PDA

View Full Version : Interpreting a 6


monty3777
06-30-2010, 08:50 AM
Though our overall placement in M'Town was a disappointment (20 something out of 60 some teams) I was surprised that with such a low placement we had almost no 6s. The folks who won must have been near perfect!!

It got me to thinking about a conversation I had with Pat and the Smokehouse bros about scoring. When I see a 6 I am assuming that that particular judge was disappointed with my food. I know that some interpret a 6 as average. To me, as a cook, 7 is average and 6 is a statement of dislike. When I see a 6 I assume that the judge had a hard time even swallowing my food.

How do you all interpret scores, especially scores under 7? (Luckily we have never gotten anything below a 6 yet...)

Just something I have been thinking about. I don't dispute scores I'm given, but I wonder if judges fully understand what a 6 does to a team's score. 6 is the kiss of death - thus I think it shouldn't be interpreted as "average."

Buster Dog BBQ
06-30-2010, 09:04 AM
Well, I for one would like to see a comment card required for anything 5 or below. I would also like to see a way to balance scoring where you might get a 5 from one judge and 9's from others. Why is there a 4 point gap. I got a couple 6's in Marshalltown while other judges in the same category gave us a 9. One of those was on presentation.

On a 6 I can only assume the bite they had was either too dry or maybe too big a build up of rub concentrated in that area. Maybe they got some fat in the bite.

I think you might have hit something there Nate with disklike. I am sure some judges out there judge what they like vs the merit of the entry. If they like dry rub and get too much sauce then they will mark it down for example.

bigabyte
06-30-2010, 09:13 AM
I fill out comment cards for anything 5 or below. Those are entry's where I was disappointed and therefore list what problem I had so the cook can adjust if they desire.. I had to fill out two of them this last weekend (sadly).

I have given some 6 scores as well, but I do not fill out a card for them. I do not think they are disappointing to me as you say. For those scores, there is simply nothing that jumps out in a great way about the product, but does not merit a comment because it is not "bad". It's just average. If I were to fill out a comment card for a 6, it would probably be rather vague like, "it was just OK really, nothing special". If it really had problems, like being tough, or dry, or overcooked, or whatever, it would get a 5, not a 6. If it was cooked and seasoned to a reasonable degree of acceptance, but simply isn't notable in any way, I'm not sure why scoring a 6 doesn't tell the cook exactly what the problem is.

I do not judge based on what I like either, but I know some do. Just this last weekend, two of the other judges at my table said they do not like it when they get an entry with "generic sauce", aka KC Masterpiece or the like. My thoughts are, maybe it is homemade but for whatever reason it tastes to me like KC Masterpiece? Why score them down on that?

I have judged entries that are not to my PERSONAL taste a 9 if it was cooked perfectly, and delivered what the cook was intending as well as possible. I doubt every judge can be as impartial, and for that matter maybe I'm not as impartial as I like to think I am? for example, I did knock a point off a rib entry for taste this last weekend where I thought the ribs tasted "hammy" and were quite salty. I scored it an 8 because otherwise it was a fantastic rib. I just felt it did nto deserve a 9 for the hammy flavor and the oversalting. Most of the judges at the table gave it a 9. After talking about the entries after cards were turned in, a coupel of the other judges thought I was too harsh on the hammy/salty thing. I dunno.

I do not htink such variances in judging shoudl cause a 3 or 4 point variance though, like I would not score the hammy/salty entry that was otherwise perfect a 5 or 6, because it was excellent. If in addition to being hammy and salty it was tough, then I would probably score a 5 and comment on all of those points, but the 5 was really more for turning in an undercooked rib. In my opinion, you're not really in the game unless it's at least close to being done properly (not perfectly, there's a difference).

Alexa RnQ
06-30-2010, 09:18 AM
In this area, 6s tend to be the offering of less experienced judges. They've been told that 6 is average, so they feel "safe" handing out 6s and 7s like candy.

The only shows where we've seen 6s (on down) liberally dispensed were those with a large number of new or nearly-new judges.

