PDA

View Full Version : Appearance score ?'s


PimpSmoke
05-24-2010, 10:53 PM
Help me out understanding two of my entries last weekend.

Brisket I probably would give myself a 6 on appearance. The slices were too thick, a bit messy and even though I swear there was no TQ involved my ring looks fake as hell. There was also not enough usable point to cut burnt ends from. There is also a hole in the garnish at the top of the box.

Pork I would probably go a 7. There are no slices because my slicer with the steroid sized muscle came out crappy. Otherwise I think the meat looks a little over sauced. Also, I think the chunks may be a bit big.

So my question is, why would I get appearance scores like

Brisket: 8,8,9,6,7,9, was it the fake looking ring or the thick slices that turned judges 4 and 5 off possibly?

My pork was judged pretty consistently at a 7 with two 8's. So how to fix beyond anything else I already mentioned?


Beyond the questions, Mrs.Pimp and my daughter Shelbea were great companions!

Alexa RnQ
05-24-2010, 11:01 PM
That ring looks no faker than some we've turned in.

Since the scoring was inconsistent, it occurs to me to ask what was the overall experience level of the judges? We've found that when there are a number of new judges, they often dish 6s and 7s on food that is clearly 8s and 9s to the more experienced eye, just because they haven't seen enough boxes to know what constitutes good appearance and 6s and 7s feel "safe" to them. Is that a possibility, do the taste/tenderness scores bear that out?

On the other hand, I'm not loving the big chunky rub stuff on the top of the slices that has wandered down onto the faces. Your adorable little supervisor should have set you straight on that one!

PimpSmoke
05-24-2010, 11:03 PM
Yes, their T/T scores were lower than the other judges.

I don't sauce my brisket, and I could have cleaned those off, I agree.

Crunch time got the best of me.

Harbormaster
05-24-2010, 11:25 PM
One thing I see, though it's always hard to tell in a pic, is that a couple of the slices look like they got turned around.

When I have turned in brisket, I like to make it look like the whole muscle was just "fanned out".

Counting front to back, it looks like slices 5 and 8 are swapped end for end. That's just what it looks like to me. I also agree with Diva on the "chunks".

That's one helluva smoke ring Pimp.

PimpSmoke
05-24-2010, 11:38 PM
That's one helluva smoke ring Pimp.

The reason they were maybe turned, and I didn't notice, is because my cutting board almost got knocked off the table as I was slicing.:mad2:

And I don't know about the ring. Might be because I had them really close to the exhause vent on the SKD?

Hoss
05-24-2010, 11:50 PM
The smoke ring looks "FAKE" judges are told to NOT take Ring into consideration.They can't help it.It happens.The brisket looks enhansed to me.Just sayin.I had to judge at a table last weekend with 3 first time judges.The table captain was a PhB and had to do double duty as a judge.It's the luck of the draw.The captain MADE one judge fill out comment cards because he was giving everyone 4's & 5's.We found out that he considered himself a PROFESSIONAL BBQ cook.Like I said,they try to make it fair but sometimes it just goes that way.FYI,the critical judge had NEVER won a call!:confused:

PimpSmoke
05-25-2010, 12:01 AM
The smoke ring looks "FAKE" judges are told to NOT take Ring into consideration.They can't help it.It happens.The brisket looks enhansed to me.Just sayin.I had to judge at a table last weekend with 3 first time judges.The table captain was a PhB and had to do double duty as a judge.It's the luck of the draw.The captain MADE one judge fill out comment cards because he was giving everyone 4's & 5's.We found out that he considered himself a PROFESSIONAL BBQ cook.Like I said,they try to make it fair but sometimes it just goes that way.FYI,the critical judge had NEVER won a call!:confused:

Those briskets were dry aged 3 weeks by my butcher and given to me in paper. Here's a pic of me and my Pit Biootch trimming them.

So, lay off the smoke? How in the hell do I keep the ring from forming that much? Foil REALLY early?

Hoss
05-25-2010, 12:19 AM
I can't tell you what to do.Since the TQ ring has become common knowledge a lotta judges score DOWN on an eccessive ring because it can be artifically created.MOST briskies have a ring on only ONE side.Yours was all way around.Just sayin maybe the judges thought you were enhancing.JMHO.I do not consider ring, only tenderness and taste.Appearence is a category.A lotta newbie judges are told NOT to judge ring but it is human nature.

