New KCBS scoresheet

kellym said:

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.

Click to expand...

So Kelly, as a Contest Rep (and a damn good one), what do you think of the idea of sorting tables based upon a CBJ's historical scoring average instead of experience level?

This is going to be a newby comment so bare with me, (I have never been in a competition yet, next month will be first) with out knowing what the "old" sheet was I see that the new one can help you/kcbs figure out which Judge you don't want to have or that needs more training. Since you don't get to choose your table and the same Judge's don't go to all of the comps, how does this "help" you as a cook to improve with out the comment cards? I can see knowing your score can tell you what area you were good or bad in though.

Vince RnQ said:

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.

Click to expand...

Table 5 was the "table of death" at wellsville this weekend. It was good to see that our 19th placed chicken was the highest score at the table for chicken and that our 19th place finish in that category was the highest place of any single item that hit table 5.

At past competitions I would have had many hours of hand wringing and analyzing to explain a subpar finish, but this time I could safely mark it up to landing on the wrong table.

As another candidate for table 5 at Wellsville I agree, it was a tough table at best. However, if we as cooks are held to a standard, then some how judges should be held to a standard of being fair in the overall scheme of things and if historically they are continually out of sync with other judges over time then they need to either be re-educated or politely taken aside and talk to about their quality standards. With that said the nearby judge or 2 time judge will still have issues but if the rep keeps them to one per table then it really doesn't matter as their potential low score will be dropped. Overall the new scoring sheet is a vast improvement...good job KCBS and everyone who took countless hours to make it happen!

oig2scout said:

However, if we as cooks are held to a standard, then some how judges should be held to a standard of being fair in the overall scheme of things and if historically they are continually out of sync with other judges over time then they need to either be re-educated or politely taken aside and talk to about their quality standards.

Click to expand...

It is my understanding that THAT is exactly what this KCBSCORE system will be used for. KCBS can look at the results and see which judge needs re-education or whatever.

Smitty250 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I was a table captain at Holbrook, and I believe that the CBJ % was less than 65%. There were at least 3 VIPs at most of the tables. On my table, there were 3, so to help the teams and scoring, I held a mini judges class before the judging began, and then again before each meat turn in. The non CBJs scoring was right in line with the CBJs on my table, +/- a point here and there.

The new score sheet is very revealing, judges are no longer anonymous, and names could be easily placed to tables and seat numbers by those in the judging area.

My advice would be to not use Holbrook as a baseline for the new scoring system because of the low CBJ percentage. Just for the record, even with only 5 tables, the Table Captains took the time to make sure no table judged the same teams entrys twice.

I like the new scoring sheets. Gives us more information.
I cooked the Greenwood contest with a very good friend who is a CMJ.
In his opinion of the scores:
Chicken was about right.
Ribs and pork were way too low. They were very good entries just hit the dead tables.
Brisket was about right. We knew it was not going to place very high even before slicing.

Only time will tell if KCBS uses the results to improve judging.

oig2scout said:

As another candidate for table 5 at Wellsville I agree, it was a tough table at best. However, if we as cooks are held to a standard, then some how judges should be held to a standard of being fair in the overall scheme of things and if historically they are continually out of sync with other judges over time then they need to either be re-educated or politely taken aside and talk to about their quality standards. With that said the nearby judge or 2 time judge will still have issues but if the rep keeps them to one per table then it really doesn't matter as their potential low score will be dropped. Overall the new scoring sheet is a vast improvement...good job KCBS and everyone who took countless hours to make it happen!

Click to expand...

There was also a "money" table at wellsville. 3 of the 4 category winners came off of table 8. I'm guessing we won't be arguing to have those judges reeducated!

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...

I agree, been pouring over them too from the same contest. It is no secret good cooks still win that is why you kick our butt every time.:wink:

it may have been understood and i didn't know that i was wrong, but i always kinda thought if there was a tough or hot table or two all the teams would hit them once(except for the big events)so it would kinda average out over the four categories and it becomes kinda "fair".

vince and gettin basted clearly contradict that sentiment.

but, then again, i can't argue that the great teams don't almost always perform well. kinda contradicts the contradiction...

a paradox it is.

Really interested in how this is going to work. I thought Score was implemented to help KCBS track judges' scoring over the long run, not to tell teams how a particular judge at a particular table scored on average that particular day. Hmmm...

big matt said:

.....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.

Click to expand...

Are you consistently submitting your entry at the beginning or end of the submission window?

Also, I wonder, do the better teams normally turn in at the beginning, middle, or end of the turn-in time?

