• working on DNS.. links may break temporarily.

New KCBS scoresheet

I competed at this same contest last weekend as Lotta Bull.

From the printout, Lotta Bull was placed on Table 13 twice.
With 78 teams this should not happen.
Table #13 was the highest scoring table with 7 top ten calls.
This information is provided on the score sheets.

Table numbers for 1st-10th of each catagory
CK, 4, 2, 3, 12, 7, 9, 2, 2, 11, 12
RI, 1, 1, 12, 8, 4, 13, 13, 11, 1,13
PK, 2, 13, 5, 4, 3, 7, 1, 12, 13,13
BK, 10,12, 5, 8, 1, 13, 8, 12, 2, 1

Top 10 calls by table.
Table 1, calls 6
Table 2, calls 5
Table 3, calls 2
Table 4, calls 3
Table 5, calls 2
Table 6, calls 0
Table 7, calls 2
Table 8, calls 3
Table 9, calls 1
Table 10, calls 1
Table 11, calls 2
Table 12, calls 6
Table 13, calls 7

My entries landed on tables 9, 5, 6, 10; the 4 lowest scoring tables for top 10 calls. The lowest scoring judge was Judge 1, on Table 9 with average of 25.1633.
On chicken this judge gave us 6,6,7 = 25.1428
The other judges
#2 9,8,8 = 32.56
#3 9,9,9 = 36.00
#4 8,8,7 = 30.8572
#5 9,8,8 = 32.5600
#6 9,8,9 = 33.7028
His/her score appears to be completely out of line with the other judges. Here are all of the scores this judge gave out for the day:

CK= 28.5600, 34.8800, 25.1428, 28.0000, 20.0000, 26.2972
RI = 29.1428, 25.1200, 19.4400, 24.0000, 15.3828, 18.2972
PK= 19.4400, 29.1428, 25.1200, 24.0000, 15.3828, 18.2972
BK= 27.4400, 27.4172, 32.0000, 29.7028, 30.2972, 24.0000

This judge should be on KCBS's radar.

We were told at the cooks meeting.
The blind number will no longer be on the print out.
Are using the new 2013 scoring weights.
Comments cards have been temporary stopped.
The Judge Average Score is from all 4 catagories.
KCBS will be tracking judges.
 
ique said:
Its unlikely that across four categories all the table winning entries are out of the top 10. But for a single category it should be expected.

A great improvement.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I think in this case you can clearly see the trends of different tables. Just as table 4 seems to be on the low end of the scoring, Table 2 seems to be the on the upper end. I think it sucks that my stuff it table 4 and its more personal but I'm not sure that I'm not more upset table 2 was what appears to be an "easy" table. I think it's more unlikely that table happens to have at least 2 of the 5 best cooked entries in each category.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: CBQ
BMerrill said:
I competed at this same contest last weekend as Lotta Bull.

From the printout, Lotta Bull was placed on Table 13 twice.
With 78 teams this should not happen.
Table #13 was the highest scoring table with 7 top ten calls.
This information is provided on the score sheets.

Table numbers for 1st-10th of each catagory
CK, 4, 2, 3, 12, 7, 9, 2, 2, 11, 12
RI, 1, 1, 12, 8, 4, 13, 13, 11, 1,13
PK, 2, 13, 5, 4, 3, 7, 1, 12, 13,13
BK, 10,12, 5, 8, 1, 13, 8, 12, 2, 1

Top 10 calls by table.
Table 1, calls 6
Table 2, calls 5
Table 3, calls 2
Table 4, calls 3
Table 5, calls 2
Table 6, calls 0
Table 7, calls 2
Table 8, calls 3
Table 9, calls 1
Table 10, calls 1
Table 11, calls 2
Table 12, calls 6
Table 13, calls 7