PimpSmoke
05-25-2010, 12:24 AM
I can't tell you what to do.Since the TQ ring has become common knowledge a lotta judges score DOWN on an eccessive ring because it can be artifically created.MOST briskies have a ring on only ONE side.Yours was all way around.Just sayin maybe the judges thought you were enhancing.JMHO.I do not consider ring, only tenderness and taste.Appearence is a category.A lotta newbie judges are told NOT to judge ring but it is human nature.

I understand completely. But if you look at the ring, you can tell my cooker was stuffed, as the right side ring is pretty weak. That was the side that got jammed against the wall of the cooker.

QN
05-25-2010, 06:36 AM
FYI, there were at least one and at some tables two first time judges at every table at the Dells contest.

Lake Dogs
05-25-2010, 06:51 AM
First, it seems to me that the meat is sitting fairly high in the box. Is it possible that
in transit the meat came in contact with the top and mussed it up a bit? Honestly,
looking at the pork, IMHO there could be a little more pork in there and a little less
greenery, however the pork looks very appetizing. I'm thinking 8. The over-sauced
should play into the taste, not the appearance (to me). Brisket looks fine, but yes,
also the ring appears fake, even though it's not. We have the smoke ring on just
the one side (scraping the fat off of the bottom before turn-in). We do foil, but only
after 4.5 - 5 hours, so ours is also fairly pronounced.

I wouldn't change anything too dramatically. Really. Like in pork, for appearance,
money muscle shouldnt have any bearing whatsoever. Taste probably, but not
appearance. It's not required.

Sounds to me like newby judges...

DawgPhan
05-25-2010, 07:33 AM
I think that the boxes look fine, they could be tightened up a little, but they arent far off..

What I really think is the issue is that we are seeing the results of the rash of new BBQ judges that seem to love to give out 6's and 7's...I really dont know what the problem is, but it seems like I have seen a lot of complaints this year from teams where 4-5 judges give 8's and 9's and then one or 2 judges come in with 6's and 7's even on appearance...

BoneDaddy's
05-25-2010, 08:01 AM
Pardon the pun, but how doyou pull the pork in that fashion?

Divemaster
05-25-2010, 08:01 AM
Brother Pimp, I feel your pain...

Over all, I think you are on the right track with the boxes, as others have said, they just need to be tighter...

As for the smoke ring, the only thing I can think of that would help in the end would be to dip them in the juice from your foil. While it won't change the color it does seem to 'mute down' the brightness and make it look a little more even.

You did good bro!

Peteg
05-25-2010, 08:16 AM
I blame it on pitmasters. Great show, but I think it's the reason for an influx of judges this year. Don't get me wrong, I think it's awesome for kcbs, but it's going to take all of the new judges a while to discern the differences between average que and great que. Back to your question, pimp (great talking with you again by the way) I would definately wrap it earlier or just take the tq out of your rub :). If it happens again a quick sit in it's own jus will darken the meat and make the ring less noticable. Let me know if you decide to do another contest this year. I'm still trying to work out our schedule. Pete

boogiesnap
05-25-2010, 08:20 AM
those look great. pork looks mmm mmm good. wouldn't have changed a thing with what you've got in that box. brisket, boy that looks nice. but agree maybe a little ju to shine it up a bit. also, justa thought, while you're not supposed to judge what ISN'T in the box, maybe they were looking for burnt ends and scored down.
good work!

tonto1117
05-25-2010, 08:33 AM
Hey Pimp (that just sounds wrong :-P) our scores we're all over the board as well. As many have said in this thread, I chalked it up to alot of new BBQ judges. We had a judge give us a 6 on appearence...the rest we're 8's and 9's:confused: and so it went with all other catergories and scoring on the three criteria's.

In any case, it was great to finally meet you.:thumb:

Jacked UP BBQ
05-25-2010, 08:39 AM
I actually love your pork box and would give it a 9 all day. The brisket box to me is a 6. It looks dry and over smoked.

Divemaster
05-25-2010, 08:40 AM
I don't remember who I heard it from, but I think there was a big CBJ class in January up there... Could explain the wild scoring...

PimpSmoke
05-25-2010, 08:43 AM
Pete I think we're definitely gonna try to hit Westfield since the get-in is a little lower.

Thanks for the comments all.

PimpSmoke
05-25-2010, 08:48 AM
Pardon the pun, but how doyou pull the pork in that fashion?

