Appearance score ?'s

[bigabyte]

Originally Posted by Lake Dogs

955 to a 999? Holy Tamale!!! *slight* variance there, huh?!!!

I know the low one gets tossed; joy. However, there's a HUGE difference
in those. One says "this is some DAMNED FINE Q", and the other says
"this is akin to DOG FECES [with sauce, of course]". Which is it?

How can KCBS let this fly? I understand it being a true 8, and one guy
begin generous and giving something a 9, and another being perhaps
overly critical and in a bad mood giving it a 7, but a 5 to 9 variance?
Not good.

I don't know...I think I would score something that tasted like dog feces with sauce a 2 at best. A 5 would be far too generous.

[bigabyte]

I wanted to add a recent observation at a contest I recently judged. Now this is not to stir anything up, nor is it a rebuttal to other comments, I just thought everyone might want to consider this is all.

I was recently at a table where all 6 judges were CBJ's. Two of these CBJ's made similar comments at separate times during the judging. Those comments were that the teams go through so much time and expense, and the BBQ is so much better than what they can make or get at any restaurant, that they score all of the entries high.

As the judging progressed I began to notice a pattern. After all of the cards were turned in for an entry and the judges would start sharing what they thought, these two judges always said the same thing, "They were all amazing". Myself and the other 3 judges would talk about one or two entries that stood out as the best, and one or two that had the most issues.

For example, for ribs, I had one entry where all of the meat slid off when I went to pull off a bite. I had another entry where it was undercooked and the meat would not pull off the bone. After the cards were turned in and we discussed it, the two judges again said that they were all wonderful. However, when I discussed the entries with one of the other judges, that person said they had the same entry where the meat was fall off the bone, and the same entry where it was undercooked.

So at this table, these teams that had legitimate issues with their turn ins (I won't talk about one crazy brisket entry that came in), they would have seen 2 judges giving them very high marks, and 2 judges with low scores, and since I didn't talk to the other two on that entry I can't say for sure but what if they scored them 7's? If so, then you have this wide variance between 5'sand 9's spread across a table where they are all CBJ's.

OK, now that I stated the facts of what happened, now for my opinion, and this is just my opinion. The variance here is the baseline for scoring, or in my opinion the definition of "what is average"? For these 2 CBJ's who like to score high, they are basing average off of what they can produce or buy at a restaurant I suppose. The others are basing average off of what the average competition Q tastes like. That's a big difference. I could see that being a fairly good explanation of the gap between scores of 5 and 9 in SOME cases.

I know, same old issue all over again, but I thought this contrast was needed in this thread was all.

[Lake Dogs]

IMHO, the "all 9" judges that you're referencing shouldn't be judging. They're there to
be critical, consistently. If the entry was due a 7, it should be scored 7. But the
variance; not. Shouldn't be that far, IMHO. I completely understand a variance of
2, but "judging the judges", I dont understand a variance of 3; heaven forbid 4 or 5.
Ok, earlier, perhaps not dog feces, but probably a dog bone...

Mind you, I've been a MIM/MBN CBJ for over 6 years and lost count of contests; way
over 60, maybe close to 100 by now. I dont understand the variance. There should
be NO "gimme" points. It's a competition. I'd really hate to see someone take home
a big trophy or heaven forbid a GC because they got a few tables of "gimme" judges.
Conversely, I'd hate to see someones very good entry miss a call because a couple
of nit-wit judges thought that the greenery wasn't perfect or that it *appeared*
to have too much sauce (without tasting it) or whatnot...

Looking at his example pics above, being critical, that pork box was IMHO an 8. It
wasn't perfect, but it was darned good.

[PimpSmoke]

That's a valid observation Chris.

[pop's smokin hot que]

I would give both pork and brisket 7's. As to new judges scoring low, I think you have it backwards. The 5 events that I have done this year it was the old judges that scored lower.

[2Fat]

Originally Posted by Divemaster

I stand corrected... The scores should have read...

955 766 977 988 999 999

Sorry...

our chicken was 887 788 977 989 989 847 guess will have to taste the chicken nexttime

[PimpSmoke]

847, harsh!
My chicken looked like doody, but evidently tasted better than I thought.

[Brauma]

Pimp, maybe it's the difference in the region of the country, but here on the east coast, I wouldnt consider your pork over sauced. Matter of fact, I would bury my face in that box and eat the whole thing! Looks scrumptious.

I agree with the others that the brisket looks dry and uneven. Concerning the smoke ring, do you pop it in the smoker cold, like right out of the cooler? Cold meat usually makes a pronounced smoke ring. I like to set mine out for about an hour before putting it in the smoke.

[DawgPhan]

I would say that low appearance scores are a clear indication of judging gone wrong. whatever the reason...if the appearance scores are 8's and 9's and someone tosses you a 6 on appearance, then something is wrong.

[PimpSmoke]

No, it was still a little cold but not like right off the ice cold.