Lake Dogs
06-30-2010, 09:26 AM
^^^ what Diva and Bigabyte said. Get a table with 3+- newby judges and some
pretty darned good entries get slammed with 6's and 7's. They didnt mean to slam
it, but that's what happens in a mix of 40+ teams. This is one reason I'm really not
a fan of the 1-9 scoring system; too much point variance and one or two rookies
can kill an otherwise very good entry. KCBS does pretty good in handling/dealing
with this by throwing out the worst score, but a few can kill.

bigabyte
06-30-2010, 09:27 AM
Sorry about all of the edits above...what is in there now I will leave alone. I kept going back and adding more!:becky:

Buster Dog BBQ
06-30-2010, 09:28 AM
If it was cooked and seasoned to a reasonable degree of acceptance, but simply isn't notable in any way, I'm not sure why scoring a 6 doesn't tell the cook exactly what the problem is.

The problem is if you are the only one with a 6 and everyone else is 8 and 9 it is hard to tell what happened. At least to me it is. If other scores are consistent to yours then yeah it is more obvious.

What has been experienced the last couple contest here in Iowa is you get a score of 6 8 8 9 9 9 8 or something like that. That to a cook says there's a problem with judge 1. A 6 7 7 6 8 7 says your food was the problem.

Ron_L
06-30-2010, 09:34 AM
In this area, 6s tend to be the offering of less experienced judges. They've been told that 6 is average, so they feel "safe" handing out 6s and 7s like candy.

The only shows where we've seen 6s (on down) liberally dispensed were those with a large number of new or nearly-new judges.

I think that's pretty typical around here, too.

We had some 6's at Marshalltown, too, Nate, but what really bothered me was that four judges gave us 9's with an occasional 8 and two gave us 6's and 7's for the same entry. It's that kind of inconsistency that I wish could be solved some how. At one comp last year we had four judges give our brisket 999, and two judges give us a 5 for appearance, and then 8's and 9's for taste and tenderness. One of them was thrown out, but the one that was kept dropped us from 1st to 4th. I cannot for the life of me figure out how 4 judges can look at an entry and score it 9 and two can look at the same entry and feel that it is below average and score it a 5.

daedalus
06-30-2010, 09:43 AM
The way I approach that is to base my scores as much on the words as the numbers. If I give someone a 6(Average), it does not mean that I disliked the food, it just means that it was nothing special, or that it had multiple issues. If it tastes like it was marinaded in kerosene or a brisket is like beef bubble gum, I get into the 3-5 range. I do understand what a six does to a teams chance of winning, but I don't really have a problem with that. Not to sound rude, but if the team is turning in "average" food, should they really be in the running anyway?

Whether or not the KCBS should change the verbage such that 7 is average is another discussion. Until that happens, however, I am going with 6 as average.

Having said that, I do understand and agree with the issue of wildly fluctuating scores...if one judge gives you a 6 and one a 9, something is not right. That goes to training of judges, and I think that some reform is certainly warranted in that area.

tonto1117
06-30-2010, 09:56 AM
In this area, 6s tend to be the offering of less experienced judges. They've been told that 6 is average, so they feel "safe" handing out 6s and 7s like candy.

The only shows where we've seen 6s (on down) liberally dispensed were those with a large number of new or nearly-new judges.

Bingo! I think you hit the nail on the head.

monty3777
06-30-2010, 10:27 AM
I suppose as I think more about this issue I should re-examine the purpose of a 6. The fact is that there needs to be a mechanism in place to distinguish truly great food from average food. A 6 is that mechanism. I suppose that I shouldn't expect to be rewarded for average food - and maybe that is what I'm expecting if I am honest with myself. For some strange reason I expect to get calls and I expect to be in the top portion of the pack - so I see a 6 as a sort of slap in the face that keeps us from achieving those goals. However, perhaps the problem is that from time to time our food really is good, but not great. Why should good food get a call when it is judged against great food?

KC_Bobby
06-30-2010, 10:34 AM
Though our overall placement in M'Town was a disappointment (20 something out of 60 some teams) I was surprised that with such a low placement we had almost no 6s. The folks who won must have been near perfect!!