Hit that perfect spot between rubber and mush and let the meat do the rest.:thumb:

INmitch
05-25-2010, 10:01 AM
I agree with the new judge thing. My scores were all over the place on all 4 meats. 9's to 6's. Kinda makes ya scratch yer head.:confused:

Ron_L
05-25-2010, 11:30 AM
We also had inconsistent scores and i think the influx of new judges makes sense.

Frankle, Pimpy, I think the brisket was a 6 or 7 and the other judges were generous on that one. Ignoring the smoke ring (as we're supposed to do), the slices are too thick and the arrangement a bit sloppy, and the meat looks dry. That could be the picture, however. I think i would have given it a 7 but it's really hard to say without seeing it in person.

I like the pork and would have gone with an 8 or 9. There may be a little too much sauce, but it looks good enough to eat!

Harbormaster
05-25-2010, 12:51 PM
I can affirm there was a CBJ class held in the Dells this past winter, likely in preparation for this event. I was going to take it, but had scheduling conflicts.

bigabyte
05-25-2010, 01:00 PM
I don't see anything wrong with the pork. Maybe a bit oversauced but I think it's a solid 8. The brisket appearance doesn't make me want to reach in and eat it, and I'm not sure it's just the smoke ring. It also looks rather dry. That's just the appearance though of course, it may have been just fine, but you asked about appearance. I probably would have given the brisket a 6 or 7.

Divemaster
05-25-2010, 01:29 PM
I can affirm there was a CBJ class held in the Dells this past winter, likely in preparation for this event. I was going to take it, but had scheduling conflicts.
We also had inconsistent scores and i think the influx of new judges makes sense.
I agree Ron... Our chicken scores were

955 966 977 988 999 999

Kinda makes you think... Plus I got a comment card from the judge that gave me the 988....:confused::crazy::confused::crazy::confused ::crazy:

Peteg
05-25-2010, 01:46 PM
I agree Ron... Our chicken scores were

955 966 977 988 999 999

Kinda makes you think... Plus I got a comment card from the judge that gave me the 988....:confused::crazy::confused::crazy::confused ::crazy:

Wow, that's funny. Makes you think that first guy got a bone shard or something.

Lake Dogs
05-25-2010, 02:41 PM
I agree Ron... Our chicken scores were

955 966 977 988 999 999

Kinda makes you think... Plus I got a comment card from the judge that gave me the 988....:confused::crazy::confused::crazy::confused ::crazy:

955 to a 999? Holy Tamale!!! *slight* variance there, huh?!!!

I know the low one gets tossed; joy. However, there's a HUGE difference
in those. One says "this is some DAMNED FINE Q", and the other says
"this is akin to DOG FECES [with sauce, of course]". Which is it?

How can KCBS let this fly? I understand it being a true 8, and one guy
begin generous and giving something a 9, and another being perhaps
overly critical and in a bad mood giving it a 7, but a 5 to 9 variance?
Not good.

PimpSmoke
05-25-2010, 02:49 PM
Don't get me wrong, I agree with your assessment Ron. And the 9's were quite generous, which makes me wonder which scores came from the veterans and which from the rookies?:redface:

Divemaster
05-25-2010, 03:11 PM
I agree Ron... Our chicken scores were

955 966 977 988 999 999

Kinda makes you think... Plus I got a comment card from the judge that gave me the 988....:confused::crazy::confused::crazy::confused ::crazy:
I stand corrected... The scores should have read...

955 766 977 988 999 999

Sorry...

bigabyte
05-25-2010, 03:18 PM
955 to a 999? Holy Tamale!!! *slight* variance there, huh?!!!

I know the low one gets tossed; joy. However, there's a HUGE difference
in those. One says "this is some DAMNED FINE Q", and the other says
"this is akin to DOG FECES [with sauce, of course]". Which is it?

How can KCBS let this fly? I understand it being a true 8, and one guy
begin generous and giving something a 9, and another being perhaps
overly critical and in a bad mood giving it a 7, but a 5 to 9 variance?
Not good.
I don't know...I think I would score something that tasted like dog feces with sauce a 2 at best. A 5 would be far too generous.

bigabyte
05-25-2010, 03:56 PM
I wanted to add a recent observation at a contest I recently judged. Now this is not to stir anything up, nor is it a rebuttal to other comments, I just thought everyone might want to consider this is all.

