PDA

View Full Version : Poll Regarding Comment Cards - Please Vote


Vince RnQ
01-09-2011, 04:04 PM
Anyone who has done more than a handful of competitions has probably received a pretty harsh score or two from the judges on one of their entries. It's never fun to see a 5, a 4 or even lower on your score sheet but it stings even more when you don't get any kind of explanation as to why that score was given.

I have long held that if a judge gives a score lower than a 6, a comment card should be required from that judge. The argument against this idea has always been that if a judge is required to explain themselves, they'll simply not score lower than a 6 which will unfairly alter the true results. I think that is complete hogwash.

The teams hang it all out there every time they turn in a box and if a judge thinks it is deserving of a low score they should be able to articulate their reasoning without any difficulty. There are a myriad of valid reasons for low scores including but not limited to poor texture, over-seasoning, under-seasoning, over-smoked, etc. A straightforward comment would make it very clear to the team what that judge thought should change in order to improve the score. No drama, no disrespect, just a simple explanation for the score.

All a team really wants to know from a judge when they get a low score is "why did you think it deserved that score?" Until KCBS begins to require this simple level of accountability from the judges, don't expect many comment cards on those low scores.

Please take a moment to cast a vote in this poll.

Thanks!

Ford
01-09-2011, 04:18 PM
most of the KCBS comment cards I have received are useless.

bbqbull
01-09-2011, 04:28 PM
I voted yes as any information from the judges would be better than no information at all.
I mean if I can get a bit of constructive critisism is better than being left clueless.
Kind of like your kid going to school and you have no conferences or a report card for your childs progress.
They just flunked your kid w/o any explanation.

Finney
01-09-2011, 04:36 PM
I think they should be required to give comment cards for EVERY entry, not just the bad ones.

Just tell what you liked or didn't like. It doesn't have to be a novel.

(I didn't vote yes or no because of my answer)

G$
01-09-2011, 05:00 PM
Ford, I was going to agree with your point, but Vince added that there could even be some simple, stock reason codes, thta allow quick expansion. Knowing your 5 rated pork was "poor texture: mushy" can't hurt. Likewise, if it said "Taste issue: too Salty". These simple comments would help our results, and WE could decoide what might have gone wrong, did one judge get an outlier, do we have a trend, etc.

I want to clarify the 'cut off mark'. 5 would be plausinble to me. I would not expect comments on 6s. This would not create a ton of extra work, and i don't think this would dis-incent fair judging.

One other thing: I'd collect a lot of comment cards. :icon_blush:

Bentley
01-09-2011, 05:23 PM
Voted No.

I am a firm beliver in comment cards, filled out several at Tom's Farm contest. Fairly detailed ones. Much like I dont think you can legislate morality, I do not think you can force someone to comment on their score. I have over 20 contests under my belt...I would venture to guess that any judge that has over ten is going to fill one out if they give below a six, I know I sure owe it to the team, and I expect it when I compete. So you mandate a comment card and they end up writing on it, "this was not good"...What is the Rep to do? Does he now demand a more detailed explaination? Good luck with that one...

The inexperienced judge, whether CBJ or not probably could not articulate why they gave it the score they did any way, they are not trained enough yet.

If you want to effect a change, start having KCBS concentrate on contuning education, if it cost me and extra $25 a year to be a CBJ so be it...I have to do it to keep my Insurance licence active. And if folks throw the argument in my face that that will drive judges away...Hey, come on now, which judges do you think it will drive away? The lazy ones, the ones that arent really into it, and give a 4 without a comment card, and dont we wanna get rid of those Wanker's anyway?

EatonHoggBBQ
01-09-2011, 06:08 PM
Voted No.

If you want to effect a change, start having KCBS concentrate on contuning education,


Not to hijack this thread but just what would be included in the continued education of current judges? :confused:

Lake Dogs
01-09-2011, 06:24 PM
I dont know, I voted yes. Refer to Mista's 744 card. Frankly, even a useless
explanation is better than no explanation. At least then you'd KNOW the judge
was a clueless butt.

CBQ
01-09-2011, 07:06 PM
My favorite comment cards are the ones where they say they scored you down for some issue that KCBS rules says they aren't supposed to judge on, like food temp.

Ford
01-09-2011, 07:07 PM
Ford, I was going to agree with your point, but Vince added that there could even be some simple, stock reason codes, thta allow quick expansion. Knowing your 5 rated pork was "poor texture: mushy" can't hurt. Likewise, if it said "Taste issue: too Salty". These simple comments would help our results, and WE could decoide what might have gone wrong, did one judge get an outlier, do we have a trend, etc.

I want to clarify the 'cut off mark'. 5 would be plausinble to me. I would not expect comments on 6s. This would not create a ton of extra work, and i don't think this would dis-incent fair judging.

One other thing: I'd collect a lot of comment cards. :icon_blush:
OK but when you get 5 8's or 9's on taste and 1 5 then what good is the comment to you. too salty for one judge but fine for the others is no valid input just one rogue judge.

Alexa RnQ
01-09-2011, 07:11 PM
There's no concept that's idiot-proof, but summarily dismissing a much-needed reality check because it can be misused is a mistake.

JD McGee
01-09-2011, 07:23 PM
I welcome the comment cards for the most part...some are even downright hilarious...like the one I got that said I forgot to remove the membrane from my pork butt...true story! :becky:

Bentley
01-09-2011, 07:45 PM
Not to hijack this thread but just what would be included in the continued education of current judges? :confused:


I guess maybe an advanced class. You have that basics out of the way, you now know to look out for the Evil Carrot tops & Red tipped lettuce.

Maybe we could progress into what properly cook meat is, subjective, somewhat, but not really in my mind. If we give you a piece of chicken, rib, pork and brisket. One has been cooked to 155°, one has been cooked to 195° and one has been cooked to 220°, (might have to make an adjustment on temperatures with chicken), do we as experienced cooks think they will all be the same? I bet the guy giving 4’s think they are.

Taste, harder, you will probably need someone with better SAT’s then me for that, but I bet it could be done…

Appearance…well, we already covered that in class one!

RangerJ
01-09-2011, 07:53 PM
Voted Yes. I've recently left KCBS dominant territory and moved back to Texas.

If you currently think your comment cards are worthless, try getting 0 feedback at almost all competitions in the state. Especially if your a relatively new team trying to figure things out.

MoKanMeathead
01-09-2011, 08:11 PM
Voted NO. If you require comment cards there will be some judges score within the range that doesn't require a card just so they don't have to fill one out. Also, every comment card I have seen was pretty much a joke.

Rookie'48
01-09-2011, 08:18 PM
I'm going to agree on getting the cards for the most part. If a card says that your food tastes bad with no explanation, just toss the card in the trash along with the judge that wrote it. If the card says something like "all I can taste is salt" then at least you've got an idea of why he gave you a chit score.
Now for the two points against forced cards. First, if a card is required on a 5 or lower, you're going to see a lot of 6's & nothing lower. Second (and more important) is the judge who looks you dead in the eye & says "Don't be upset --- a 6 is average according to KCBS". If you look at the scoring card it says right there 6 Average, but it doesn't say average of "what". Is it the average of all of the BBQ that you've ever eaten? The average of BBQ restaraunt food? The average of your typical comp entry? The average of the "world's best boiled / BBQ ribs" that your neighbor makes?
Maybe there should be some continueing education classes offered / required for judges. I'd take a class every once in a while if it would help me to be a better judge. By the way, I'm a Master CBJ who judges between 12 & 15 contests a year.

