, or that's well defined and appearance isn't. A lot of ppl LIKE fall off the bone ribs, but that's not what gets turned in, because competitors conform to what CBJs are told to like. All I'm saying is get rid of the ambiguity: Define what appearance really means, because to me it means does the mean look like it will taste good and be tender, and uniformity of pieces has absolutely no bearing that. The latter is plating, and I'd like rules one what judges are expecting.

This one goes out to a lot of the other responses: First of all, I predicted that a lot of the "old boys" would like things to stay the way they are, so I'm not surprised, but I agree that BBQ is an art. While there are a few competitions, most visual art is displayed in shows where every one has a chance to sell stuff. I have no problem keeping the art side of BBQ, and I'm not suggesting that anything be changed per se, but as a cook, how can I cook what judges are supposed to want to see when there is no standard? I think it was Bremaster who once posted two pictures and asked which one looked like a better competition box vs which one looked like it would be better to eat? The overwhelming results were that the better comp box was not the one ppl wanted to eat. Why should that ever be the case?

dmp

BRBBQ
02-02-2010, 02:44 PM
So far I've judged 10 comps, and out of the 10, I have only come across one box that had no garnish, just ribs. At 1st I was shocked by appearance,:eek: but then relized it was a meat contest and not a garnish one,:wink: I didn't score down. I wish we could line the box's up, open them all at the same time, then judge the box's on appearance, from 9 down to what ever. It's a crap shoot on what to start your scores at, the 1st box I look at might look like a 9 since it's the first box I see, but then they open the 2nd box and it looks better then the 1st, I want to change my score but to late, can't change it. So for me, open all box's at a table, score them and carry on with the scoring system.

Podge
02-02-2010, 02:53 PM
All I know is, is that the garnish debate will go on forever, and I see garnish going away just as easy as our national deficit going down. Learn how to do the best with it and go on. I treat garnish as the 5th catagory. Anything less is wasting your time.

stlgreg
02-02-2010, 03:00 PM
So far I've judged 10 comps, and out of the 10, I have only come across one box that had no garnish, just ribs. At 1st I was shocked by appearance,:eek: but then relized it was a meat contest and not a garnish one,:wink: I didn't score down. I wish we could line the box's up, open them all at the same time, then judge the box's on appearance, from 9 down to what ever. It's a crap shoot on what to start your scores at, the 1st box I look at might look like a 9 since it's the first box I see, but then they open the 2nd box and it looks better then the 1st, I want to change my score but to late, can't change it. So for me, open all box's at a table, score them and carry on with the scoring system.

You just said why they wont do it. It is not comparitive judging. A box that is a 9 should get a 9 regardless of whoever else's box is around it.

mobow
02-02-2010, 07:25 PM
So far I've judged 10 comps, and out of the 10, I have only come across one box that had no garnish, just ribs. At 1st I was shocked by appearance,:eek: but then relized it was a meat contest and not a garnish one,:wink: I didn't score down. I wish we could line the box's up, open them all at the same time, then judge the box's on appearance, from 9 down to what ever. It's a crap shoot on what to start your scores at, the 1st box I look at might look like a 9 since it's the first box I see, but then they open the 2nd box and it looks better then the 1st, I want to change my score but to late, can't change it. So for me, open all box's at a table, score them and carry on with the scoring system.

If the first box looked like a 9 then it was a nine. If the second box looked like a 9 then it was a 9. If you wanted to go back to change the first score it means you scored it wrong on its own merit not to its comparison. We are to score each box based on its apperance and then do the same again on the next box. If you are rank ordering no two boxes would have the same score. But if scored on own merit all six samples can get a 9 even though they all are unique in their own way. keith

Rub
02-02-2010, 08:14 PM
I hear ya brother.
And you know what 9's look like.... look at your track record.

Here's my theory about the 6's and 7's... and I have talked to more than a few CBJ's about it as well, some of whom actually AGREED with me, which was a shocker... :shock:
I think judges that are seeing great boxes over and over and over again, have determined, whether consciously or UNconsciously, that those are AVERAGE-looking.
So now, your previously fantastic-looking parsley boxes, which scored 9's in every comp one or two years ago will eventually begin to come across as average. Here comes your 6's and 7's...

Think about it... the first time you ever saw a rack of ribs, straight off the cooker... you were wowed. Now, after however long you've been cooking ... maybe not wowed so much. It becomes average.
You know I think you may be on to something there Michelle. Unfortunate as it is. And if that's true, we're in effect getting scored down. :roll:

BigJimsBBQ
02-03-2010, 05:40 AM
This weekend in Lakeland I made 4 putting greens that were all as close to perfect as I can get. My meat all looked spot on, IMO. Prettiest boxes I've ever made, absolutely no reason they shouldn't have been straight 9s. I've done over 130 contests which equates to over 500 boxes built. Appearance scores were:
Chicken - 999978
Ribs - 999998
Pork - 688899
Brisket - 899789
I can live with and understand the occasional 8, but the 7's and 6, no way. OK, rant over.

I am with you Rub, I sometimes ask my wife or friends if they tripped on the way to turn-in. :eek: I also take the term "Blind Judging" literal for the Appearance "6" type judge. :icon_cool

IMO there should be a "Table Captain" correction made when such score disparity is seen on the table. Let just called them "Table Host" if they allow Judges to be so different. If the range is 4 points, alarm goes off and "Table Captain" get that table back on course.

This is what Teams call the "Roll of the Dice" for the table draw to not get a table with a moron Judge or two that are so much less than the others looking and tasting the same Q.

I sometimes think there should be a "SUI" (Scoreing Under Influance) test prior to sitting at the Judgeing Tables.:icon_clown:icon_clown:icon_clown

Rant never over for such B.S. - :biggrin:

tony76248
02-03-2010, 08:12 AM
I don't cook a lot of KCBS events but I do cook 10-15 comps a year. Appearance scoring is a joke in KCBS. At the Royal I got mostly 9's with a few 8's. Then at a smaller KCBS event w/ 41 teams, I get a few nines and 8's and a bunch of 6's and mostly 7's. All of the boxes were perfect. Appearance scoring is a gimme or it should be, I mean if you lose in the appearance area the contest is basically over for you.... those are free points if you try a little.

After a few contests everyone should be an expert in appearance or they shouldn't even be competing. Something tells me that someone doesn't know how to judge for appearance. I also think that the appearance should apply directly to the meat. I mean if it looks like ALPO score appropriately but if the slices are consistent and the product has a nice even glaze etc.... then judge it appropriately. I have actually read posts on this forum where folks are stating there is a small piece of parsley out of place when looking at a photo of a box.

The judges don't even have the time to judge a box the way you can from a photograph. Anyone who has watched the process will know what I mean.

Basically these judges go through training but the training is not consistent or the scoring would be. Toss the garnish and let the meat do the talking......

SmokinOkie
02-04-2010, 08:13 AM
Two points.

Judges don't really receiving training in scoring. KCBS still spends more time on what DQ's than how to score (because they can't really define it)

If you have serious ideas, have you sent an email to the Competition Committee or the KCBS BOD? They won't react to a thread in a forum, i have sent in questions and gotten responses. Don't ask about the Russ Rule in Pulled Pork, it wasn't pretty, but working with the KCBS does allow for some changes.