I was recently at a table where all 6 judges were CBJ's. Two of these CBJ's made similar comments at separate times during the judging. Those comments were that the teams go through so much time and expense, and the BBQ is so much better than what they can make or get at any restaurant, that they score all of the entries high.

As the judging progressed I began to notice a pattern. After all of the cards were turned in for an entry and the judges would start sharing what they thought, these two judges always said the same thing, "They were all amazing". Myself and the other 3 judges would talk about one or two entries that stood out as the best, and one or two that had the most issues.

For example, for ribs, I had one entry where all of the meat slid off when I went to pull off a bite. I had another entry where it was undercooked and the meat would not pull off the bone. After the cards were turned in and we discussed it, the two judges again said that they were all wonderful. However, when I discussed the entries with one of the other judges, that person said they had the same entry where the meat was fall off the bone, and the same entry where it was undercooked.

So at this table, these teams that had legitimate issues with their turn ins (I won't talk about one crazy brisket entry that came in), they would have seen 2 judges giving them very high marks, and 2 judges with low scores, and since I didn't talk to the other two on that entry I can't say for sure but what if they scored them 7's? If so, then you have this wide variance between 5'sand 9's spread across a table where they are all CBJ's.

OK, now that I stated the facts of what happened, now for my opinion, and this is just my opinion. The variance here is the baseline for scoring, or in my opinion the definition of "what is average"? For these 2 CBJ's who like to score high, they are basing average off of what they can produce or buy at a restaurant I suppose. The others are basing average off of what the average competition Q tastes like. That's a big difference. I could see that being a fairly good explanation of the gap between scores of 5 and 9 in SOME cases.

I know, same old issue all over again, but I thought this contrast was needed in this thread was all.

Lake Dogs
05-25-2010, 04:31 PM
IMHO, the "all 9" judges that you're referencing shouldn't be judging. They're there to
be critical, consistently. If the entry was due a 7, it should be scored 7. But the
variance; not. Shouldn't be that far, IMHO. I completely understand a variance of
2, but "judging the judges", I dont understand a variance of 3; heaven forbid 4 or 5.
Ok, earlier, perhaps not dog feces, but probably a dog bone...

Mind you, I've been a MIM/MBN CBJ for over 6 years and lost count of contests; way
over 60, maybe close to 100 by now. I dont understand the variance. There should
be NO "gimme" points. It's a competition. I'd really hate to see someone take home
a big trophy or heaven forbid a GC because they got a few tables of "gimme" judges.
Conversely, I'd hate to see someones very good entry miss a call because a couple
of nit-wit judges thought that the greenery wasn't perfect or that it *appeared*
to have too much sauce (without tasting it) or whatnot...

Looking at his example pics above, being critical, that pork box was IMHO an 8. It
wasn't perfect, but it was darned good.

PimpSmoke
05-25-2010, 05:05 PM
That's a valid observation Chris.

pop's smokin hot que
05-25-2010, 05:06 PM
I would give both pork and brisket 7's. As to new judges scoring low, I think you have it backwards. The 5 events that I have done this year it was the old judges that scored lower.

2Fat
05-25-2010, 05:47 PM
I stand corrected... The scores should have read...

955 766 977 988 999 999

Sorry...

our chicken was 887 788 977 989 989 847 guess will have to taste the chicken nexttime

PimpSmoke
05-25-2010, 06:23 PM
847, harsh!
My chicken looked like doody, but evidently tasted better than I thought.

Brauma
05-25-2010, 07:28 PM
Pimp, maybe it's the difference in the region of the country, but here on the east coast, I wouldnt consider your pork over sauced. Matter of fact, I would bury my face in that box and eat the whole thing! Looks scrumptious.

I agree with the others that the brisket looks dry and uneven. Concerning the smoke ring, do you pop it in the smoker cold, like right out of the cooler? Cold meat usually makes a pronounced smoke ring. I like to set mine out for about an hour before putting it in the smoke.

DawgPhan
05-25-2010, 07:48 PM
I would say that low appearance scores are a clear indication of judging gone wrong. whatever the reason...if the appearance scores are 8's and 9's and someone tosses you a 6 on appearance, then something is wrong.

PimpSmoke
05-25-2010, 08:33 PM
No, it was still a little cold but not like right off the ice cold.

The more I think on it the more I think it was the fact that I put both briskets on the top rack of my SKD near the exhaust. I think I may let them warm a bit at the next one and see if that calms it down a bit.