Red Valley BBQ
01-09-2011, 08:49 PM
The KCBS reps should talk to a judge that gives a 4 or lower and doesn't fill out a comment card and possibly ask them if they would like to fill out a card. After all, the reps see the scores while entering them into the system, so they know when low scores are given out. The only downside to this, especially in large contests, is that during the time it takes to enter scores into the system, it may be too late as the next category may already be at the table. So maybe this responsibilty should fall to the table captains. They look at the score sheets to be sure they are filled out correctly, how much more of a problem would it be to scan the scores looking for 4's or lower and ask that judge if they would like to fill out a card. Present it as an option, not a requirement, and I think we would still see accurate scoring.

ModelMaker
01-09-2011, 09:14 PM
Mandatory cards for a certain score will never wash. Most of my fellow judges are good conscientious people who enjoy the past time of BBQ. The rest are a bunch of dicks who just show up. I have used comment cards and often see others at my tables doing so also. The dicks won't, "how dare you question my judging"....
I too would'nt shy away from continuing training, but what would you have me trained to do? I have been judging for 5 years, hope to become a master judge this year at the Jack. I cook at least once a year (I am a award winner!!!!) granted I don't know it all but I got a pretty good start.
If KCBS really wants to get after the odd scores (like they are posed to do this year) I think the only place to start is indeed the table captain. He sees the odd score and should point it out to the rep who immediatly should go and request the judge to create a comment card.
Ed

Hub
01-10-2011, 05:28 AM
I always fill out a comment card when I rate anything 6 or below AND fill one out when I give a 9. This is a courtesy to the cooks and, since I cook too, I know it is appreciated. However, it can be cumbersome to make it a requirement. If you are at the last table in the rotation you often have minimal time between meats. Also, some judges who may have great taste and judging skills are not good at writing. Let's keep it optional.

G$
01-10-2011, 08:25 AM
OK but when you get 5 8's or 9's on taste and 1 5 then what good is the comment to you. too salty for one judge but fine for the others is no valid input just one rogue judge.

And that is not worth knowing?

Better to know that than wonder if one of your chicken skins somehow got rubbery, etc.

G$
01-10-2011, 08:29 AM
Mandatory cards for a certain score will never wash. Most of my fellow judges are good conscientious people who enjoy the past time of BBQ. The rest are a bunch of dicks who just show up.
Then maybe it will have the intended effect. :-P

If it is 'mandatory', either they do it or they don't judge.

Jorge
01-10-2011, 08:43 AM
I'm a qualified 'yes'. I could support that, if there was a statistical review after one year. If there is clear statistical evidence that judges were raising their scores to avoid filling out a card I'd like to see the practice ended.

Buster Dog BBQ
01-10-2011, 08:47 AM
Maybe the comment cards need reworked to help better define the low scores so they are more meaningful to the cooks.

ModelMaker
01-10-2011, 09:23 AM
Maybe the comment cards need reworked to help better define the low scores so they are more meaningful to the cooks.

Now there's a good idea. The biggest reason for not filling out a card is the time involved and all the info input in order to get it done. Simplify the comment card and it will likely lead to more cooperation.
Ed

Divemaster
01-10-2011, 09:41 AM
I voted YES. In three years I've only received one card with more than a few 'strange' scores...

OK but when you get 5 8's or 9's on taste and 1 5 then what good is the comment to you. too salty for one judge but fine for the others is no valid input just one rogue judge.

And that is not worth knowing?

Better to know that than wonder if one of your chicken skins somehow got rubbery, etc.

Just knowing is a plus.
Maybe the comment cards need reworked to help better define the low scores so they are more meaningful to the cooks.

Now there's a good idea. The biggest reason for not filling out a card is the time involved and all the info input in order to get it done. Simplify the comment card and it will likely lead to more cooperation.
Ed

I would love for the comment cards to be attached to the score sheets with some standard comments (to salty, no flavor, tough, mushy, ect) and check off boxes as well as an area for free format comments.

theflints01
01-10-2011, 09:49 AM
I voted yes because I feel in general an oppurtinty to get some info is better than not. However I also feel that the judges will then need additional training in filling out the comment cards so they are meaningful. I was stoked the first time I did a comp where we got comment cards. Then I read them. The very first three comment cards I got read in this order: Pork - Judge 1: "Flavor bland". OK, good to know. Judge 2: "Great Flavor". Awesome. Judge 3: "Too Salty". WTF? I do prefer to get comment cards but have to spend a few minutes to decipher them to try and figure out which ones are legit judges from the ones who are doing this for a free meal. I have to acquire a certain number of continuing education credits to keep my license at work, I think a program for judges would be great also.

Slamdunkpro
01-10-2011, 09:49 AM
Comment cards are a band-aid on a larger issue - consistency in scoring. You can't have consistent judging without some kind of quantifiable standard to judge (compare) against. "Judge each entry as the cook intended" is not a quantifiable standard. If you want more consistency in scoring then CBJ candidates need to learn more than what red tipped lettuce and sauce pooling looks like in class (As Bentley suggested).

Someone posted an excellent post on "The myth of the CBJ" a while back. The short version is that the whole CBJ program is nothing more than a (very successful) membership gimmick. No one fails and no one is turned away as long as their check clears. KCBS dosen't want it to be difficult to become a CBJ. I'd speculate that casual CBJs are 75% of the membership body. For those running for the board, I'd be very interested in knowing what the year to year CBJ membership retention rate is.

KC_Bobby
01-10-2011, 09:51 AM
I have mixed feelings, so I'm not going to vote (at the moment). I am thankful for the one comment card I received in 2009, it definitely helped.

To add to ModelMaker and BusterDog's comments, how about a comment card that has different reasons printed on it (too salty, spicy, tough, dry, fatty, overcooked, sloppy, etc) and the judge check marks the reasons and can add a comment accordingly.

Then make it mandatory for judges to fill out if their score in a category is 4 or below OR is 2 points higher/lower than the rest of the table. I don't know if that's the answer.

I do wish the judging class taught more about taste and tenderness - undercooking and overcooking some class room boxes and then having an experienced cook/judge let the class know what he/she would have scored it. Even the best cooks wouldn't always cook a 999 box for a judging class and that would be good as long as the cook was honest on their assessment so the class would get a good representation of what a realistic score would be. Box prep would take way too much time, not sure I have the answer there. Photos of "proven box formats" that get good scores would be nice, but it might hinder real scores when teams turn in something less than perfect garnish (which shouldn't be accounted for).