I don't have my score sheets with me, but I can't think of any 6s on our score card at all - just not near enough 9s :doh: - at least in ribs or pork.

Regarding the overall scorings - our 8th place chicken and 10th place brisket were both 170.????. So some tables were giving out big numbers - seems like other tables weren't (basing this off various comments and discussions I've taken part in since last weekend and various team histories per categories - and using their input).

I'm sure all competitions have this issue to a varying degree, but the M'town comp seems to have had this issue exaggerated beyond what we (cooks) have seen as a norm.

I believe this is the nature of the beast of our hobby - judging food is subjective - judging pretty much everything for competition is subjective. I'd guess nearly all of us have benefited and been shorted by judging subjection.

Could it be better - maybe
Would it always guarantee the best contestant that day won - not sure

Would it be worth KCBS tracking each judges scoring history and then assign the judges to tables so that tables are set using scientific methods to help the odds of various tables being drastically low or high compared to others?

Ex: (exaggerated for purpose of example)
Judge 1 has an average of giving a 34.8572
Judge 2 has an average of giving a 33.7142
Judge 3 has an average of giving a 32.5714
Judge 4 has an average of giving a 32.0000
Judge 5 has an average of giving a 31.4286
Judge 6 has an average of giving a 30.8572
Judge 7 has an average of giving a 29.7142
Judge 8 has an average of giving a 28.5714
Judge 9 has an average of giving a 28.0000
Judge 10 has an average of giving a 27.4286
and so on

Judges 1, 10, 11, 20, 21, 30 would be at table 1
Judges 2, 9, 12, 19, 22, 29 would be at table 2
Judges 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28 would be at table 3
Judges 4, 7, 14, 17, 24, 27 would be at table 4
Judges 5, 6, 15, 16, 25, 26 would be at table 5

thoughts?

Stoke&Smoke
06-30-2010, 10:44 AM
Bingo! I think you hit the nail on the head.

If judges are still using the "6 is average" idea, there needs to be some re-intruction going on in the judges tent IMHO.

As much as it may be some of the newbie judges, I think there may be some older judges (the ones with the blue shirts with pink type and before) that may still be judging by the old criterion

I know that is what they taught when I went to judges class a few years back, but now, they even have what the numbers are supposed to mean written on the judges sheet. And they changed the class instruction a while back as well. This is an error that shouldn't be made!

As much as it may be some of the newbie judges, I think there may be some older judges (the ones with the blue shirts with pink type and before) that may still be judging by the old criterion

But as much instruction is given, I was always sort of amazed at the variance that can be seen between 6 judges at the same table.:confused: Always made it a nicer experience if all the judges at my table had like, or similar feelings. I felt that the cooks we judged were treated better if we were all in agreement.

I think I'll stick to cooking instead, as long as we can afford to.

Oh well, I'm a reletive newbie compared to many here, many here do more comps in 1 year than we have in 3, so I will go sit in the corner now

daedalus
06-30-2010, 10:59 AM
If judges are still using the "6 is average" idea, there needs to be some re-intruction going on in the judges tent IMHO.

As much as it may be some of the newbie judges, I think there may be some older judges (the ones with the blue shirts with pink type and before) that may still be judging by the old criterion

I know that is what they taught when I went to judges class a few years back, but now, they even have what the numbers are supposed to mean written on the judges sheet. And they changed the class instruction a while back as well. This is an error that shouldn't be made!

now
Wait...I'm confused. Are you saying that we should not be using the "6 is average" idea, or are you saying that some of the older judges are not considering 6 as average? I am not trying to be a jerk, I just want to make sure I understand your point.

tonto1117
06-30-2010, 11:05 AM
Everyone has alot of valid examples and points in their posts. All I can say is Iv'e come to one solid belief......To a certain extent, "Any given table, Any given day".