Smokesman
05-26-2010, 07:26 AM
Hi Pimp - I think you have a bit of an anomaly in your brisket - did both of your briskets have the same funky smoke ring? If not I wouldn't worry about it too much. If your smoker was packed you would have had a lot of moisture inside which does the most early on to develop smoke ring. Did your pork which I assume was on at the same time also have a pronounced deep smoke ring? Do you use a water pan?

I for one think a well developed smoke ring is par excellence but I do admit yours goes into over-pronouced. The look of dryness (it may not have been) would as a judge have me scoring it down more than the funky smoke ring...err...scratch that...what smoke ring!?! : )

Seriously, if the tenderness of the brisket is where you want it then a nice little bath in strained au jus will warm and moisten as well as tone down the smoke ring.

The pork by the way looks great - I'd give it an 8. Nice!

Bratenmeister
05-27-2010, 08:47 AM
I would score both of your boxes in the 8 and 9 range in appearance, particularly your pork. I'd give it a 9. To me, the pulled pork looks great. As others have said, perhaps the brisket may look a little dry, but otherwise looks pretty tasty, and I try to ignore the smoke ring when I judge. If the brisket is dry, that will show up more in my tenderness score, rather than appearance. On whether the pulled pork is over sauced....again, I usually can't tell until I taste the sample because each sauce is different and requires a different amount of application, so any over-saucing would be more likely to show up in my taste score. But if I had to judge the sauce amount by appearance, it doesn't appear to be over-sauced to me. Others will disagree, I'm sure.

Divemaster
05-27-2010, 08:59 AM
I would score both of your boxes in the 8 and 9 range in appearance, particularly your pork. I'd give it a 9. To me, the pulled pork looks great. As others have said, perhaps the brisket may look a little dry, but otherwise looks pretty tasty, and I try to ignore the smoke ring when I judge. If the brisket is dry, that will show up more in my tenderness score, rather than appearance. On whether the pulled pork is over sauced....again, I usually can't tell until I taste the sample because each sauce is different and requires a different amount of application, so any over-saucing would be more likely to show up in my taste score. But if I had to judge the sauce amount by appearance, it doesn't appear to be over-sauced to me. Others will disagree, I'm sure.
First of all, thank you for your response.

I just wanted to also thank you for not making assumptions based on the looks... your comment on the sauce is dead on.:thumb:

Smokesman
05-27-2010, 10:37 AM
I would score both of your boxes in the 8 and 9 range in appearance, particularly your pork. I'd give it a 9. To me, the pulled pork looks great. As others have said, perhaps the brisket may look a little dry, but otherwise looks pretty tasty, and I try to ignore the smoke ring when I judge. If the brisket is dry, that will show up more in my tenderness score, rather than appearance. On whether the pulled pork is over sauced....again, I usually can't tell until I taste the sample because each sauce is different and requires a different amount of application, so any over-saucing would be more likely to show up in my taste score. But if I had to judge the sauce amount by appearance, it doesn't appear to be over-sauced to me. Others will disagree, I'm sure.

First of all, thank you for your response.

I just wanted to also thank you for not making assumptions based on the looks... your comment on the sauce is dead on.:thumb:

I like where this topic is going as it is important for all active judges to discuss these various points. I've even thought lately it would be nice to have a discussion area on this forum dedicated to "Judging BBQ." Moreover it would be a nice addition to the Bullsheet to have a regular "continuing education" type article discussing judging topics and trends.

While judging of any type is primarily subjective in nature we have criteria and guidelines in place to help make judging more consistent. That said, appearance by its nature is the only category of the three that is in fact completely subjective (also why it only has a .5 weighting). I think we all agree that the number one criteria for judging appearance is...does the appearance of this product make you want to jump right in and eat every last bite?

So isn't "making assumptions based on the looks" the whole point of the appearance score? If a product "looks" dry or over-sauced then it will be less appetizing for that particular judge and thus garner a lower score. Likewise, the smoke ring and garnish, even though they are more easily disregarded visually they do have a HUGE subconscious effect in making something look more or less appetizing.

I do agree though, while judging, in no way should any assumptions (may not be the best word here) made determining the appearance of the product carry over to scoring for taste and tenderness!!!