Vince RnQ said:

So Kelly, as a Contest Rep (and a damn good one), what do you think of the idea of sorting tables based upon a CBJ's historical scoring average instead of experience level?

Click to expand...

That is an interesting idea. If they could maybe have something where they could put a judge's historical average in and have it spit out table assignments where the average historical scoring ends up being about the same for each table, so that no one table is weighted with very high or very low scorers.

I would think this wouldn't be too difficult now that all this info is being recorded and tracked.

BigZ said:

This is going to be a newby comment so bare with me, (I have never been in a competition yet, next month will be first) with out knowing what the "old" sheet was I see that the new one can help you/kcbs figure out which Judge you don't want to have or that needs more training. Since you don't get to choose your table and the same Judge's don't go to all of the comps, how does this "help" you as a cook to improve with out the comment cards? I can see knowing your score can tell you what area you were good or bad in though.

Click to expand...

I am a newb too, having only competed in one contest. Here is my take on how this could have helped me in understanding where I am in my development.

I think my ribs were pretty good, I had 2 judges give me 999. I ended up coming in 28th i think out of 42 in ribs. Now, were my ribs really that good from the 2 judges going all 9's, or did those judges score everyone high? Did the judges who scored me low in ribs score everyone low? Now, if the high scoring judges didn't score everyone else high, and the low scoring judges pretty much scored everyone else low, then I can reasonably deduce that my ribs were likely pretty good and got the luck of a bad judge who scored everyone down.

Also, did anyone get a call in ribs from my table? What place did the highest place rib score on my table land overall? Was I actually the highest rib score of my table yet only came in 28th which leads me to think maybe I hit a low scoring table?

Now, as for my brisket, it was my second time EVER cooking brisket. I thought it was terrible. It looked ok, but overall, it was a bad entry. I came in 32 out of 42. A bad score, but I can't imagine how bad the 10 guys below me were. Maybe I lucked into a high scoring table, and I can deduce that my 32nd was a gift.

Like I said, i am a newb as well, and I am sure others can chime in with other ways to use these score sheets, but this is just one way I see its benefits. I would still like comment cards thought.

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...

What you said and what I said are not mutually exclusive.

Also, and I am not going to do the statistical anlysis here, but in general one might want to be careful when pointing out tings like "GC never hit table 3, and table 3 was the TOD (table o' death)". There can be a causal relationship there, POTENTIALLY.

gettinbasted said:

There was also a "money" table at wellsville. 3 of the 4 category winners came off of table 8. I'm guessing we won't be arguing to have those judges reeducated!

Click to expand...

So.... If the best four turn ins happen to arrive at the same table, wouldn't we expect it to be, what you have termed a "money" table?

Vince RnQ said:

So Kelly, as a Contest Rep (and a damn good one), what do you think of the idea of sorting tables based upon a CBJ's historical scoring average instead of experience level?

Click to expand...

How many contests are needed to make that number statistically meaningful?

BigZ said:

This is going to be a newby comment so bare with me, (I have never been in a competition yet, next month will be first) with out knowing what the "old" sheet was I see that the new one can help you/kcbs figure out which Judge you don't want to have or that needs more training. Since you don't get to choose your table and the same Judge's don't go to all of the comps, how does this "help" you as a cook to improve with out the comment cards? I can see knowing your score can tell you what area you were good or bad in though.

Click to expand...

We don't really know what, if anything, KCBS will do with regard to using KCBScore to change judge behavior. Maybe nothing. What it DOES do is give the cooks a lot more information about their performance. Did you have a problem with your product, or did you hit an unlucky table? While the new system won't give you a conclusive answer, it gives you more insight into how you really did and what the judges might be thinking.

G$ said:

So.... If the best four turn ins happen to arrive at the same table, wouldn't we expect it to be, what you have termed a "money" table?

Click to expand...

It is absolutely possible that the "money" table had the top entries in each category and that the "table of death" had terrible food across the board. At an 8 table contest, however, I would consider it unlikely. With only 5 or 6 entries hitting each table per category, any conclusion drawn can be dead wrong.

It is what it is. We are all aware that a good or bad table can exist when we turn in our food. That is BBQ, and as Boogiesnap pointed out, it will even out over the course of a contest and a season.

G$ said:

How many contests are needed to make that number statistically meaningful?

Click to expand...

I don't advocate any kind of judge training program based on their score history. G$ makes the perfect point as to why. There just won't be enough data. Judge reeducation is a dangerous path to go down.

BBQ judging is subjective. I have received a 180 and a 160 on essentially the same piece of meat at two competitions. The truth was probably somewhere in the middle. I would love to have that 160 be a 170, but I don't want to give that 180 pin back!