Alexa RnQ
01-10-2011, 10:21 AM
how about a comment card that has different reasons printed on it (too salty, spicy, tough, dry, fatty, overcooked, sloppy, etc) and the judge check marks the reasons and can add a comment accordingly.

I think this is entirely reasonable. It's hard to argue that it's too difficult or time-consuming for a judge to check off a box. Hell, they could even make TWO checks!

In fact, let's start a list of attributes that would lend themselves to checkboxes, both negative AND positive:

Appearance
Sloppy, sparse, symmetrical
[Just starting points, as appearance is the most problematic of the three. What else might there be that isn't micromanaging or indicative of personal preference?]

Taste
Salty, spicy, bland, well-balanced, oversauced
[Some of this might get some lop-over from texture, as that can influence perception of taste too, but it can address anything that really sticks out.]

Tenderness
Tough, dry, fatty, overcooked, raw (!)

Just a few checkboxes would really speed the process up, I think, and encourage compliance. Competitors, add whichever ones you've gotten, and judges, which ones would you find most useful? -- I'm off to review our cards.

Bunny
01-10-2011, 10:42 AM
As a rep I encourage comment cards for low scores only. Getting a high score already tells you you're doing something right. But I would not require it. It would be longer waiting times at the awards and longer times between categories, and heaven forbid if we lost one of those comment cards! Then there are the cards that half of them don't have team number on them or scores. I would keep it voluntarily. It's working fairly well now.

Stoke&Smoke
01-10-2011, 10:48 AM
My favorite comment cards are the ones where they say they scored you down for some issue that KCBS rules says they aren't supposed to judge on, like food temp.


Not meaning to hijack the thread, but that's a bit of a pet peeve to me. Before we started competing, my wife and I judged, and both of us had times when we were given cold meat. I don't mean room temp, I mean refrigerated cold.

The rules say "
After cooking, all meat:
Must be held at 140° F or above OR
Cooked meat shall be cooled as follows:
Within 2 hours from 140° F to 70° F and
Within 4 hours from 70° F to 41° F or less
h. Meat that is cooked, properly cooled, and later
reheated for hot holding and serving shall be reheated
so that all parts of the food reach a temperature of at
least 165° F for a minimum of 15 seconds.

I would say if I'm served cold meat as a judge, this rule has been violated.


I voted yes as, even though I agree with Ford that the comments are usually useless, I think low scores should be somehow explained.

KnucklHed BBQ
01-10-2011, 12:14 PM
I'm in the group that would like to see score cards for all scores... PNWBA tries to do this whenever possible. I agree that at least some info is better than wondering what happened...

to the judges that are too lazy to briefly fill out a farking card, buh-bye... dont let the door hitcha!

carlyle
01-10-2011, 12:16 PM
I voted yes. I like a lot of the previous comments.

My main points are: 1) feedback of any sort is better than none at all.

2) If you give a low score, provide a reason.

3) The reps are going to see the comment cards. If the reason for the low score does not seem valid to the rep, it is a perfect opportunity to talk with that judge.

4) If a judge has a pattern of low scores that are not similar to others at that table, I as a judge chair want to know about it for mentoring, discussion, and possibly not having that judge back next year.

Just my opinion.

Candy Sue
01-10-2011, 12:27 PM
I'm going to abstain on this one because I just don't know what's best. I do know that it's bad to require a comment card for a specific store. Doing this evens out judges scoring because they don't want to fill out a comment card.

As a cook, the comment cards I've received have been no help to me. In fact, they just p***ed me off. If you read the scores, you know where you slipped up. Most of the time, when I revisit my entries and judge them myself, I agree with the judges' verdict.

What I really do like, is the idea of requesting judges who are out of table range by more than 2 points to fill out a comment card. But, that means that the Table Capt'n will have to do more work examining scores and judges will really have to spend time discussing the entries just served (which is very useful for judges' training).

Good thread!

Bourbon Barrel BBQ
01-10-2011, 12:33 PM
Then maybe it will have the intended effect. :-P

If it is 'mandatory', either they do it or they don't judge.

I had an event last year where this would have helped me. We had four judges give 9s in tenderness and taste and two judges give us 5s. We felt like it was the same quality chicken that had got us a 1st and 2nd at the previous two events. Now were those 5s because a couple outlier pieces of rubbery skin or did the judge not realize the thigh was not boneless and crunch down on a bone that had the knuckles trimmed off? A quick comment in that area would have been nice. It's rough to win a contest with that recipe then the next event come in 30 out of 32. Scratching our heads indeed.

Divemaster
01-10-2011, 01:18 PM
As a rep I encourage comment cards for low scores only. Getting a high score already tells you you're doing something right. But I would not require it. It would be longer waiting times at the awards and longer times between categories, and heaven forbid if we lost one of those comment cards! Then there are the cards that half of them don't have team number on them or scores. I would keep it voluntarily. It's working fairly well now.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree that "It's working fairly well now".

At one contest I had brisket scores of 999 989 998 999 979 566 and no comment card. In that same contest, I did receive a comment card for my chicken which we had included drumettes... Comment was "the wings didn't help" - score 989.

Not meaning to hijack the thread, but that's a bit of a pet peeve to me. Before we started competing, my wife and I judged, and both of us had times when we were given cold meat. I don't mean room temp, I mean refrigerated cold.

The rules say "

After cooking, all meat
:
Must be held at 140° F or above

OR
Cooked meat shall be cooled as follows:
Within 2 hours from 140° F to 70° F and
Within 4 hours from 70° F to 41° F or less
h. Meat that is cooked, properly cooled, and later
reheated for hot holding and serving shall be reheated
so that all parts of the food reach a temperature of at
least 165° F for a minimum of 15 seconds.

I would say if I'm served cold meat as a judge, this rule has been violated.


I voted yes as, even though I agree with Ford that the comments are usually useless, I think low scores should be somehow explained.


I've seen this happen when the box is kept in a cooler right up to the point that the meat is put in. The garnish is sitting at 35-40 degrees and the meat just cools off within moments.

lunchlady
01-10-2011, 01:21 PM
I look at this from a few different perspectives.

As a Cook... comment cards can be very valuable IF they give you some idea of why you got that 4. The ones that say "I didnt like it" you know to chuck 'em. More and more judges are using them the way they were meant to be used. At least in NEBS-land.

As a Judge... I write comment cards for many 5's and everything below a 5, which doesnt happen all that often. And when things go bad - appearance is fantastic but then the chicken isnt cooked, or the pork is way overdone, I let them know. Since I am a cook, I'd want to know what happened if I got a 994 or a 949. I also write them when food is crazy-good. If I am absolutely floored by an entry and give all 9's, yeah, they know it was good cuz of the 9's, but maybe I want them to know that the progression of flavors really worked and the meat was perfectly cooked.

As a Contest Official... I totally understand the work (and time) that it takes to even HAVE comment cards, never mind keep them with the scorecards and get them to the teams. Up heah, there arent many contests that run over 30 teams, so when comment cards are written, they are kept and usually stapled to the teams scoresheets. Makes it a tad easier with smaller contests. But, bigger contests have more officials/reps too. Yep, its a PITA, but IMO if the team went all out cooking, and the judge took the time to write something, we should take the time and effort to return the feedback. When I am in charge, I want cards from judges that score 4s or lower, and I will go straight back to the judge and ask for it. Table Captains can help with this by scanning when the cards come in.