What say you brethren?

bigabyte
05-27-2010, 10:48 AM
I like the conversation here too about judging. I have to say though, when I say I think it "looks" dry, that is a comment on the appearance, not the taste. It can look dry and taste juicy, or look juicy and taste dry. My scores on appearance and taste would reflect that properly. In this case, I would score down because they look dry. If when tasting I found it was tasty and juicy, then the taste score could get a 9. However, it would not be right to dismiss the appearance of whether or not it looks juicy, because if the piece looked and tasted juicy, it should score higher than if it looked dry and tasted juicy.

Just my $0.02

daedalus
05-27-2010, 02:14 PM
The more popular competition bbq gets, the more people want to be judges. While this is great for the sport, it does create a number of challenges that I am not sure the KCBS has really dealt with as of yet, and I think that this sort of odd scoring is going to get worse before it gets better. IMHO, there needs to be a more controlled curriculum for the judging classes(I have heard many a story of different information being taught depending on the instructor), and I think there needs to be some sort of continuing education requirements for judges. Maybe like some sort of online classes where the judges read articles or watch instructional videos, and then take an online quiz to prove they understood the material. That way people could do it from home.

As to your specific boxes, here are a few of my thoughts. Please take them with the grain of salt with which they were intended.
Pork:
I think that the pork box looks very good. I don't think that it looks over-sauced at all. The sauce coates evenly and does not appear gloppy. The color is also good, and I think the overall effect is very appetizing. I would probably give it an 8. In order to get this up to a nine, I think it only needs a couple of changes.
First, I think you really need to tighten up the garnish. They call it a "putting green" for a reason, and this one looks a bit loose. I know that we are not suppose to judge garnish, but it does contribute to the overall effect of the look.
Secondly, the placement of the pork in the box, though not bad by any means, could be improved. It looks just a touch thrown in. Especially based on the large size of the pieces that you turned in, I think that arranging them differently would help. Maybe make two rows. One along the top of the box with the pointy ends toward the bottom, and then One along row along the bottom with the tips toward the top...sort of alternate the orientation. That might give a neater appearance.
Brisket:
That certainly is a mighty bright ring, but I wouldn't judge down for it. I do, however, agree that the meat looks dry. Perhaps if had been brushed with an au jus or a sauce it might have helped...that could also tone down the visual harshness of the ring.
Once again, I think that the garnish needs to be tightened up a bit. Try to get it to be a uniform thickness with a fairly even line all around the box.
The slices need to be more evenly spaced, and it looks like the top 4 are going a different direction than the bottom 4. To me, the box looks crowded at the top. Maybe one less slice would have made the box look more even...plus, people like odd numbers. Even if they don't know it consciously, their subconscious can pick up on thing like that.
I would probably give this box a 7.

Lake Dogs
05-27-2010, 02:37 PM
Whereas when I look at it, I dont take into account whether it looks dry or moist, nor
whether it appears to have not enough sauce or too much sauce. I take moisture
into account during tenderness score, and taste reflects too much or too little sauce.
To me, appetizing can be a bit flat (ala. might not *appear* moist) or a bit shiney.
IMHO, when we start saying/thinking "it looks like it's dry" we've crossed the lines from
one portion of the judging criteria into another.

Jacked UP BBQ
05-27-2010, 02:54 PM
these are from last week in VA

bigabyte
05-27-2010, 03:08 PM
For Jacked Up's ribs, I'd score 9 on appearance. Looks great!

daedalus
05-27-2010, 03:10 PM
these are from last week in VA
A bit gloppy on the sauce(maybe it is just the pic), but not bad though....I would certainly give at least an 8, but I would probably go with 9.

Ford
05-27-2010, 03:21 PM
When the system first changed from start at 9 and subtract for problems/defects/etc this was discussed to death. Scores were way worse today (variance wise). Before the change there were complaints about all judges scoring between 7 and 9 and there were some ties (not all that many in the 4 main meats).:shocked: The idea was to use more numbers for scoring. After a lot of discussion the system was amended to start at 6 and work up or down and then words were added to each number. Here's the current info from the 2010 Judging rules:

"The scoring system is from 9 to 2, all whole numbers between two and nine may be used to score an entry. 9 excellent, 8 very good, 7 above average, 6 average, 5 below average, 4 poor, 3 bad, and 2 inedible"

So dog food is now probably a 3 or 4 in other words edible but terrible:thumb:. 8 & 9 should be reserved for great BBQ:clap2:. It's the other numbers that are a "grey area" and cause cooks all the grief:boxing:. Note they no longer say start at 6.