PorkQPine
06-30-2010, 11:19 AM
I have judged a lot of contests over the years and I have to say that I think every team should become a CBJ and judge a couple contests each year. When I was trained it was the norm to start at a 6 and go up or down from there. That has been dropped from the training but if you think about it logically, if the scoring is between 2-9 what is the average? I can tell you that after the scores are turned in and the judges talk about the turn-in I am always amazed that there can be such a difference between one sample to the next in the same box. Some ribs fall off the bone and others are chewy, chicken that is not cooked and chicken that is perfect. Over sauced pork or brisket. Variances in the same box is the norm., expecially when there are a lot of new teams but still occur when there are a lot of experienced teams. I know that as a new judge I tended to give lower scores than I do now because I didn't have the experience as a judge to know what was really great Q. The more I judge the higher my scores tend to be.

My tip for all teams is to participate in open judging backyard events, that is truly the best way to see how your product is seen by judges face to face. I know that it helps me compare what I think with other judges opinions. It is somewhat amazing that the judges are as close as they are.

timzcardz
06-30-2010, 11:20 AM
I am chuckling while reading this.

I really couldn't be bothered trying to firure out why one or even two judges gave me scores that differed, because I don't think that it can be figured out.

In a competition earlier this year, I got the following scores for Appearance in Pork:
8 - 6 - 7 - 9 - 4 - 8

It's not like one or two judges got a piece that was burnt, or with a heavy concentration of rub, or like chicken where taste and tenderness could vary from piece to piece.


This was Appearance!

They were all supposedly looking at the same meat in the box!

Plus, it was a no garnish contest so that couldn't enter into the picture.

BBQ_Mayor
06-30-2010, 12:28 PM
Geez you guys, keep this up and your give me a complex. Maybe we shouldn't have won ribs and got 6th in Pork at M'town since the juging was so inconsistant. Go through this every contest. There will always be a low scores that you can't explain. I'm not sure how to fix it just deal with it and move on to the next.

I like Bobs idea. Looks like something that might even out scores anyway.

MilitantSquatter
06-30-2010, 12:40 PM
Funny how no one questions the 9's they receive.

Whether you get a 6 or a 7..it really doesn't matter.. If you get them consistently enough , it's a sign that something has to change if you want a 9. Take the scores for what they are - a relatively quick, spur of the moment score given by an less than perfect judges with varying backgrounds and exposure to BBQ on a given day.

They are directional. Trying to dissect each score on a scoresheet is an excerise in futility.

Ford
06-30-2010, 12:53 PM
On appearance I think new judges score lower but not on taste and tenderness. Let's face it at the endo f the day each judge has personal preferences and it's very difficult to set them aside. Some like it hot some don't, etc. etc. etc.

It is what it is. If we get big enough paydays that organizers can pay judges then they can be tracked and corrected. Until then I say the judges are trying and I thank them even if I don't always agree with them.

And it's easy to explain differences. Last week I had 3 pieces of fhicken left in the box and I tasted all 3. 2 were perfect bite thru and the last I needed a chain saw to break apart the skin. All cooked exactly the same by the way. It's the dang chicken. So I would have scored 9 9 5 for tenderness and been totally right. Fortunately the other 7 peices (or at least the 6 the judges selected) were OK and I took chicken.

Stoke&Smoke
06-30-2010, 01:04 PM
Wait...I'm confused. Are you saying that we should not be using the "6 is average" idea, or are you saying that some of the older judges are not considering 6 as average? I am not trying to be a jerk, I just want to make sure I understand your point.

Daedalus, I wasn't thinking you sounded like a jerk. What I was saying was, KCBS classes used to tell you to decide what your 6 was (6 being average) and judge up or down from there.

I think the thought behind the new numbering system on the judges cards was to define the different levels between inedible and excellent more clearly. I think some of the more senior judges may still be judging the way they were taught, as opposed to going by the newer rules. All I was saying is all judges should be using the same rules. But even when they are, opinions will vary, and so will scores.

In the end, Theresa is right, any given day, any given table has more to do with it than anything. If I see a 6 or a 7 in what is otherwise 8's and 9's, I don't give it a second thought, except to wonder why that judge was different.

We just keep striving for more 8's and 9's, and less of anything else. In the end, getting a call just makes a good weekend a better one.