All that being said, I dont think mandatory is the way to go just yet.
Again I find myself agreeing with Jorge. :shocked: Try it out first, see what the stats say, make a decision then.

One last thought... for judges to read stuff like "all comment cards are worthless" ... doncha think that is detrimental?
Im thinking its gonna stop more judges from writing them, period, not just stop the ones we can live without.

Bentley
01-10-2011, 02:37 PM
I also write them when food is crazy-good. If I am absolutely floored by an entry and give all 9's, yeah, they know it was good cuz of the 9's, but maybe I want them to know that the progression of flavors really worked and the meat was perfectly cooked.


As a competition cook I could not agree more. I do it also...I sometimes feel the Reps do a disservice when they say...you don't need to fill out are card if you give a 9, the teams know it was good...I would like to know why it was a 9. Was it cooked to perfection, did the rub or sauce make it a nine...I guess judges dont want to do that cuz it then become a rub or a suace contest and as we all know it's about the meat...Yeah, right...I keep looking for those naked, plane meat entries out here and am not seeing any!

carlyle
01-10-2011, 02:56 PM
The situation described by Bourbon Barrel of 2 scores way low compared to the other 4 is what KCBS is making its first steps to identify and remedy by tracking judges. This is a real problem that would make anyone scratch their heads. Comment cards that are used correctly can help solve the mystery of why the score seems out of whack.

The cooks need to keep the heat on KCBS to follow through and get a system in place that works.

The contest organizers need to keep the heat up because frustrated teams who feel they did not get a honest shake are likely not to return.

The judges should be wanting to have a feedback system in place as a check on themselves and an opportunity to improve their craft.

Lunch lady, I can identify with and echo your perspectives as a judge and contest official.

This thread is an example of the kind of discussion that is valuable for all of us and makes me glad that I joined the Brethren.

HoDeDo
01-10-2011, 08:40 PM
Judges are NOT supposed to judge based on temperature of the food. Any rep will be happy to tell you that. You've misinterpreted the rule.... as a cook, you know your food can sit for 15 min or longer while waiting to get to a judge. It is renumbered, put on a table you havent been on, and opened/viewed, etc. It is very easy for the food to become cold. Esp. on cold/windy/inclement days

At the point it drops below 140, you have 2 hours to get it to 70, 4 more hours to get it to 41 degrees... so any temp you get it at in the window is legal... as long as it was held to at least 140 before you started prepping/slicing. Pork can not have heat applied to it after it is sliced (OMG it might be cooking, but that is a whole other thread) so it has the biggest potential to get cold IMHO.


Not meaning to hijack the thread, but that's a bit of a pet peeve to me. Before we started competing, my wife and I judged, and both of us had times when we were given cold meat. I don't mean room temp, I mean refrigerated cold.

The rules say "
After cooking, all meat:
Must be held at 140° F or above OR
Cooked meat shall be cooled as follows:
Within 2 hours from 140° F to 70° F and
Within 4 hours from 70° F to 41° F or less
h. Meat that is cooked, properly cooled, and later
reheated for hot holding and serving shall be reheated
so that all parts of the food reach a temperature of at
least 165° F for a minimum of 15 seconds.

I would say if I'm served cold meat as a judge, this rule has been violated.


I voted yes as, even though I agree with Ford that the comments are usually useless, I think low scores should be somehow explained.



This is why I voted "no" -- I get comment cards that are a waste of my time to read. Never gotten one that was worth anything. I also disagree with those that think we should make them "easier" with stock statements about spicy, fatty, salty, etc.... After a couple contests, the judges that dont want to use them, just have in thier head that there is a BBQ that is "too spicy", etc. vs. writing down something that they came up with. If I thought the comment cards were worthwhile, I wouldnt want them to be "canned" comments, I would want actual input. (this is where training comes in) BUT, I would rather have the judges the way they are, just without the comment cards.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree that "It's working fairly well now".

At one contest I had brisket scores of 999 989 998 999 979 566 and no comment card. In that same contest, I did receive a comment card for my chicken which we had included drumettes... Comment was "the wings didn't help" - score 989.



I've seen this happen when the box is kept in a cooler right up to the point that the meat is put in. The garnish is sitting at 35-40 degrees and the meat just cools off within moments.

[/LEFT]
The best way to combat the cold with your boxes, is to just spritz vs. chill. Then fill the box. The more hot meat you put in there, the hotter it will be.
I have found a cold papertowel just damp over them, and them sitting in a cambro, is enough to keep them fresh. no ice needed.

Big George's BBQ
01-10-2011, 08:45 PM
Would like to know why a low score esp if it is right next to a high score

Candy Sue
01-10-2011, 09:26 PM
I have this stainless steel prep table in the trailer. When it is warm, it's great to work on. Which it's cool, it zaps heat out of meat in no time at all. In 2007, when Ed cooked pork for Butt to Butt, he was pulling pork on that table. As the runner waited for the box, I loaded stone-cold meat in the box. No time to do anything about it. BBQr's Delight didn't do well. Heard from a couple of judges about the ice cold pork.

tmcmaster
01-11-2011, 06:51 AM
I voted YES, because as a smaller, nerwe team, any information I can get, not matter how 'useless' it may seem to a more established team, is going to be valuable to me.

While, I also agree that forcing it may cause some judges to rebel against it, the goal should be for cooks to not ever have to SEE a low score. But, if we get one, we should look at it as an oppertunity to improve.

Just my 1.2 cents (after taxes).

Diva
01-11-2011, 08:32 AM
Voted No. This is the kinda crap that's usually on the cards. We received one that said: Did you use Dr. Pepper on your brisket? I don't like Dr. Pepper. WTF?? :shock:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs057.ash2/36213_408851165123_627675123_5023206_5001530_n.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5020606&id=627675123)

Divemaster
01-11-2011, 08:40 AM
The best way to combat the cold with your boxes, is to just spritz vs. chill. Then fill the box. The more hot meat you put in there, the hotter it will be.
I have found a cold papertowel just damp over them, and them sitting in a cambro, is enough to keep them fresh. no ice needed.

And I think the box looks better when it is full rather than just the minimum amount too...

Ford
01-11-2011, 09:41 AM
Not meaning to hijack the thread, but that's a bit of a pet peeve to me. Before we started competing, my wife and I judged, and both of us had times when we were given cold meat. I don't mean room temp, I mean refrigerated cold.

The rules say "

After cooking, all meat
:
Must be held at 140° F or above

OR
Cooked meat shall be cooled as follows:
Within 2 hours from 140° F to 70° F and
Within 4 hours from 70° F to 41° F or less
h. Meat that is cooked, properly cooled, and later
reheated for hot holding and serving shall be reheated
so that all parts of the food reach a temperature of at
least 165° F for a minimum of 15 seconds.

I would say if I'm served cold meat as a judge, this rule has been violated.