Now each judge has his/her idea of what average is :sick:. There's no clarification by the KCBS and believe me when this first came out there sure was discussion. Add to that each person has their own preference in taste :doh:. Some like it hot, some like it sweet and their definition of average will be very different. And that's why so many of us cook for one bite and want it hot and sweet but in one bite it doesn't really hit you.

Of course if you're the last of 6 boxes sampled and everybody cooks this way by box 6 you're saying that's hot (pepper buildup) and really sweet. So scores go down :evil:. This last section is of course is just my opinion.

Personally I think the old start at 9 system was better but with the number of top level cooks today I don't think it would work and we'd have too many ties. So we live with this one and understand it's limitations and as the prize money increases we'll see more people complaining about that "renegade judge" that cost them 10K and it will start happening soon.

And remember that the Organizer is responsible for getting judges and there's no requirement for getting CBJ's and that's good because some contests can't get enough CBJ's and others need to keep sponsors happy by letting them have some judging seats. And we all know the organizer is either trying to make money for himself or for a charity so they aren't going to want to pay to get CBJ's.

So while it's great to say we need scores within 2 points i.e. 7-9 or 6-8 reality is the KCBS wants judges to use all the numbers not just a handful. I personally think we're lucky if we don't get a 5 on the sheet and if we get 7 and above for all then it was a mighty fine day and the judges did a great job when in reality I just got lucky and hit a table where they all agree with my taste profile.

Scottie
05-27-2010, 03:44 PM
these are from last week in VA


Why not throw in a couple more bones and fill the box? Get rid of all that extra green as well...

momb
05-27-2010, 03:50 PM
Gentelmen, I'm almost afraid to put my 2 cents in here. Being new to the CBJ work my opinion about the 2 box's is that the Pork looks good. Nice sheen of sauce and plenty for the judges.
The Brisket looked a little dry and just a bit out of order. I have no comment about the smoke ring. It does show that you did smoke that meat.
I would have loved to taste your submissions as that I think would have told me far more about your Que than what we can see.
There is no way to make all taste buds work the same. We are all different and we all like different things and until you taste real wonderful Que in a comp you may never know what wonderful competition BBQ is.
Just my 2cents
Momb

Jacked UP BBQ
05-27-2010, 03:50 PM
Because the rest of the ribs sucked

Jorge
05-27-2010, 04:01 PM
Because the rest of the ribs sucked

Quote of the day:becky:

PimpSmoke
05-27-2010, 04:03 PM
Gentelmen, I'm almost afraid to put my 2 cents in here. Being new to the CBJ work my opinion about the 2 box's is that the Pork looks good. Nice sheen of sauce and plenty for the judges.
The Brisket looked a little dry and just a bit out of order. I have no comment about the smoke ring. It does show that you did smoke that meat.
I would have loved to taste your submissions as that I think would have told me far more about your Que than what we can see.There is no way to make all taste buds work the same. We are all different and we all like different things and until you taste real wonderful Que in a comp you may never know what wonderful competition BBQ is.
Just my 2cents
Momb

Thanks for the bolded comment. As a cook this is the kinda stuff I personally like to hear. Not discounting the rest of your response of course.

Scottie
05-27-2010, 04:40 PM
That's a good enough reason.... ;)

Because the rest of the ribs sucked

Bratenmeister
05-27-2010, 09:14 PM
Jacked Up,

In my opinion, a good presentation of ribs. Apperance wise, I probably would not give it a 9, but would be in the 7 or 8 range, probably 7, because the ribs in the back of the box, particularly the three ribs on the right and in the back (primarily the rib on the far right in the back) are not as appealing as the fine ribs presented at the front of the box. Since as judges we are asked to judge the apperance of the meat, I would feel compelled to give it a lower score because of the back ribs. But the box to me looks like a it presents, overall, very high quality ribs. Anyone, please feel free to comment on my assessment of the rib box. You won't hurt my feelings. :wink:

Smokesman
05-28-2010, 04:17 AM
Jacked Up,

In my opinion, a good presentation of ribs. Apperance wise, I probably would not give it a 9, but would be in the 7 or 8 range, probably 7, because the ribs in the back of the box, particularly the three ribs on the right and in the back (primarily the rib on the far right in the back) are not as appealing as the fine ribs presented at the front of the box. Since as judges we are asked to judge the apperance of the meat, I would feel compelled to give it a lower score because of the back ribs. But the box to me looks like a it presents, overall, very high quality ribs. Anyone, please feel free to comment on my assessment of the rib box. You won't hurt my feelings. :wink:

I agree. However, I would probably score appearance an 8. To get to a 7 you do have to take into account the appearance of the ribs in back but in the brief moment you have as the box is opened and shown to each judge I don't think I would have picked up on it. A picture on a forum can be analyzed more closely.

