Comp Chicken/Educate Me Please

[Ron_L]

Originally Posted by Slamdunkpro

^^This^^

One of the rules we live by: "Don't try to be the French Laundry, be Chipotle"

I love this!

[airedale]

Originally Posted by Ron_L

... But, stop the personal attacks! Feel free to discuss this civilly, but this type of attack is not going to be tolerated.

No worries, @Ron_L. (OP here)

I didn't understand @Burnt at Both Endz's post, asked for clarification, and got nothing. So, end of story.

I found @dirtydingus's post to mostly be funny. Apparently he has never been to a judging class. Of course, it's subjective (aka "personal likes and dislikes"). It can be nothing else and the class doesn't try to make it anything else. What the scoring system tries to do is to standardize the subjective impressions of the judges into scores:

"The scoring system is from 9 to 2; 9 is excellent, 8 very good, 7 above average, 6 average, 5 below average, 4 poor, 3 bad, and 2 inedible. "

Nothing in the class material is telling anyone what, objectively, any of these things means. What the class teaches is that, if a judge subjectively considers the sample to be average, then he should write down a "6." If he considers it to be "excellent" he should write down a "9."

One of my class notes on Taste, verbatim from the instructor is: "Good Flavor = Memorable, want to repeat." What could be more subjective than that?

You want "objective?" Buy yourself a million dollar lab with machines to evaluate tenderness in milliNewtons and mass spectrometers to parse out the spice flavors and evaluate them against a standard profile. But even there you fail, because "Appearance" can't be quantified. Again from my notes: "Appearance --- want to eat it."

Sorry, @dirtydingus, judging is subjective. You can go to as many judging classes as you like and I don't think you'll be able to come to any other conclusion.

Again, thanks to all (well, most. ), for contributing to my education.

[Warpig BBQ]

Originally Posted by Pappy Q

What are the details of this Blues Hog mix you speak of?

You have to take the class to find out!

[Burnt at Both Endz]

Originally Posted by dirtydingus

So, after judging 3 contests you're one of those that brings your own personal likes and dislikes to the judging table? You're the kind of judge that makes a team cringe. Before you get too set in your judging mistakes, you should retake the judging class, AND LISTEN THIS TIME! OR QUIT JUDGING!

Originally Posted by Ron_L

I have no idea how you got that out of the quoted post

But, stop the personal attacks! Feel free to discuss this civilly, but this type of attack is not going to be tolerated.

Ron, I don't think that was pointed to me, I know he is a MCBJ, just as I am. I also visit at contests with him and his wife, when both of us were cooking, have even shared my chicken with them. I think he was making the point that I hoped my quote would make on the OP.....don't come to the judging tent looking for a specific kind, flavor, look, etc. A judge should leave all those things at the door and just judge the entries as presented. He is overthinking it for just judging 3 times.

[Ron_L]

Originally Posted by Burnt at Both Endz

Ron, I don't think that was pointed to me, I know he is a MCBJ, just as I am. I also visit at contests with him and his wife, when both of us were cooking, have even shared my chicken with them. I think he was making the point that I hoped my quote would make on the OP.....don't come to the judging tent looking for a specific kind, flavor, look, etc. A judge should leave all those things at the door and just judge the entries as presented. He is overthinking it for just judging 3 times.

Maybe not, but it was your post that he quoted and it was still inappropriate no matter who the target was.

[airedale]

Originally Posted by Burnt at Both Endz

... the point that I hoped my quote would make on the OP.....don't come to the judging tent looking for a specific kind, flavor, look, etc. A judge should leave all those things at the door and just judge the entries as presented. He is overthinking it for just judging 3 times.

OK, now I understand. My point in the OP is that all the chicken I have sampled is the same. That leads to boredom. If all the chicken was savory and unsauced, that would probably be boring too and I'd be longing for a sauced red one.

Somebody mentioned that their commercial customers really liked the red chicken too. Same-o, I might like it too if I got it in isolation rather than as the fifth piece of six.

So it's nothing that I am bringing as a preconception. It's just an effect from my three experiences.

Someone else mentioned that the other three meats are also pretty close to identical. I have thought about that but so far at least that's not my experience. My best memory of the last comp was a brisket box that was arranged to emphasize the bark. It really did make me want to eat the meat. It was great and I ended up giving it all 9s. Ribs, too, seem to me to have more differences than the chicken. In pork, maybe there is not so much flavor variety but at least the turn-in boxes are not all the same --- some more attractive than others.

So ... not trying to argue. Just to learn.

[CBQ]

Originally Posted by airedale

That leads to boredom. If all the chicken was savory and unsauced, that would probably be boring too and I'd be longing for a sauced red one.

I just hope you don't punish the teams for that. You might prefer something different, but judge it as presented. They are giving you what MOST judges like. (If most judges didn't like it, you would be getting something else.)

Remember Roger Ebert? Unlike many movie critics, he would sometimes give great reviews to low brow movies. He didn't reserve favorable reviews only for "art" films like some critics do. Not every director is trying to make If a movie was supposed to be a raunchy comedy, he would evaluate it against the spectrum of other raunchy comedies. Did the director execute on what he set out to achieve? Was it funny? Did it hold his attention? Was there craftsmanship in the acting and production values?

Judging is the same way. You might like a sage rosemary chicken, but you have to ask yourself did the cook execute well on what they presented to you? Was it tender? Tasty? A good balance of savoy, smokey, sweet, and heat? Did it look good for what it was? If you are reviewing "Something About Mary" you can't judge it is if it was "Citizen Kane."

[gettinbasted]

Originally Posted by CBQ

I just hope you don't punish the teams for that. You might prefer something different, but judge it as presented. They are giving you what MOST judges like. (If most judges didn't like it, you would be getting something else.)

Remember Roger Ebert? Unlike many movie critics, he would sometimes give great reviews to low brow movies. He didn't reserve favorable reviews only for "art" films like some critics do. Not every director is trying to make If a movie was supposed to be a raunchy comedy, he would evaluate it against the spectrum of other raunchy comedies. Did the director execute on what he set out to achieve? Was it funny? Did it hold his attention? Was there craftsmanship in the acting and production values?

Judging is the same way. You might like a sage rosemary chicken, but you have to ask yourself did the cook execute well on what they presented to you? Was it tender? Tasty? A good balance of savoy, smokey, sweet, and heat? Did it look good for what it was? If you are reviewing "Something About Mary" you can't judge it is if it was "Citizen Kane."

Did you just call my chicken a low brow, raunchy comedy?

[Jorge]

Originally Posted by CBQ

I just hope you don't punish the teams for that. You might prefer something different, but judge it as presented. They are giving you what MOST judges like. (If most judges didn't like it, you would be getting something else.)

Remember Roger Ebert? Unlike many movie critics, he would sometimes give great reviews to low brow movies. He didn't reserve favorable reviews only for "art" films like some critics do. Not every director is trying to make If a movie was supposed to be a raunchy comedy, he would evaluate it against the spectrum of other raunchy comedies. Did the director execute on what he set out to achieve? Was it funny? Did it hold his attention? Was there craftsmanship in the acting and production values?

Judging is the same way. You might like a sage rosemary chicken, but you have to ask yourself did the cook execute well on what they presented to you? Was it tender? Tasty? A good balance of savoy, smokey, sweet, and heat? Did it look good for what it was? If you are reviewing "Something About Mary" you can't judge it is if it was "Citizen Kane."

I had a seasoned judge explain it to me as "judging each entry for what it is, instead of what it is not". Was it well balanced? Was it over cooked? He also gave an example of a rib he had that wasn't perfectly balanced. The salt and heat were elevated in comparison to other qualities. It got a 9 from him because it worked really well and he wanted a rack of them. <-----Judged as presented, on merit. He told me he typically preferred milder Bbq, but that particular combination just worked for him that day. <---ignored personal preference and preconceived ideas.

I think almost all judges try to do the best they can. Some do a better job than others. The OP came in looking for info, and probably got more than he expected I hope he takes it as intended and found something of value that will help him in the future.

[Slamdunkpro]

Originally Posted by airedale

In virtually every case the chicken was cooked near perfection but almost completely uncontaminated by smoke. In every single case, the pieces were coated in identical-looking red sauce. Mostly it was identical tasting (sweet) too.

I'm curious what kind of numbers those well laid out cooked to perfection flavor balanced boxes got from you. Care to share?

[airedale]

Originally Posted by CBQ

I just hope you don't punish the teams for that. You might prefer something different, but judge it as presented. They are giving you what MOST judges like. (If most judges didn't like it, you would be getting something else.) ...

Yes, good point. I'll try to remember.

Re scores in Mankato, day 1 my chicken score was 32.3771 vs table average of 33.0270. So 0.35/1% difference. Day 2, my chicken score was 33.0533 vs a table average of 33.1880. So 0.0135/pretty small difference. Both days I gave out four 9s. Day 1 there was one 7. Day 2 there were two 7s. The rest were 8s.

But, as I keep trying to explain: It was not that I didn't like the red chicken. It's just that I was disappointed that no one stepped out from the crowd and gave me something different. And the answer apparently is (as I sort of suspected) is that to do something different is a risky move.

Originally Posted by Jorge

The OP came in looking for info, and probably got more than he expected I hope he takes it as intended and found something of value that will help him in the future.

Yes, more than I expected but I'm happy for it. And I have learned some things.

[Firefighter]

But, as I keep trying to explain: It was not that I didn't like the red chicken. It's just that I was disappointed that no one stepped out from the crowd and gave me something different. And the answer apparently is (as I sort of suspected) is that to do something different is a risky move.

Here's the reason that no one stepped out with something other than a red colored sauce and took a gamble at the three contests that you judged. There's to much at stake. This sport is way to expensive for people to step out to far. The bottom line is the type of chicken you described wins week in and week out. It's hard to stray from something that scores well. Heck garnish isn't required but there's not a cook out there willing to take a gamble and turn in a box with out it....like I said to much at stake!

[midwest_kc]

Originally Posted by gettinbasted

Did you just call my chicken a low brow, raunchy comedy?

Eh, much like the low brow, raunchy comedy makes more money than the art film, you win more than the art chicken, so I'd say it's a compliment!

[gettinbasted]

Originally Posted by airedale

But, as I keep trying to explain: It was not that I didn't like the red chicken. It's just that I was disappointed that no one stepped out from the crowd and gave me something different.

Do you understand that judging based on what you wish was in the box or scoring something different entirely based on the cut of meat presented makes for a bad judge? Being different is not a scoring criteria in KCBS. If you can’t separate your prejudices from the judging process, please stop judging and cook chicken at home.

I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but rules are rules and it’s the point the other judges who chimed in on this thread were trying to make. It is a black and white issue.

And to clarify, I completely understand wanting something different. I’d love to cook something different. The point is, judging based on this desire for creativity is wrong.

[Burnt at Both Endz]

Originally Posted by airedale

Yes, good point. I'll try to remember.

Re scores in Mankato, day 1 my chicken score was 32.3771 vs table average of 33.0270. So 0.35/1% difference. Day 2, my chicken score was 33.0533 vs a table average of 33.1880. So 0.0135/pretty small difference. Both days I gave out four 9s. Day 1 there was one 7. Day 2 there were two 7s. The rest were 8s.

But, as I keep trying to explain: It was not that I didn't like the red chicken. It's just that I was disappointed that no one stepped out from the crowd and gave me something different. And the answer apparently is (as I sort of suspected) is that to do something different is a risky move.

Yes, more than I expected but I'm happy for it. And I have learned some things.

The overall scores for last day was 702.83 for GC and 701.09 for 4th place. Do you know that a 1 point drop in score for taste(9-8 ) from just one judge equates to a reduction of around 2.5 points for the cook?


That means 4th place could have been GC. Now do you see why there is black and white to the rules?