My entries landed on tables 9, 5, 6, 10; the 4 lowest scoring tables for top 10 calls. The lowest scoring judge was Judge 1, on Table 9 with average of 25.1633.
On chicken this judge gave us 6,6,7 = 25.1428
The other judges
#2 9,8,8 = 32.56
#3 9,9,9 = 36.00
#4 8,8,7 = 30.8572
#5 9,8,8 = 32.5600
#6 9,8,9 = 33.7028
His/her score appears to be completely out of line with the other judges. Here are all of the scores this judge gave out for the day:

CK= 28.5600, 34.8800, 25.1428, 28.0000, 20.0000, 26.2972
RI = 29.1428, 25.1200, 19.4400, 24.0000, 15.3828, 18.2972
PK= 19.4400, 29.1428, 25.1200, 24.0000, 15.3828, 18.2972
BK= 27.4400, 27.4172, 32.0000, 29.7028, 30.2972, 24.0000

This judge should be on KCBS's radar.

We were told at the cooks meeting.
The blind number will no longer be on the print out.
Are using the new 2013 scoring weights.
Comments cards have been temporary stopped.
The Judge Average Score is from all 4 catagories.
KCBS will be tracking judges.
Click to expand...

Great stuff here. Thanks.
 
musicmanryann said:
My understanding was this past weekend.

I think it is farking awesome. I learned more the past two days pouring over the score-sheets than I have the past five years. Thank you KCBS!:eusa_clap
Click to expand...

Great just what we need ... you with more information to improve your cooking. :)
Careful what you wish for people.
 
As a judge I think this is what I was looking for when I first became one - how do I stack up in my opinions versus that of my table mates? Am I scoring a point or two high across the board? Am I scoring a point or two low across the board? It would have been helpful to know early on rather then having my scores be off kilter to those other judges at my table.

I would have liked to have seen my scores from my first say 10 events versus those at my table for comparison. Would have possibly sped me up to being in tune to other maybe more experienced judges.

As for comment cards - I like them as a judge. I feel I can at least tell a team why I gave them a score that may not be to that of the other judges for whatever reason it may be. This eliminates me from ever being referred to as Judge 6. I can point out that the rib I selected was overdone, my brisket burnt end was all gristle or fat, my chicken piece was mushy, my pork was tough and dry, whatever the reason MY selection may not have been the same as the other 5 judges and thus my marking down on your entry. I am NOT judge 6. You may be team 6 for putting a less then stellar piece of meat in the box and I unfortunately had the bad luck of getting it. I have also filled out a card for a perfect score and told them thanks for making this what it was for me to judge today. Yes my 9's told them I loved all aspects of it. But a note also to say thanks. And also sometimes a 8 or a 7 will get a card from me to just point out what they could have done to bring it to a high score. "Loved the tenderness and appearance. And love spice but this was a little bit more than needed for this entry. Took away from the meats taste".

So I hope the comment cards do come back as for right now these new scoring systems tell you that you got a 9 - 6 - 8 or a 8 - 6 - 5 but none of that tells you why.
 
tigerpaw said:
As for comment cards - I like them as a judge. I feel I can at least tell a team why I gave them a score that may not be to that of the other judges for whatever reason it may be. This eliminates me from ever being referred to as Judge 6. I can point out that the rib I selected was overdone, my brisket burnt end was all gristle or fat, my chicken piece was mushy, my pork was tough and dry, whatever the reason MY selection may not have been the same as the other 5 judges and thus my marking down on your entry. I am NOT judge 6. You may be team 6 for putting a less then stellar piece of meat in the box and I unfortunately had the bad luck of getting it. I have also filled out a card for a perfect score and told them thanks for making this what it was for me to judge today. Yes my 9's told them I loved all aspects of it. But a note also to say thanks. And also sometimes a 8 or a 7 will get a card from me to just point out what they could have done to bring it to a high score. "Loved the tenderness and appearance. And love spice but this was a little bit more than needed for this entry. Took away from the meats taste".

So I hope the comment cards do come back as for right now these new scoring systems tell you that you got a 9 - 6 - 8 or a 8 - 6 - 5 but none of that tells you why.
Click to expand...

What we were told this weekend, is that they are coming back as soon as they can develop a system for numbering the cards that maintains the tru double-blind system they are trying to implement.
 
We competed in Holbrook, AZ this past weekend and I love the new score sheet. Lot's of great info. I also took a little time and used the new information about tables to crunch a few numbers. Here is what I've learned about that event.

There were 27 teams at the event and 5 tables of judges. The actual CBJ percentage is unknown but I know it is less than 100% per the contest reps.

First I figured the Average Placing for Each Meat by Table and then Overall

Table 1
Chicken - 9.83
Ribs - 13.60
Pork - 4.80
Brisket - 13.60
Overall - 10.43

Table 2
Chicken - 16.00
Ribs - 16.17
Pork - 14.60
Brisket - 15.20
Overall - 15.55

Table 3
Chicken - 7.40
Ribs - 9.50
Pork - 14.67
Brisket - 8.60
Overall - 10.23

Table 4
Chicken - 19.80
Ribs - 20.40
Pork - 22.17
Brisket - 20.00
Overall - 20.67

Table 5
Chicken - 17.40
Ribs - 10.80
Pork - 12.00
Brisket - 10.67
Overall - 12.62

From this, it is very easy to tell that the hot tables were Tables 1 & 3, that Table 5 just a bit cooler, that Table 2 was just about at the average and that Table 4 was the Table of Death.

I also calculated the Number of Top 10 Calls by Table and what percentage that represented of all the Top 10 Calls

Table 1
# of all T-10 Calls - 13
% of all T-10 Calls - 32.50%

Table 2
# of all T-10 Calls - 5
% of all T-10 Calls - 12.50%

Table 3
# of all T-10 Calls - 13
% of all T-10 Calls - 32.50%

Table 4
# of all T-10 Calls - 2
% of all T-10 Calls - 5.00%

Table 5
# of all T-10 Calls - 7
% of all T-10 Calls - 17.50%

From this you can see that 65.00% of all the Top 10 calls came from Tables 1 & 3 and that 82.50% of all the Top 10 calls came from Tables 1,3 & 5.

I then calculated the Number of Bottom 10 Calls by Table and what percentage that represented of all the Bottom 10 Calls. (This contest had one team that was DQ'd for being late so there are only 39 places used for this set of numbers.)

Table 1
# of all T-10 Calls - 5
% of all T-10 Calls - 12.82%

Table 2
# of all T-10 Calls - 10
% of all T-10 Calls - 25.64%

Table 3
# of all T-10 Calls - 5
% of all T-10 Calls - 12.82%

Table 4
# of all T-10 Calls - 17
% of all T-10 Calls - 43.59%

Table 5
# of all T-10 Calls - 2
% of all T-10 Calls - 5.13%

This data shows that 69.23% of all the Bottom 10 calls came from Tables 2 & 4 with 43.59% of those calls coming from Table 4 alone. Table 4 was indeed the Table of Death at this contest.

One would expect that in any field of teams there will be a good blend of experience levels and that since all the boxes should be hitting different tables the numbers should average out pretty close to each other by the end of the event assuming that the Reps took proper care in balancing the tables. It is impossible for anyone other than the Reps and the Judges to know if this was done. I have been told that many Reps balance the tables based upon experience but it would seem that this new scoring program would give Reps the ability to balance the CBJs at a contest based upon their historical scoring average instead of expereince which might be a very good thing.

Now, I can be a bit cynical at times and all this new data leads me to the cynical conclusion of wondering how long we will be able to see the data points of which table every entry at a contest landed. I wonder because it, for the first time ever, gives conclusive information regarding the quality of the work done by the Reps and the Judges and that means a whole new level of public accountability for those two groups. I hope all the information stays visible and that it leads to improvement but only time will tell.

One last thing about this contest that I think is interesting: After the first three categories, the eventual GC and RGC were less than 4 points apart and neither team had landed on Table 4. In Brisket, the GC landed on Table 3 and the RGC landed on Table 4. The final margin of victory was 16 points. I can't help but wonder what would have happened if they and both missed Table 4 or both landed on Table 4.
 
Vince RnQ said:
We competed in Holbrook, AZ this past weekend and I love the new score sheet. Lot's of great info. I also took a little time and used the new information about tables to crunch a few numbers. Here is what I've learned about that event.

There were 27 teams at the event and 5 tables of judges. The actual CBJ percentage is unknown but I know it is less than 100% per the contest reps.

First I figured the Average Placing for Each Meat by Table and then Overall

Table 1
Chicken - 9.83
Ribs - 13.60
Pork - 4.80
Brisket - 13.60
Overall - 10.43

Table 2
Chicken - 16.00
Ribs - 16.17
Pork - 14.60
Brisket - 15.20
Overall - 15.55

Table 3
Chicken - 7.40
Ribs - 9.50
Pork - 14.67
Brisket - 8.60
Overall - 10.23

Table 4
Chicken - 19.80
Ribs - 20.40
Pork - 22.17
Brisket - 20.00
Overall - 20.67

Table 5
Chicken - 17.40
Ribs - 10.80
Pork - 12.00
Brisket - 10.67
Overall - 12.62

From this, it is very easy to tell that the hot tables were Tables 1 & 3, that Table 5 just a bit cooler, that Table 2 was just about at the average and that Table 4 was the Table of Death.

I also calculated the Number of Top 10 Calls by Table and what percentage that represented of all the Top 10 Calls

Table 1
# of all T-10 Calls - 13
% of all T-10 Calls - 32.50%

Table 2
# of all T-10 Calls - 5
% of all T-10 Calls - 12.50%

Table 3
# of all T-10 Calls - 13
% of all T-10 Calls - 32.50%

Table 4
# of all T-10 Calls - 2
% of all T-10 Calls - 5.00%

Table 5
# of all T-10 Calls - 7
% of all T-10 Calls - 17.50%

From this you can see that 65.00% of all the Top 10 calls came from Tables 1 & 3 and that 82.50% of all the Top 10 calls came from Tables 1,3 & 5.

I then calculated the Number of Bottom 10 Calls by Table and what percentage that represented of all the Bottom 10 Calls. (This contest had one team that was DQ'd for being late so there are only 39 places used for this set of numbers.)

Table 1
# of all T-10 Calls - 5
% of all T-10 Calls - 12.82%

Table 2
# of all T-10 Calls - 10
% of all T-10 Calls - 25.64%

Table 3
# of all T-10 Calls - 5
% of all T-10 Calls - 12.82%

Table 4
# of all T-10 Calls - 17
% of all T-10 Calls - 43.59%

Table 5
# of all T-10 Calls - 2
% of all T-10 Calls - 5.13%

This data shows that 69.23% of all the Bottom 10 calls came from Tables 2 & 4 with 43.59% of those calls coming from Table 4 alone. Table 4 was indeed the Table of Death at this contest.

One would expect that in any field of teams there will be a good blend of experience levels and that since all the boxes should be hitting different tables the numbers should average out pretty close to each other by the end of the event assuming that the Reps took proper care in balancing the tables. It is impossible for anyone other than the Reps and the Judges to know if this was done. I have been told that many Reps balance the tables based upon experience but it would seem that this new scoring program would give Reps the ability to balance the CBJs at a contest based upon their historical scoring average instead of expereince which might be a very good thing.

Now, I can be a bit cynical at times and all this new data leads me to the cynical conclusion of wondering how long we will be able to see the data points of which table every entry at a contest landed. I wonder because it, for the first time ever, gives conclusive information regarding the quality of the work done by the Reps and the Judges and that means a whole new level of public accountability for those two groups. I hope all the information stays visible and that it leads to improvement but only time will tell.

One last thing about this contest that I think is interesting: After the first three categories, the eventual GC and RGC were less than 4 points apart and neither team had landed on Table 4. In Brisket, the GC landed on Table 3 and the RGC landed on Table 4. The final margin of victory was 16 points. I can't help but wonder what would have happened if they and both missed Table 4 or both landed on Table 4.
Click to expand...
You make some great points Vince..in the meeting the reps spoke about the table of death and how they try to avoid that..guess it didn't happen but I guess you can't prevent it 100%..I also noticed a lot of us hit the same tables together(not the same table twice)and wondered if that was normal?..hitting tables with the same teams throughout all meats.
 
i only saw the new score sheet for couple minutes(it wasn't mine).

after all that work, would it be possible to narrow down what was going on at table four by judge?

like say, one or two individuals were actually bringing the whole table down?

i'd find it hard to beleive all six judges at a table were lowballers.

i'd also find it hard to beleive all six entries for all four categories were subpar that hit table 4.
 
Vince RnQ said:
There were 27 teams at the event and 5 tables of judges. The actual CBJ percentage is unknown but I know it is less than 100% per the contest reps.
QUOTE]

Vince - I spoke with one of the judges after the comp and she said it was 65% CBJ. 35% were VIP's from the town of Holbrook - Approx 2 non CBJ's per table!
Click to expand...
 
boogiesnap said:
i only saw the new score sheet for couple minutes(it wasn't mine).

after all that work, would it be possible to narrow down what was going on at table four by judge?

like say, one or two individuals were actually bringing the whole table down?

i'd find it hard to beleive all six judges at a table were lowballers.

i'd also find it hard to beleive all six entries for all four categories were subpar that hit table 4.
Click to expand...

I have judged contest where all the entries for a category were nothing to get excited about as well as some where all the samples were very good. Keith
 
mobow said:
I have judged contest where all the entries for a category were nothing to get excited about as well as some where all the samples were very good. Keith
Click to expand...

understood and agreed, but ALL the entries for ALL the categories?

i mean, really, the only two stable tables were two and five. one and three were high and four was low.
 
G$ said:
Thinking out loud here, but the later the category(eg brisket), the harder it is to avoid a duplication.
Click to expand...

The more tables a contest has, the easier it is to make sure a team does not hit the same table more than once. Think about it, if a contest has 13 tables, only 3 of those had that team's 3 prior turn-ins (less than 25%). If there were only 4 tables, 75% would have had a team's 3 prior meats.

I also believe table captains are given sheets to mark off and check to make sure they don't get the same boxes twice. Maybe that only happens with certain KCBS reps, I'm not sure.
 
Smitty250 said:
Vince RnQ said:
There were 27 teams at the event and 5 tables of judges. The actual CBJ percentage is unknown but I know it is less than 100% per the contest reps.
QUOTE]

Vince - I spoke with one of the judges after the comp and she said it was 65% CBJ. 35% were VIP's from the town of Holbrook - Approx 2 non CBJ's per table!
Click to expand...


Tucson Sam's had 3 new judges per table. My table was the only table with only 2 brand new judges. But we also had 2 judges that it was only their second contest judging... so if you wonder why scores are crazy.

To just got out of the first round is the hardest at Sam's and a lot of good teams get burned by I experienced judging. No thank you.
Click to expand...
 
What was interesting to me was that we were told in the cooks meeting that this was a true double blind system. After the competition I was looking over the new score sheet with a fellow competitor and his family member judged the comp. She also looked at my score sheet (first time she has seen it as well) and said she can tell me exactly what she scored me (and any other competitor for that matter) if she sees thier score sheet since she knew her table number and seat number.

She seemed to think the old way was more "blind" as she never remembered the alternate numbers that the teams were given upon turn-in and our old score cards did not say what table number our entry was on.

I have never judged so I don't know what goes on "behind the curtain" but it seems to me like the old score sheets were more "blind" than the new ones? Does this make sense?

Don't get me wrong - as a competitor I really like the new score sheets especially seeing what other teams were on my same table.
 
Scottie said:
Smitty250 said:
Tucson Sam's had 3 new judges per table. My table was the only table with only 2 brand new judges. But we also had 2 judges that it was only their second contest judging... so if you wonder why scores are crazy.

To just got out of the first round is the hardest at Sam's and a lot of good teams get burned by I experienced judging. No thank you.
Click to expand...

What table number were you? Just curious.
Click to expand...
 
I think the new system will be a good thing as long as KCBS uses it to re-educate (if needed) judges on what the rules are.

As for me, the last comp Hoggin Up in Winchester, VA, it would have been great to have this in place as far as our chicken goes.

Our scores were:
999
998
999
987
778
978

And yes, we used that "chicken style" that everyone seems to shy away from. I think you know what I mean. But to get 9's across the board for appearance except for 1 judge, I ain't sure about that. And the reason I say that is last year when we judged Smokin' On The Bay, as we were leaving the judging tent area, I overheard a couple of the judges talking about the certain "chicken style". One said to the other, "If I ever see another chicken ball again, I swear I will give it the lowest score I can! I hate that crap"

I wish I had more balls (not chicken balls :evil:) at the time and told him he was messed up (although I would have used a few different words). That was bull crap as he was not giving everyone a fair shot. Preconceived bias about what was being presented is farked!

No excuses for my scores; they are what they are and I'll take what I get. I just hope that the new system will help weed-out some of this. But like most things in my life, reality is what it is: Schit in one hand and wish in the other; see which one fills up first.

I look forward to our next comp. :mrgreen:

wallace
 
Funtimebbq said:
The more tables a contest has, the easier it is to make sure a team does not hit the same table more than once. Think about it, if a contest has 13 tables, only 3 of those had that team's 3 prior turn-ins (less than 25%). If there were only 4 tables, 75% would have had a team's 3 prior meats.

I also believe table captains are given sheets to mark off and check to make sure they don't get the same boxes twice. Maybe that only happens with certain KCBS reps, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
You're correct, the more tables, the eaiser to prevent duplicates. If there are at least four tables there should be no duplicates although with this few tables this takes a bit of planning and coordination but it's possible.
I believe ALL Reps are to use the tracking sheets. If they don't, how do they prevent duplicates? You can have a table captain OCCASIONALLY not cross off all the boxes on his tracking slip and then pick up a duplicate box however this should be extremely rare.
 
boogiesnap said:
i only saw the new score sheet for couple minutes(it wasn't mine).

after all that work, would it be possible to narrow down what was going on at table four by judge?

like say, one or two individuals were actually bringing the whole table down?

i'd find it hard to beleive all six judges at a table were lowballers.

i'd also find it hard to beleive all six entries for all four categories were subpar that hit table 4.
Click to expand...

Since we are able to see the Judge Average Score for the entire contest, another thing that the new score sheet shows is that every judge at Table 4 in Holbrook had a contest average of 29.1912 or lower. Of the remaining three tables that I can see, (Tables 1, 2 & 5. We did not hit Table 3 so I have no data for their average scores on my sheet.), only 1 of those 18 judges had an average score below 30.0000 and 10 of those 18 had averages of 32.000 or higher. The actual average scores for the judges at Table 4 were as follows:

Judge 1 - 29.0094
Judge 2 - 28.7486
Judge 3 - 28.5371
Judge 4 - 26.2769
Judge 5 - 26.8790
Judge 6 - 29.1912

Their combined average for the contest was 28.1070

The combined average for the other tables I can see are:

Table 1 - 32.4984
Table 2 - 31.0785
Table 5 - 31.9779

That's a huge difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Used Napoleon Prestige 500SIB
Replies
5
Views
382
cholloway
cholloway
N
American Royal Open Contest - Incorrect Results
Replies
6
Views
4K
Bill-Chicago
Bill-Chicago
Phubar
"Happy Phriday Pharkers,what's Smoking this Weekend?"
2
Replies
24
Views
646
LYU370
LYU370
G
KCBS membership required
Replies
6
Views
679
Smokin D@wg@77
S
BBQchef33
I forgot the new avatar library.
Replies
8
Views
67
Big George's BBQ
Big George's BBQ
Back
Top