Lake Dogs
05-28-2010, 07:33 AM
When the system first changed from start at 9 and subtract for problems/defects/etc this was discussed to death. Scores were way worse today (variance wise). Before the change there were complaints about all judges scoring between 7 and 9 and there were some ties (not all that many in the 4 main meats).:shocked: The idea was to use more numbers for scoring. After a lot of discussion the system was amended to start at 6 and work up or down and then words were added to each number. Here's the current info from the 2010 Judging rules:

"The scoring system is from 9 to 2, all whole numbers between two and nine may be used to score an entry. 9 excellent, 8 very good, 7 above average, 6 average, 5 below average, 4 poor, 3 bad, and 2 inedible"

So dog food is now probably a 3 or 4 in other words edible but terrible:thumb:. 8 & 9 should be reserved for great BBQ:clap2:. It's the other numbers that are a "grey area" and cause cooks all the grief:boxing:. Note they no longer say start at 6.

Now each judge has his/her idea of what average is :sick:. There's no clarification by the KCBS and believe me when this first came out there sure was discussion. Add to that each person has their own preference in taste :doh:. Some like it hot, some like it sweet and their definition of average will be very different. And that's why so many of us cook for one bite and want it hot and sweet but in one bite it doesn't really hit you.

Of course if you're the last of 6 boxes sampled and everybody cooks this way by box 6 you're saying that's hot (pepper buildup) and really sweet. So scores go down :evil:. This last section is of course is just my opinion.

Personally I think the old start at 9 system was better but with the number of top level cooks today I don't think it would work and we'd have too many ties. So we live with this one and understand it's limitations and as the prize money increases we'll see more people complaining about that "renegade judge" that cost them 10K and it will start happening soon.

And remember that the Organizer is responsible for getting judges and there's no requirement for getting CBJ's and that's good because some contests can't get enough CBJ's and others need to keep sponsors happy by letting them have some judging seats. And we all know the organizer is either trying to make money for himself or for a charity so they aren't going to want to pay to get CBJ's.

So while it's great to say we need scores within 2 points i.e. 7-9 or 6-8 reality is the KCBS wants judges to use all the numbers not just a handful. I personally think we're lucky if we don't get a 5 on the sheet and if we get 7 and above for all then it was a mighty fine day and the judges did a great job when in reality I just got lucky and hit a table where they all agree with my taste profile.



:clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

Great write up. I too prefer the narrower scoring/numbering system
because of numerical variance. However, it does cause tiebreaker
nightmares (which no one really wants), and without a 2nd turn-in
(IMHO one of the beauties of KCBS vs. MBN is the single turn-in) you
simply must embrace a wider score availability.

I like KCBS's definitions; at least they're defined. And, yes, judges will
always have different taste preferences (this is the wonderful part,
actually, IMHO). However, as taste is rather subjective but appearance
is less subjective (to some degree so is tenderness), I think KCBS
really needs to educate judges better, OR in the mean time give some
governance rights/responsibilities to table captains (or whomever
the right persons are) to prevent anything more than a 3 point variance
and probably prevent anything more than a 2 point variance in
appearance and tenderness. Perhaps a better definition of average,
as you mentioned above.

Lake Dogs
05-28-2010, 07:36 AM
these are from last week in VA

IMHO, solid 8 on appearance.

Boshizzle
05-28-2010, 12:59 PM
Because the rest of the ribs sucked

That box of ribs looks great.

And, leaving out the sub-par stuff is a good idea. I judged a box of brisket one time that was really good. It looked good, tasted good and the flat was near perfectly cooked.

Then, I tried a chunk of point from the box. It was mushy and full of fat. The box would have been better if the point wasn't in it.

Divemaster
05-28-2010, 01:29 PM
That box of ribs looks great.

And, leaving out the sub-par stuff is a good idea. I judged a box of brisket one time that was really good. It looked good, tasted good and the flat was near perfectly cooked.

Then, I tried a chunk of point from the box. It was mushy and full of fat. The box would have been better if the point wasn't in it.
When did you try my brisket????:confused: