Interpreting a 6

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.

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).

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.

^^^ 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.

Sorry about all of the edits above...what is in there now I will leave alone. I kept going back and adding more!:becky:

bigabyte said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

DivaHerself said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

monty3777 said:

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!!

Click to expand...

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?

tonto1117 said:

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

Click to expand...

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. 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

Stoke&Smoke said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.