I voted yes as, even though I agree with Ford that the comments are usually useless, I think low scores should be somehow explained.

Once the meat gets to 140 you either need to reheat or cool to 70 within 2 hours. Pork as an example, can be hot and steaming when it's being pulled but will cool to 100 or so within minutes after pulling. Adding hot sauce helps to get it back up a bit. So maybe it's 120 and it's in a box that is sitting in say 60F air temp. It will again start cooling. So within the 20 minutes between starting to pull and the judge eating it it's cold or at least room temp and that tastes cold.

Now it's possible some cooks get their stuff done real early and cool it. that's legal and they don't have to reheat before turning in. Nothing in the rules requires that. Doubt it scores well but it's legal.

Bentley
01-11-2011, 11:10 AM
And I think the box looks better when it is full rather than just the minimum amount too...


And does that effect the way you score? I like less in a box.

Divemaster
01-11-2011, 12:35 PM
And I think the box looks better when it is full rather than just the minimum amount too...

And does that effect the way you score? I like less in a box.
Actually, my scores have been higher and more consistent.

G$
01-11-2011, 01:56 PM
Voted No. This is the kinda crap that's usually on the cards. We received one that said: Did you use Dr. Pepper on your brisket? I don't like Dr. Pepper. WTF?? :shock:



Your picture was of a 9 9 9 card. This poll is about 5s.

The Dr. Pepper comment is interesting. Could be valuable or not, depending on what you do with it.

Lake Dogs
01-11-2011, 02:38 PM
Voted NO. If you require comment cards there will be some judges score within the range that doesn't require a card just so they don't have to fill one out. Also, every comment card I have seen was pretty much a joke.

Truth is, IF they do this (as you suggested above) they shouldn't be
judging in the first place. I know I dont want a judge having the honor
of sampling my BBQ if he/she isn't willing to give feedback. Whether I
dismiss their opinion or not is my choice, but them providing feedback
should not be optional, IMHO.

Diva, DO YOU USE Dr. Pepper? LMAO. Seriously, at least you knew that
the judge (in this case) was a dip stick. Glad he/she gave you a comment.

Diva
01-11-2011, 03:26 PM
Your picture was of a 9 9 9 card. This poll is about 5s.

The Dr. Pepper comment is interesting. Could be valuable or not, depending on what you do with it.

I understand that. We've also received a card where had a 5 in tenderness and the statement was that they were tender but a little too sweet.

My point: They're not informative. Especially when you get (which we ALL hope to get :-D) all 9's and 8's and the one person who gives you a 5 doesn't REALLY tell you why you received that score. The cards we've received haven't been helpful at all.

p.s. We don't use soda on anything :crazy:

Bentley
01-11-2011, 04:01 PM
Actually, my scores have been higher and more consistent.


That was not the question, does your bias for more meat meat in a box effect your judging of the box?

I know when I see a very full box, I have to check myself because I do have a bias and say there in no reason to score down for this, its not Rocket Science, but I think many just blow their biases off and score the way they want and not the way they are trained.

Scottie
01-11-2011, 04:10 PM
I understand that. We've also received a card where had a 5 in tenderness and the statement was that they were tender but a little too sweet.

My point: They're not informative. Especially when you get (which we ALL hope to get :-D) all 9's and 8's and the one person who gives you a 5 doesn't REALLY tell you why you received that score. The cards we've received haven't been helpful at all.

p.s. We don't use soda on anything :crazy:



That's OK.. I've received one that said my food tasted like lighter fluid... for those that don't know me, I use pellets. Granted I use a MAPP torch to light it, I don't use lighter fluid... Let's face it. Some of these judges are on crack. I haven't voted (thought I did). But I am voting no as well.

Scottie
01-11-2011, 04:11 PM
who got this? I remember this happening... lol

Voted No. This is the kinda crap that's usually on the cards. We received one that said: Did you use Dr. Pepper on your brisket? I don't like Dr. Pepper. WTF?? :shock:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs057.ash2/36213_408851165123_627675123_5023206_5001530_n.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5020606&id=627675123)

The_Kapn
01-11-2011, 04:23 PM
I have been back and forth about comment cards.

FBA requires a comment on the back of the score card for anything below "average". The team can then ask for the comments if they ask the REP before midnight.
Maybe it helps, maybe not.
Depends on what you think is "average".

I think the comment card may be a good deal and can help sometimes, but the real problem is that (we) judges are not statistically tracked from event to event.

Even as seldom as I judge, I recognize the Judges who are "BBQ Experts" and score teams accordingly if the team does not meet their glorified expectations.
Other Judges feel the teams have worked so hard and spent so much money that we need to give them "big" scores as a reward for their effort.

As a cook, I don't want either type of "Judge" scoring me.
As a Judge, I do not want to be either type.
I want to be objective and accurate.

With the computer power we have now, there is no reason in the world that all scores could not be tracked to the judge and compared to the others.

I know if I am "out of range" either high or low, I want to know about it so I can calibrate my scores to the norm.

I was a ladies gymnastic Judge in years past.
Great system where each Judge had to be "in range" with the head judge or a conference was called to figure it out.
It would never work for BBQ, but the concept of "in range" is valid, IMHO.

Guess I wandered off topic, but that is how I see the answer to the origonal question.

TIM

Smokedelic
01-11-2011, 07:31 PM
My point: They're not informative. Especially when you get (which we ALL hope to get :-D) all 9's and 8's and the one person who gives you a 5 doesn't REALLY tell you why you received that score. The cards we've received haven't been helpful at all.
Bingo.

What good does a comment card do from a judge who gave you 5s and 6s when the rest of the table gave you 8s and 9s, even if it provides a detailed explanation? Is their feedback really going to affect how you cook when the rest of the table obviously liked your entry? The answer is no, it won't.

A cook who is new, or who cooks only a couple times a year could possibly benefit from a comment card, but they'd probably get more information and better feedback giving a sample of their stuff to their neighbor at a contest and asking for feedback. A more "seasoned" cook is probably going to dismiss any comment from a single judge for a low score as the judges fault, or a rogue score.

The only time I see comment cards being beneficial is if the majority of the judges at a table score an entry down, they all fill out comment cards, and the comment cards all reflect the same issue. Short of that, I think they are a waste of everyone's time.

Candy Sue
01-11-2011, 08:15 PM
Once the meat gets to 140 you either need to reheat or cool to 70 within 2 hours. Pork as an example, can be hot and steaming when it's being pulled but will cool to 100 or so within minutes after pulling. Adding hot sauce helps to get it back up a bit. So maybe it's 120 and it's in a box that is sitting in say 60F air temp. It will again start cooling. So within the 20 minutes between starting to pull and the judge eating it it's cold or at least room temp and that tastes cold.

Now it's possible some cooks get their stuff done real early and cool it. that's legal and they don't have to reheat before turning in. Nothing in the rules requires that. Doubt it scores well but it's legal.
[/LEFT]

Look at rule 17(h), which says:

"Meat that is cooked, properly cooled (see 17(g)), and later reheated for hot holding and serving shall be reheated so that all parts of the food reach a temperature of at least 165ş F for a minimum of 15 seconds."