The more I think on it the more I think it was the fact that I put both briskets on the top rack of my SKD near the exhaust. I think I may let them warm a bit at the next one and see if that calms it down a bit.

[Smokesman]

Hi Pimp - I think you have a bit of an anomaly in your brisket - did both of your briskets have the same funky smoke ring? If not I wouldn't worry about it too much. If your smoker was packed you would have had a lot of moisture inside which does the most early on to develop smoke ring. Did your pork which I assume was on at the same time also have a pronounced deep smoke ring? Do you use a water pan?

I for one think a well developed smoke ring is par excellence but I do admit yours goes into over-pronouced. The look of dryness (it may not have been) would as a judge have me scoring it down more than the funky smoke ring...err...scratch that...what smoke ring!?! : )

Seriously, if the tenderness of the brisket is where you want it then a nice little bath in strained au jus will warm and moisten as well as tone down the smoke ring.

The pork by the way looks great - I'd give it an 8. Nice!

[Bratenmeister]

I would score both of your boxes in the 8 and 9 range in appearance, particularly your pork. I'd give it a 9. To me, the pulled pork looks great. As others have said, perhaps the brisket may look a little dry, but otherwise looks pretty tasty, and I try to ignore the smoke ring when I judge. If the brisket is dry, that will show up more in my tenderness score, rather than appearance. On whether the pulled pork is over sauced....again, I usually can't tell until I taste the sample because each sauce is different and requires a different amount of application, so any over-saucing would be more likely to show up in my taste score. But if I had to judge the sauce amount by appearance, it doesn't appear to be over-sauced to me. Others will disagree, I'm sure.

[Divemaster]

Originally Posted by Bratenmeister

I would score both of your boxes in the 8 and 9 range in appearance, particularly your pork. I'd give it a 9. To me, the pulled pork looks great. As others have said, perhaps the brisket may look a little dry, but otherwise looks pretty tasty, and I try to ignore the smoke ring when I judge. If the brisket is dry, that will show up more in my tenderness score, rather than appearance. On whether the pulled pork is over sauced....again, I usually can't tell until I taste the sample because each sauce is different and requires a different amount of application, so any over-saucing would be more likely to show up in my taste score. But if I had to judge the sauce amount by appearance, it doesn't appear to be over-sauced to me. Others will disagree, I'm sure.

First of all, thank you for your response.

I just wanted to also thank you for not making assumptions based on the looks... your comment on the sauce is dead on.

[Smokesman]

Originally Posted by Bratenmeister

I would score both of your boxes in the 8 and 9 range in appearance, particularly your pork. I'd give it a 9. To me, the pulled pork looks great. As others have said, perhaps the brisket may look a little dry, but otherwise looks pretty tasty, and I try to ignore the smoke ring when I judge. If the brisket is dry, that will show up more in my tenderness score, rather than appearance. On whether the pulled pork is over sauced....again, I usually can't tell until I taste the sample because each sauce is different and requires a different amount of application, so any over-saucing would be more likely to show up in my taste score. But if I had to judge the sauce amount by appearance, it doesn't appear to be over-sauced to me. Others will disagree, I'm sure.

Originally Posted by Divemaster

First of all, thank you for your response.

I just wanted to also thank you for not making assumptions based on the looks... your comment on the sauce is dead on.

I like where this topic is going as it is important for all active judges to discuss these various points. I've even thought lately it would be nice to have a discussion area on this forum dedicated to "Judging BBQ." Moreover it would be a nice addition to the Bullsheet to have a regular "continuing education" type article discussing judging topics and trends.

While judging of any type is primarily subjective in nature we have criteria and guidelines in place to help make judging more consistent. That said, appearance by its nature is the only category of the three that is in fact completely subjective (also why it only has a .5 weighting). I think we all agree that the number one criteria for judging appearance is...does the appearance of this product make you want to jump right in and eat every last bite?

So isn't "making assumptions based on the looks" the whole point of the appearance score? If a product "looks" dry or over-sauced then it will be less appetizing for that particular judge and thus garner a lower score. Likewise, the smoke ring and garnish, even though they are more easily disregarded visually they do have a HUGE subconscious effect in making something look more or less appetizing.

I do agree though, while judging, in no way should any assumptions (may not be the best word here) made determining the appearance of the product carry over to scoring for taste and tenderness!!!

What say you brethren?

[bigabyte]

I like the conversation here too about judging. I have to say though, when I say I think it "looks" dry, that is a comment on the appearance, not the taste. It can look dry and taste juicy, or look juicy and taste dry. My scores on appearance and taste would reflect that properly. In this case, I would score down because they look dry. If when tasting I found it was tasty and juicy, then the taste score could get a 9. However, it would not be right to dismiss the appearance of whether or not it looks juicy, because if the piece looked and tasted juicy, it should score higher than if it looked dry and tasted juicy.

Just my $0.02