Lake Dogs
06-30-2010, 01:52 PM
> So some tables were giving out big numbers - seems like other tables
> weren't (basing this off various comments and discussions I've taken
> part in since last weekend and various team histories per categories -
> and using their input).

If this was happening, then this isn't good and honestly takes away much
of the cache of a sanctioned competition. KCBS should look into possibly
other ideas/approaches to mitigate it.


> I have judged a lot of contests over the years and I have to say that I
> think every team should become a CBJ and judge a couple contests each year.

PorkQPine, many of us are CBJ's and competitors. I agree with you, but also
think that to become a CBJ, or some calibre of CBJ, you should have to compete
in two or three comps. There's quite a bit to be learned by wearing the other
shoes. I'm not saying average Q should be judged higher; not at all. However,
the newby factor slamming competitors is brutal. Like I said, I dont think they
necessarily intended to slam them, but 2 or 3 judges at a table giving 7's for
pretty good Q will take those competitors not only out of that event but probably
take them out of any chance of GC or RGC.

I liked the idea of tracking judges (in the scenario earlier) and disbursing them
based upon their tendencies. Not a bad idea at all.

Brew-B-Q
06-30-2010, 01:53 PM
Funny how no one questions the 9's they receive.

I completely agree. I also don't know why they only throw out the low score and not the high. Seems logical to me that if you're dropping one end, you should drop the other.

monty3777
06-30-2010, 03:08 PM
Geez you guys, keep this up and your give me a complex. Maybe we shouldn't have won ribs and got 6th in Pork at M'town since the juging was so inconsistant. Go through this every contest. There will always be a low scores that you can't explain. I'm not sure how to fix it just deal with it and move on to the next.

I like Bobs idea. Looks like something that might even out scores anyway.

I hope you heard the compliment to teams that did well in M'town in my OP!

monty3777
06-30-2010, 03:09 PM
Trying to dissect each score on a scoresheet is an excerise in futility.

So is ignoring them...

PorkQPine
06-30-2010, 06:13 PM
Lake Dogs is correct when he advises that judges become a part of a team for a few cooks just like cooks should be CBJ's and judge a few cooks. The problem is getting enough judges as it is, so requiring them to be part of a team for a few cooks is probably not going to work. I have not been to any event where all the judges were CBJ's, there always seems to be a few newbies at every table but or reps K&K really do a good job of making sure the tables are even in CBJ's, experienced non-CBJ's and newbie's. Nothing is perfect but K&K try their best and I know the judges, new and old, take their responsibility seriously.

roksmith
07-01-2010, 06:22 AM
> Like I said, I dont think they
necessarily intended to slam them, but 2 or 3 judges at a table giving 7's for
pretty good Q will take those competitors not only out of that event but probably
take them out of any chance of GC or RGC.


If what you turn in is "pretty good Q", it should get some 7s. Probably a mix of 7s and 8s.

Distributing the judges.. while equaling out the scores would also increase the number of 6s and 9s on the same score card. It's an imperfect system, but it's the best one we have.

jbiesinger
07-01-2010, 06:36 AM
I don't have my score sheets with me, but I can't think of any 6s on our score card at all - just not near enough 9s :doh: - at least in ribs or pork.

Regarding the overall scorings - our 8th place chicken and 10th place brisket were both 170.????. So some tables were giving out big numbers - seems like other tables weren't (basing this off various comments and discussions I've taken part in since last weekend and various team histories per categories - and using their input).

I'm sure all competitions have this issue to a varying degree, but the M'town comp seems to have had this issue exaggerated beyond what we (cooks) have seen as a norm.

I believe this is the nature of the beast of our hobby - judging food is subjective - judging pretty much everything for competition is subjective. I'd guess nearly all of us have benefited and been shorted by judging subjection.

Could it be better - maybe
Would it always guarantee the best contestant that day won - not sure

Would it be worth KCBS tracking each judges scoring history and then assign the judges to tables so that tables are set using scientific methods to help the odds of various tables being drastically low or high compared to others?

Ex: (exaggerated for purpose of example)
Judge 1 has an average of giving a 34.8572
Judge 2 has an average of giving a 33.7142
Judge 3 has an average of giving a 32.5714
Judge 4 has an average of giving a 32.0000
Judge 5 has an average of giving a 31.4286
Judge 6 has an average of giving a 30.8572
Judge 7 has an average of giving a 29.7142
Judge 8 has an average of giving a 28.5714
Judge 9 has an average of giving a 28.0000
Judge 10 has an average of giving a 27.4286
and so on

Judges 1, 10, 11, 20, 21, 30 would be at table 1
Judges 2, 9, 12, 19, 22, 29 would be at table 2
Judges 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28 would be at table 3
Judges 4, 7, 14, 17, 24, 27 would be at table 4
Judges 5, 6, 15, 16, 25, 26 would be at table 5

thoughts?

even easier would be to randomize which tables your boxes went to, insuring no team got all their boxes to a low or high scoring table.

although, I suppose there would be issues with insuring you box was judged in a timely manner.

does anybody know if the first full tray goes to a different table for each meat? that way if you turn-in at approximately the same time, your box would go to different tables?

big blue bbq
07-01-2010, 07:16 AM
[QUOTE=bigabyte;132429
I have given some 6 scores as well, but I do not fill out a card for them. I do not think they are disappointing to me as you say. For those scores, there is simply nothing that jumps out in a great way about the product, but does not merit a comment because it is not "bad". It's just average. If I were to fill out a comment card for a 6, it would probably be rather vague like, "it was just OK really, nothing special". If it really had problems, like being tough, or dry, or overcooked, or whatever, it would get a 5, not a 6. If it was cooked and seasoned to a reasonable degree of acceptance, but simply isn't notable in any way, I'm not sure why scoring a 6 doesn't tell the cook exactly what the problem is.


That is the best explanation of a 6 I have ever heard. I have yet to get a comment card on a score sheet. Two comps ago I had three 999 and two 989 in chicken and one judge did 676. I know he did not count but sometimes it really makes you wonder and a comment would have been nice. I realize he could have gotten the one underseasoned/oversauced, or whatever piece so the ,76 could be reasoned away, but 5 nines in appearance and a 6 was a little questionable to me. Still go 4th place so it was ok.

Smokesman
07-01-2010, 08:04 AM
even easier would be to randomize which tables your boxes went to, insuring no team got all their boxes to a low or high scoring table.

although, I suppose there would be issues with insuring you box was judged in a timely manner.

does anybody know if the first full tray goes to a different table for each meat? that way if you turn-in at approximately the same time, your box would go to different tables?

That already happens at KCBS events - not random, planned! If you have a chicken box go to table A none of your other boxes will go to table A. The only random distribution is for chicken turn-in after that the reps have a slick little grid card to track the renumbering and table distribution process.

Smokesman
07-01-2010, 09:33 AM
Still new to competitive BBQ and judging, the best advice I've received of late (from one of the best) is "Don't ditch a recipe until it's gone before judges six times!" So the wisdom and inference is judging will always be subjective and inconsistent if looked at singularly. You have to look at your scores for a particular recipe as a trend over time. If you have a top scoring recipe it will show up over several contests with regular 8's and 9's - yes there will be the occasional lower score but the average will be much higher.

Mister Bob
07-01-2010, 04:31 PM
I got these scores for appearance in chicken at our last comp 8,9,8,6,9,9. :confused: Now I'm not saying that judge #4 didn't know what he/she was looking at, but...has anyone ever proposed throwing out the high and low score and using the remaining 4 scores? It might help in competitions that have less than 100% certified judges or when you have the bad luck to land on the table with that one ornery judge. Just a thought...

Stoke&Smoke
07-01-2010, 07:37 PM
I got these scores for appearance in chicken at our last comp 8,9,8,6,9,9. :confused: Now I'm not saying that judge #4 didn't know what he/she was looking at, but...has anyone ever proposed throwing out the high and low score and using the remaining 4 scores? It might help in competitions that have less than 100% certified judges or when you have the bad luck to land on the table with that one ornery judge. Just a thought...