IN MY OPINION, this means that if you finish your brisket or pork off early it should be reheated to proper temperature before serving to judges. Pork should, of course, be heated in its entirety and not parted.

-------------

The above is my opinion only and not reflective of KCBS or anyone else.

Mister Bob
01-11-2011, 08:27 PM
I agree with Smokedelic. Comment cards only makes sense if all judges provide comments for all scores.

But the comments have to be constructive and on point. Maybe a multiple choice type questionnaire could be developed. While appearance, taste and tenderness can be somewhat subjective, there should be objective criteria used in the judgement.

Appearance can be neat, sloppy, symmetrical, dull, glossy, too full, too empty, great color...

Taste can be salty, spicy, sweet, sour, hot, bland, perfectly balanced...

Tenderness can be over done, under done, mushy, perfectly done...

I'm sure a think tank could come up with many more choices, and a judge could select all that apply. Then at least the feedback would be useful.

Finney
01-11-2011, 10:20 PM
I still say comments for all scores. If I spend 8+ hours cooking... they can give me half a minute to give me feed back. :roll:

Dale P
01-12-2011, 03:27 AM
I voted no. If we turn in something too salty, we already know.
If a judge scores us low when we think our food was excellent, that card wont change our minds. I think they are useless.

swamprb
01-12-2011, 05:53 AM
I just don't think there is enough time to give informative responses to every entry with half hour turn ins. And if a Rep does collect and notice a BS score, its probably way too late to change it or talk to the judge.

EatonHoggBBQ
01-12-2011, 06:09 AM
That was not the question, does your bias for more meat meat in a box effect your judging of the box?

I know when I see a very full box, I have to check myself because I do have a bias and say there in no reason to score down for this, its not Rocket Science, but I think many just blow their biases off and score the way they want and not the way they are trained.


How can your score be subjective then?

Lake Dogs
01-12-2011, 07:15 AM
I just don't think there is enough time to give informative responses to every entry with half hour turn ins. And if a Rep does collect and notice a BS score, its probably way too late to change it or talk to the judge.

Swamprb, you've hit on another thing that's key. In addition to judge
training (said earlier, the current system really isnt about training so much
as it is about recruiting membership), quality of judging and consistency,
there's the 30 minute turn in, which is rushing the whole process quite
a bit, IMHO. Other sanctioning bodies use a 1 hour turn in for the exact
reason you describe. Score cards are reviewed BEFORE the judge walks
away. Inconsistencies are questioned and corrected if need be. For
that matter, the simple checking to make sure a score is readable.

It's not fair to the guys who have put up the money and the time and
the effort to let it get crazy.

When judging I've always considered it a privilege to be able to sample
BBQ and judge it. Anything less would be an insult to the competitor.
Frankly, IMHO, the competitors deserve the judges opinion regardless
of the score, meaning on everything. Even if the feedback is meaningless,
that's really up to the competitor to determine.

The argument that if 1 of the 6 judges slams you and says (as an example)
that it was too salty doesn't hold water as a counter argument to needing
feedback. It is an argument for quality of judge training, and perhaps a
lesson in not reading too much into any one set of scores. However, to
say that they're all meaningless because of a few nit wits is wrong.

Just my humble opinion, from a judge and competitor.

Sawdustguy
01-12-2011, 07:45 AM
I just don't think there is enough time to give informative responses to every entry with half hour turn ins. And if a Rep does collect and notice a BS score, its probably way too late to change it or talk to the judge.

+1 I never understood the 1/2 hour between turn-ins. I can't for the life of me understand why turn-in's couldn't start at 11:00 AM and go to 2:00 PM allowing for an entry per hour.

ie: for KCBS

11:00 AM Chicken
12:00 Noon Ribs
1:00 PM Pork
2:00 PM Brisket

Divemaster
01-12-2011, 09:42 AM
That was not the question, does your bias for more meat meat in a box effect your judging of the box?

I know when I see a very full box, I have to check myself because I do have a bias and say there in no reason to score down for this, its not Rocket Science, but I think many just blow their biases off and score the way they want and not the way they are trained.

First of all, I don't judge often at all. Once a year, maybe. I'm a cook who took the class to insure that I was doing every thing legal, so I really don't have a bias when judging.

Now having said that, when I'm putting 11 or 12 bones in a box, I'm looking at it strictly from an appearance point of view. When I used to look at our box with only 6 ribs, it always seemed light weight, missing something, only half done, almost like I was afraid to give them more. When I now look at our box when it's full, I see something that I can be proud of. A box that says that I've done the best that I can. Take any bone you want because they are all up to my standards.

On another note, with more meat, I think that the judges have less of an opportunity to look at the garnish. After all, this is a meat contest, why not give them a bunch of meat to review and judge?

I have never understood how a restaurant can get away with putting a quarter sized piece of something on a 12 inch plate and say that it looks appetizing. It's almost like looking at a 50 foot flag poll that has a small flag on it. It just seems like they were just going through the motions.

G$
01-12-2011, 11:09 AM
p.s. We don't use soda on anything :crazy:

I understand.

"It" referred to the feedback, not the soda.

Bentley
01-12-2011, 11:24 AM
How can your score be subjective then?

Certified Barbeque Judge's Oath

I do solemnly swear to objectively and subjectively evaluate each Barbeque meat that is presented to my eyes, my nose, my hands and my palate. I accept my duty to be an Official KCBS Certified Judge, so that truth, justice, excellence in Barbeque and the American Way of Life may be strengthened and preserved forever.

Good question, but I am to be subjective (which I have a problem with) and objective. KCBS wants both, but they are now going to tell me that they if I am off from my other judge's I am going to be subject to review and if I do it again, I need to go to a re-education camp.

Can't have it both ways.

I am curious, do you believe I should judge the box down if I think it is to full?

Stoke&Smoke
01-12-2011, 11:46 AM
Look at rule 17(h), which says:

"Meat that is cooked, properly cooled (see 17(g)), and later reheated for hot holding and serving shall be reheated so that all parts of the food reach a temperature of at least 165ş F for a minimum of 15 seconds."

IN MY OPINION, this means that if you finish your brisket or pork off early it should be reheated to proper temperature before serving to judges. Pork should, of course, be heated in its entirety and not parted.

-------------

The above is my opinion only and not reflective of KCBS or anyone else.

I agree CS, which is why I made the point. And the meat I'm referring to wasn't cold as in room temp. It was in mid July, the temp was well into the 80's, and this meat was cold like it was just taken out of the refrigerator

We got a card back in 09 that said the ribs tased like lighter fluid:tsk: I only use MAAP gas to light my cookers. I don't own any lighter fluid!

Mister Bob
01-12-2011, 12:03 PM
+1 I never understood the 1/2 hour between turn-ins. I can't for the life of me understand why turn-in's couldn't start at 11:00 AM and go to 2:00 PM allowing for an entry per hour.

ie: for KCBS

11:00 AM Chicken
12:00 Noon Ribs
1:00 PM Pork
2:00 PM Brisket

I agree 100%

BBQ should be fun, not stressful.
Comps would be so much more enjoyable, and the overall quality of the entries would improve if there was an hour between turn-ins.

