From 6 to 5 judges....

[Brewmaster]

I know there are pros and cons to every idea. That’s the reasons I want to throw this out there. I want to hear people’s thoughts on going from six judges to five judges per table.

I don’t know if this has been brought up before, but I was curious why we have six judges. With five judges you would only need to turn in five portions of meat which gives you more room for creativity in your box. It would also require the judges to eat less food and give them the opportunity to take larger sample bites, thus being able to taste more of the turn-in.

When going from six judges to five judges it gives you one less score. So I figure this would give you more ties, which is not good. So my thought on that is to use the whole range of scores from 0 to 9 instead of using just 5 to 9 like we do now. I’m not sure how many 1, 2, and 3s are given, but I can’t image there being very many.

So really the only negative I see in this scenario would be the number of table captains needed. But really you don’t need that many more. A contest with fifty teams would require nine table captains with the six judge format. The same contest with the five judge format would only require one more table captain.

So that is my idea. Please tell me your thoughts.

Cheers,
Nate

[Ford]

Do you mean only 5 boxes per table instead of 6? Still could have 6 judges per table and just 5 boxes. It sounds like you mean 5 boxes per table and I think that's a bad idea.

I usually put more than 6 in the box so no problem with space. Don't think I'm alone.

All #'s from 2 to 9 are used and 1 is a DQ. Based on what I read there are a lot of lower numbers given out.

Final thought - why change it? I see no advanteages to this and a huge problem with only 4 scores counting.

[Brewmaster]

Do you mean only 5 boxes per table instead of 6? Still could have 6 judges per table and just 5 boxes. It sounds like you mean 5 boxes per table and I think that's a bad idea.

5 Judges and 5 Boxes. That is my idea here.

I usually put more than 6 in the box so no problem with space. Don't think I'm alone.

I put more than 6 also. But if you require only 5 it you more room for creativity. You can put in 5, 6, or 7. It's your call.

All #'s from 2 to 9 are used and 1 is a DQ. Based on what I read there are a lot of lower numbers given out.

I disagree with this. I don't have anything to back this up but I would say there are more scores at 5 and above. Thus only using half the numbers.

Final thought - why change it? I see no advanteages to this and a huge problem with only 4 scores counting.

I explained the advantages above. I think you would get a more accurate score from a judge if they are able to take a larger sample.

[Divemaster]

To be honest, I would rather they increase the number of judges rather than decrease it. The larger the sample, the more accurate the result...

As for putting enough in each box, I normally have 8 thighs, 10-12 ribs, more than enough pork, and 12 slices of brisket plus burnt ends.

[carlyle]

Interesting idea to think about, but I would be against lowering the number of judges per table. With fewer judges at the table a single judge who was scoring consistently higher or lower than the rest of the table has more impact on a teams scoring.

I understand what you are saying about "creativity" with box prep. Instructions about
appearance scoring say that it is all about the meat, not how it is arranged or about the presence or absence of garnish. If judges follow instructions, how you have your entry arranged should make no difference in this score. Yeah, I know, in the real world a pretty box scores better than one not so pretty.

About scoring, again back to instructions. Currently reps are telling judges that 6 is the starting point and you go up or down from there. The result? Lots of high scores
and a lot more 180's. Now KCBS is talking about more changes. Time will tell.
Know this will be hot discussion at the annual banquet at Kansas City.

From my perspective, it only makes sense to reduce number of judges if there was
a shortage of judges. That is sure not the case in my part of the country. I get more judges applying than I can use and they rush to apply more than 6 months before our event. Just sayin'.

OK, any math whizzes out there? Do more scores give a more representative, more accurate score than if you have fewer scores? What do you think?

[bbq.tom]

I also disagree with lowering the judges from 6 per table to 5 as it would make for lesser divergence of scores. As it is there are only 5 scores accepted now.

As far as the usage of scores below 5, I agree that there are VERY FEW low scores given out, and that is to be expected since a score of 4 indicates "Poor" meat and I have never had "Poor" meat at a competition that I judged. I have given out one 5 (Below Average), and that was because the tenderness was not good, but it wasn't "Poor", just below average. I have found that most competition teams don't turn in boxes with meat that is below average.

[RedPig]

I feel 6 judges/6 entries per table is adequate. I have no problem fitting 6 portions of meat in a turn in box. I usually turn in 8/9 ribs, up to 9 pieces of chicken and the brisket and pork easily fits in the box with plenty left for the grazing table. Using less than 6 judges, in my opinion, would be unfair to the teams. Having a larger judging pool helps weed out bad scoring and insures more consistent scoring overall. Just my 2 cents.

[watertowerbbq]

I think the judges would take the same bite as before. I don't think they would really want to take additional bites.

For example, with 6 judges and if each takes 1 bite, then they take a total of 6 bites per category. Under the assumption that they would take "more", I can only assume that it would be 2 bites. Therefore, with 5 entries they would take 10 bites. That is a huge percentage increase (67%).

[Brewmaster]

Maybe I was not clear on my concept. It was not to make it easier to for the cook fit food in the box. Because I agree with you all on this being pretty easy to accomplish. My concern is how full the judge is by the time the brisket rolls around.
It seems I might be way off line and people really like the way things are now. Which is fine with me, I just like to throw things out there like this to create discussion and get people thinking.
Rules are rules and I will play by them. If I didn't like them, I wouldn't play.

Cheers,
Nate

[RedPig]

Well I guess it's a good bet that most of us are indeed satisfied with the rules. Nothing is ever perfect, and judging is very subjective and personal, but overall I think the consensus is that the majority of the judges really try their best to be fair and unbiased. The ones who established the 6x6 rule probably did their homework and figured that the overall system, although not perfect, is at least fair to all and consistent all over.

[Candy Sue]

Would you still want to drop the lowest scores in this scenario?

[Brewmaster]

Originally Posted by Candy Sue

Would you still want to drop the lowest scores in this scenario?

Good question. I don't see any reason to drop a score. That way all the scoring stays the same. And you can still fight for the 180 pin.

Honestly I don't know why we drop a score now. Does it have to do with some contests not having 100% CBJs? I wouldn't like to be that judge who's score doesn't count.


Nate

[Brewmaster]

The more I think about it. You really only need to have 5 good portions since the 6th score is tossed out. With the 5 judge system you would need 5pcs and all 5pcs count. Kind of makes more sense.

[Jorge]

This IS NOT intended to slam judges, but if you go to a table of 5 the potential for one judge to have a huge impact increases.

The system you propose would more than likely result in more ties as well. I see the solution introducing more havoc than the current perceived problem.

[Brewmaster]

Originally Posted by Jorge

This IS NOT intended to slam judges, but if you go to a table of 5 the potential for one judge to have a huge impact increases.

Very true. Good point.