KCBS throws out the low, but not the high

thenewguy
07-01-2010, 10:38 PM
I'm kinda confused here...I've had scores all over the place for a few years now. Three judges will give you a 9, one will give you a 5 and two others will give you an 8.
Why is it all of a sudden a "marshalltown thing"?
I guess I didn't deserve the calls last week.
On a side note, I got my first comment card at M'town.
It said "thickness cost an 8.
7 because too thick."
I took it as good constructive criticism- until I got home and reviewed the scores-not a single 7 in my brisket scores...hmmm.

KC_Bobby
07-01-2010, 11:50 PM
Mike, I hope that's not how my post was insinuated - at least that was not meant as the point. Anytime someone gets four 36's the turn in must have been good.

I don't think the placing or the calls were bad, I was referencing the difference in scores. For instance, look at chicken:

1st place - 36, 32, 29.1428, 36, 36, 36
We have to go down to 9th place before finding another score lower than 30 and that was with a 25.1428, 32.5714, 35.4286, 32, 33.7142, 36

Then look at 1st place ribs:
34.2858, 34.8572, 36, 36,35.4286, 25.1428

Second place pork got a 27.9998 from one judge - in order to get that, they had a 6 in taste - the next lowest score was a 33.1428 - an 889

Of the 40 total calls, only 11 were with scores under 170 - many judges were giving big numbers and given the field many were probably desired, but then some were giving tiny numbers out of the same box.

monty3777
07-02-2010, 07:12 AM
I'm kinda confused here...I've had scores all over the place for a few years now. Three judges will give you a 9, one will give you a 5 and two others will give you an 8.
Why is it all of a sudden a "marshalltown thing"?
I guess I didn't deserve the calls last week.
On a side note, I got my first comment card at M'town.
It said "thickness cost an 8.
7 because too thick."
I took it as good constructive criticism- until I got home and reviewed the scores-not a single 7 in my brisket scores...hmmm.

Mike, this isn't a Marshalltown thing. I referenced M'town for two reasons. First, as I stated in my OP (here's your compliment) for as low a placement as we got we received almost no 6s - meaning that a person had to have awesome scores to do as well as you and others did. I hope the compliment came through - sorry if it didn't.

But the reason for the post came from a conversation I had with Pat, Ray and Jay at the M'town comp about how they interpret a 6. That's my M'town connection. I certainly don't want folks to think that I am disrespecting those who did well - maybe I shouldn't have mentioned M'town at all...

Buster Dog BBQ
07-02-2010, 08:16 AM
I don't think the placing or the calls were bad, I was referencing the difference in scores. For instance, look at chicken:

1st place - 36, 32, 29.1428, 36, 36, 36
We have to go down to 9th place before finding another score lower than 30 and that was with a 25.1428, 32.5714, 35.4286, 32, 33.7142, 36
box.
That was my chicken. Judge 1 gave 667 I believe or some combination of that. All others were 8 and 9 I believe.

KC_Bobby
07-02-2010, 08:53 AM
That was only 7.4286 lower than your next lowest score. :rolleyes:

The judge who gave the winning ribs a 25.1428 should be questioned why. 9.1430 lower than the next lowest score. A 25.1428 is one of the following scores:
8 6 6
6 6 7
4 6 8
2 6 9
Maybe Ray or Jay will tell us is that rib judge #6 got was from a different rack that it was just average as the other 5 were clearly scored the entry as an elite rib.

BBQ_Mayor
07-02-2010, 09:20 AM
That was only 7.4286 lower than your next lowest score. :rolleyes:

The judge who gave the winning ribs a 25.1428 should be questioned why. 9.1430 lower than the next lowest score. A 25.1428 is one of the following scores:
8 6 6
6 6 7
4 6 8
2 6 9
Maybe Ray or Jay will tell us is that rib judge #6 got was from a different rack that it was just average as the other 5 were clearly scored the entry as an elite rib.

I don't have the scores but I'd say the 8 6 6 would be your best bet. I don't recall any 6's on appearance. It's possiable the 6th judge got a different rib since I had 2 racks in the box but both racks had the same taste. Who knows. I'm just glad the lowest score is thrown out.