It would help the 'one man' teams compete with the four and six man teams, and have the best BBQ, not the resources at a competitor's disposal, win the day!

lunchlady
01-12-2011, 02:19 PM
how does 'too full' or 'too empty' work into an appearance score? Or symmetry?

The way I learned it, CBJ#7705, it was about the appearance OF THE MEAT, no matter how much or how little is in the box.
When teams first starting putting only the MM in the pork box, there was only 6 little pieces in many boxes. When I judged those, I judged the meat, not the empty space around the meat.

And I get it... the appearance of the whole box, blah blah blah... but thats not the way its taught.

EatonHoggBBQ
01-12-2011, 02:57 PM
Certified Barbeque Judge's Oath

I do solemnly swear to objectively and subjectively evaluate each Barbeque meat that is presented to my eyes, my nose, my hands and my palate. I accept my duty to be an Official KCBS Certified Judge, so that truth, justice, excellence in Barbeque and the American Way of Life may be strengthened and preserved forever.

Good question, but I am to be subjective (which I have a problem with) and objective. KCBS wants both, but they are now going to tell me that they if I am off from my other judge's I am going to be subject to review and if I do it again, I need to go to a re-education camp.

Can't have it both ways.

I am curious, do you believe I should judge the box down if I think it is to full?


Do I believe you should judge the box down. What I believe is that you should judge according to KCBS standards.

Bentley
01-12-2011, 03:12 PM
We agree then, and I do.

Divemaster
01-12-2011, 03:20 PM
how does 'too full' or 'too empty' work into an appearance score? Or symmetry?

The way I learned it, CBJ#7705, it was about the appearance OF THE MEAT, no matter how much or how little is in the box.
When teams first starting putting only the MM in the pork box, there was only 6 little pieces in many boxes. When I judged those, I judged the meat, not the empty space around the meat.

And I get it... the appearance of the whole box, blah blah blah... but thats not the way its taught.

The way I was taught was that you judge the overall appearance of the meat in the box. If there are only six portions, you judge those six. If there is more, you judge what is there. I also recall the statement of “If it (the meat) makes you want to reach out and grab it, it should probably be scored higher.” (I think it was MikeLake who told me that.)

I just happen to think, and it’s only my opinion, that a full box of meat simply looks more inviting than one with only the bare minimum.

Secondary to the appearance, it’s my opinion that the more meat you have in a box, the better chance you have of keeping at least some of the warmth in the product and therefore making it more appealing to the judges taste buds. Again, this is only my opinion.

On Edit:

Do I believe you should judge the box down. What I believe is that you should judge according to KCBS standards.

Duplicate

How can you judge a box down for being ‘to full’ when according to the rules that we are to be judged using state:

16) Each contestant must submit at least six (6) portions
of meat in an approved container. Chicken, pork and
brisket may be submitted chopped, pulled, sliced, or diced
as the cook sees fit, as long as there is enough for six (6)
judges.

Sorry, but I don’t see any “Maximum” amount of meat that is allowed in a box. Only a minimum.

Smokedelic
01-12-2011, 04:50 PM
I am curious, do you believe I should judge the box down if I think it is to full?
I don't know who taught your CBJ class, but there was nothing taught in my CBJ class about judging the quantity of the meat in the box.

How was it taught to you in your CBJ class? Were you given examples of boxes that were too full or to empty?

Bentley
01-12-2011, 05:24 PM
“If it (the meat) makes you want to reach out and grab it, it should probably be scored higher.” (I think it was MikeLake who told me that.)

I just happen to think, and it’s only my opinion, that a full box of meat simply looks more inviting than one with only the bare minimum.

On Edit:

How can you judge a box down for being ‘to full’ when according to the rules that we are to be judged using state:
16) Each contestant must submit at least six (6) portions
of meat in an approved container. Chicken, pork and
brisket may be submitted chopped, pulled, sliced, or diced
as the cook sees fit, as long as there is enough for six (6)
judges.
Sorry, but I don’t see any “Maximum” amount of meat that is allowed in a box. Only a minimum.

I have always found that statement silly, I have had some of the greatest tasting BBQ at competitions and it may have gotten a low apperance score.

And I happen to think that a box with less meat in it is more appealing...Who is right? I did not say I judged down for a lot of meat in the turn in box, I said I had a bias that I did not like a lot of meat in the container and that I had to check that thinking when I judge.


I don't know who taught your CBJ class, but there was nothing taught in my CBJ class about judging the quantity of the meat in the box.

How was it taught to you in your CBJ class? Were you given examples of boxes that were too full or to empty?


Well let me tell you who taught my CBJ class it was Ed Roith and it was at the 2003 American Royal. Ed did not teach that you judge down for the amount of food in the turn in box...See above for remaing comments...

Folks sometimes need to read with a little less red in their eys before they go and try and para phrase people...

EatonHoggBBQ
01-12-2011, 05:54 PM
How can you judge a box down for being ‘to full’ when according to the rules that we are to be judged using state:16) Each contestant must submit at least six (6) portions
of meat in an approved container. Chicken, pork and
brisket may be submitted chopped, pulled, sliced, or diced
as the cook sees fit, as long as there is enough for six (6)
judges.
Sorry, but I don’t see any “Maximum” amount of meat that is allowed in a box. Only a minimum.


I'm not suggesting to judge it down, just saying use KCBS standards.

Appearance of an entry is judged objectively and subjectively.

Objectively: illegal garnish, foreign objects, sculptured meat, marked turn in container, pooled sauce, incorrect samples, and less than six identifiable pieces.

Subjectively: the judges personal opinion

Comment cards may reflect the unpopular subjective side of the judges score.

Bentley
01-12-2011, 06:18 PM
how does 'too full' or 'too empty' work into an appearance score? Or symmetry?

it was about the appearance OF THE MEAT, no matter how much or how little is in the box.



Bingo!

Exactlly right, but I sure see a lot of folks on this site comment that the box needs more meat in it, and most are CBJ's...Sorry, whether you wanna be honest with yourself or not that is a bias, just hope they will over come that bias when they judge...or, is that the subjective part I am supposed to take into consideration when I judge...if so dont track me when I judge...That's BS! One way or the other KCBS!

Divemaster
01-13-2011, 10:11 AM
I have always found that statement silly, I have had some of the greatest tasting BBQ at competitions and it may have gotten a low apperance score.
I'm sorry, and what statement would that be? That there is only a minimum required?

And I happen to think that a box with less meat in it is more appealing...Who is right? I did not say I judged down for a lot of meat in the turn in box, I said I had a bias that I did not like a lot of meat in the container and that I had to check that thinking when I judge.
No one is saying that you are wrong for your preferances. Is this what others are calling the "KCBS Standard"? If so, why isn't this "Standard" passed on to the judging classes?

Well let me tell you who taught my CBJ class it was Ed Roith and it was at the 2003 American Royal. Ed did not teach that you judge down for the amount of food in the turn in box...See above for remaing comments...
Ed and I have talked at length regarding a number of issues with judging, including statements accusing any cook that could obtain a smoke ring around a money muscile of cheating by removing it and cooking it separately. I’m sure that he taught a fine class. He is also one of the proponents of taking a refresher class for free. Not to be a smart a$$, but have you availed yourself of this opportunity?


I'm not suggesting to judge it down, just saying use KCBS standards.


What is this mysterious ‘KCBS Standard’ I keep hearing about? Who created it and when? What the heck is it? Is this another thing that the cooks should simply guess about? Is there a secret handshake too?

Appearance of an entry is judged objectively and subjectively.

Objectively: illegal garnish, foreign objects, sculptured meat, marked turn in container, pooled sauce, incorrect samples, and less than six identifiable pieces.

Subjectively: the judges personal opinion

Comment cards may reflect the unpopular subjective side of the judges score.
If the judge is honest with the comment card and states that they don’t like large quantities of meat in the box, that’s fine with me. If I get enough of them I’ll go back to my old ways. But until I do, I’ll keep doing what seems to be working for us.

Exactlly right, but I sure see a lot of folks on this site comment that the box needs more meat in it, and most are CBJ's...


Yes, there are a number of people that feel that more meat is more appealing than less meat. I’m guilty of that. I’m passing on something that works for me. Is it wrong? I don’t think so. You have the same opportunity to state what you feel. No one is stopping you from expressing your feelings on the subject.

Sorry, whether you wanna be honest with yourself or not that is a bias, just hope they will over come that bias when they judge...or, is that the subjective part I am supposed to take into consideration when I judge...if so dont track me when I judge...That's BS!
I guess that would be the ‘Subjective’ portion of your score. If you feel that the appearance isn’t there because there is too much meat, then you have the responsibility to give a lower score. Just as another judge who feels that there isn’t enough meat in a box has the same responsibility to give a lower score.

One way or the other KCBS!

If the ‘One way’ you talk about is a defined amount of meat allowed in a container, then you are going to have to get the rules changed. Until that point, I’ll continue to do what I feel is best and until I start getting comment cards that there is too much meat in my boxes, I’ll keep filling them up.

Bentley
01-13-2011, 01:47 PM
I'm sorry, and what statement would that be? That there is only a minimum required

Not to be a smart a$$, but have you availed yourself of this opportunity?

What is this mysterious ‘KCBS Standard’ I keep hearing about? Who created it and when? What the heck is it? Is this another thing that the cooks should simply guess about? Is there a secret handshake too?

I guess that would be the ‘Subjective’ portion of your score. If you feel that the appearance isn’t there because there is too much meat, then you have the responsibility to give a lower score. Just as another judge who feels that there isn’t enough meat in a box has the same responsibility to give a lower score.



The statement to paraphrase that we eat with our eyes first, I have never believe in that, kind of like judging a book by its cover. It tends to lead to biases in my opinion that a less trained judge may carry over from the appearance score to the taste score.


No offence taken, it is a valid question. The last class we had in my area was 2 hours away in San Diego and I was asked to cook for it. However, unless the CBJ class is teaching different standards then what Ed taught in 2003, I am not sure what benefit I would gain from retaking the class. That is why I would like to see some CE for judges…If you are not willing to pay the money to stay current, stop judging KCBS events.


I wish there was more objective standards and less subjective.

I could not disagree more with your comment about amounts. If you are allowing the amount of meat in the container to bias you’re judging, you are 100% wrong, accord to me and according to “KCBS Standards” and that I hope you will try and address before you sit at a table and judge again. That is the ‘subjective” nature that has no place in KCBS judging.

Divemaster
01-13-2011, 02:27 PM
The statement to paraphrase that we eat with our eyes first, I have never believe in that, kind of like judging a book by its cover. It tends to lead to biases in my opinion that a less trained judge may carry over from the appearance score to the taste score.

This is going to have to be an area that we agree to disagree… I have seen many dishes that just turned my stomach before I took a bite… and many more that turned my stomach after…. lol

No offence taken, it is a valid question. The last class we had in my area was 2 hours away in San Diego and I was asked to cook for it. However, unless the CBJ class is teaching different standards then what Ed taught in 2003, I am not sure what benefit I would gain from retaking the class. That is why I would like to see some CE for judges…If you are not willing to pay the money to stay current, stop judging KCBS events.

I agree that there should be some required CE for judges. My thoughts would be something along the lines of an online CE every two years and a physical class every fourth.

I really think that there is information that is being passed to new CBJ’s that was not available even just a few years ago. That’s one of the benefits of retaking the classes and from what I understand, current CBJ’s do not have to pay for the class.

I wish there was more objective standards and less subjective.


As a cook I couldn’t agree with you more. It is far easier to aim for a hard and fast standard than a subjective view point.

I could not disagree more with your comment about amounts. If you are allowing the amount of meat in the container to bias you’re judging, you are 100% wrong, accord to me and according to “KCBS Standards” and that I hope you will try and address before you sit at a table and judge again.

Again, not to sound like an a$$, but I think that this very point is where a refresher class may come in handy for both of us. I think the way appearance scoring was described to you and the way it was described to me is very different.

I am planning on attending the Judging meeting this weekend in Kansas City. I know that there are a number of hot topics that are going to be brought up and continuing education is one that I’m pushing for.

That is the ‘subjective” nature that has no place in KCBS judging.
I really don’t know how you are going to remove the ‘subjective nature’ without removing the judges and replace them with computers…

Bentley
01-13-2011, 02:57 PM
I really don’t know how you are going to remove the ‘subjective nature’ without removing the judges and replace them with computers…

That would be to cool! I would be up for that!

Divemaster
01-13-2011, 03:16 PM
That would be to cool! I would be up for that!
I'd have to get a frame to retire your card... LOL

Oh no.... I just had a thought... Who is going to come up with the standards for the computer:shock: Here we go again! :doh:

chambersuac
01-13-2011, 03:31 PM
I welcome the comment cards for the most part...some are even downright hilarious...like the one I got that said I forgot to remove the membrane from my pork butt...true story! :becky:


Bet you haven't forgotten to do that since, now have ya? :doh:

sitnfat
01-14-2011, 08:23 AM
I say no I have never gotten a card but I have as I am sure others had that one judge that was way off the chart with their scores. I have judged once for shadetree this year. The table got a rib so bad it was all I could do to swallow the bite i took with out puking. every judge at the table thought it was horrible and we all agreed to on what needed to be put on the card.Only if all the judges think it needs a card should one be given but if your meat is that bad you probably all ready no it!I dont need to read what one loon thinks

Vince RnQ
01-17-2011, 12:36 PM
As of this moment, the poll results are overwhelmingly in favor of comment cards being required for scores of 5 or lower with 106 votes in favor and only 22 votes against. That's approximately 82% of the responders in favor.

I wonder if the KCBS BoD has any idea of how lopsided this issue may be. I fully understand that this is not a scientific poll but over 80% in favor with a relatively large sampling group can't be that far off.