• working on DNS.. links may break temporarily.

No more TOD

Does anyone know if the Board has looked at other organizations that have judging in a subjective matter? Maybe cake judging, other food category judging, American Culinary Federation and compared what the requirements are to be a judge to begin with and then what it takes to maintain your status as a judge? Not that KCBS judges need to be the level of an ACF judge, but some of the requirements like attend a judging seminar every 2 years, judge a minimum number of contests per year or something of the sort. Also, while comment cards are optional to be completed, there should be a requirement for comment cards to be left if a certain score is used. Not to discourage a judge from giving a score, but it needs to be spun in a way to help the cook improve.
 
Instead of arguing about if we should try to hide or not hide inconsistencies in judging, let’s argue about how to fix the inconsistencies in judging. Love or hate the seating program, it did absolutely nothing to solve the underlying problem. That is why we needed rid of it. Now hopefully we can focus on solutions instead of cover ups.

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^
Oh Lawdy!! Let his voice be heard!!!!!!! And the truth shall set you free!!!!!
 
Sounds like a whole bunch of people complaining over nothing. The comments are quite hilarious. Complaining about the new BOD who has done more in 2 meetings than the last BOD did in a year.


Mixing terrible scoring judges in with high scoring judges to somehow balance all tables sounds like BBQ socialism. Are we going to give everyone a trophy too? Fix the real problem, the inconsistency in how we train judges to score.
 
"While this is admittedly unlikely it is statistically possible. Under this system it is highly likely that several tables will share in the top 10's allowing for several teams to stay in the GC and RGC hunt all the way to the last turn in."

Why are we worrying about how many tables share in top tens? I'm much more concerned about what quality of BBQ is shared in the top tens.
 
Instead of arguing about if we should try to hide or not hide inconsistencies in judging, let’s argue about how to fix the inconsistencies in judging. Love or hate the seating program, it did absolutely nothing to solve the underlying problem. That is why we needed rid of it. Now hopefully we can focus on solutions instead of cover ups.

The seating program had nothing to do with what you are calling the underlying problem of inconsistencies in judging. I agree with you that retraining needs to happen but lumping the two together is apples and oranges. Removing it was a step in the wrong direction.
 
"While this is admittedly unlikely it is statistically possible. Under this system it is highly likely that several tables will share in the top 10's allowing for several teams to stay in the GC and RGC hunt all the way to the last turn in."

Why are we worrying about how many tables share in top tens? I'm much more concerned about what quality of BBQ is shared in the top tens.

Because it allows more teams to believe that they are relevant.

Maybe the analysis behind the seating program was solid, and the system worked. I'm trying to remain open minded, since I don't know how the process was developed. Based on personal, and professional, experience I'm doubtful. An even distribution of judges scoring 8-9 for virtually everything, with judges actually using the range to accurately score entries is more about camouflage than accurate scoring.

If I were to start looking at the data one of the things I'd look at first would be standard deviation, rather than a judges mean score. I'd be more interested in how judges score at each table related to each other, than their mean over the last however many contests.

Judges 5 and 6 aren't the problem, in my opinion. It's judges 1-4 if what multiple Reps have told me about scoring is accurate. Figure out how to address judges that refuse to hand out a 7, and you've got a chance to fix things. Without doing that, you are just rearranging the deck chairs.
 
IMO...the seating program designed around scoring averages is an attempt to manipulate the system which I don’t see as a positive. Attempting to manipulate the system means there is something wrong with the system. Fix the system and there is no need to manipulate it. Everyone seems to be focusing on band aids versus a cure.
 
KCBS shows approx. 19,000 members. Last year, approx. 2,600 teams earned TOY points. So I think you then have somewhere around 16,000 judges who we think need to be retrained to a single standard. How do you really expect to do that?

The only way I see that you could realistically make the needed changes would be to start over on a new scoring system with a new, uniform training program. Do you really think that is going to happen?

Without drastic changes, we are left with an obviously flawed system and the latest 'fix' is to randomly seat people. How is that not just another bandaid? You have people who have no required skills, who were taught how to score differently by different people, with no baseline as to what average is, who became 'certified' judges. Do you see the problem?

** I'm not judge bashing. I'm stating the flaws I see with the system we are now left with. It's not judges fault that these flaws exist.
 
"with no baseline as to what average is"... Easily corrected...

Set standards !!! Which team will step forward and provide an example of Their BBQ that will forever be considered the Standard for Average ?

Regarding past changes in the judging scoring process, ie starting at 6 & adding/subtracting, starting at 9 & subtracting, and the current method... Who requested those changes... judges, reps, or teams ?
 
let me ask this and I am being serious........the topic of inconsistency or unfairness or whatever with judges is obviously a hot topic.

but how do we expect something that ultimately comes down to a subjective decision to be handled as an objective thing?

yes, I am aware that judges are allegedly taught a few basic things to more consistently consider BBQ to be properly cooked etc. However, when it gets down to nut cutting time, to me, the subjective nature of each individual judge liking what they like will always win out.

How can it not? People can tell someone all day long that properly cooked bacon is flimsy and has a certain bend to it, and should never crunch.....but guess what, give me the crunchy bacon that is almost black and crumbles up.....lol the underdone stuff makes me gag.

we all hear the stories that properly cooked pulled pork shouldn't stick to the roof of your mouth......that properly cooked ribs should be able to have a bite taken out of them without the rest of the meat leaving the bone and that properly seasoned/sauced meat has a nice "balance" of sweet, savory and heat to it.......yet, the vast majority of EVERYONE that eats BBQ prefers the pulled pork to be "nuked" to the point of mush, the ribs to be "fall of the bone" and their sauce to taste as sweet as candy with no heat in it.

and even if you have a judge who is willing to accept instructions from KCBS on how they are "supposed to judge", how do you still deal with the final decision being a subjective thing?

how many times have all of us turned in meat that we would have hesitated to feed our dog, only to get a call on it? How many times have we turned in meat we thought was the best we ever made to not get a whiff? To me, thats just part of the subjective nature of being a part of a "sport" that relies on subjective opinions to tell us how tasty our turn ins were.

I guess what I am saying is that I don't know how you could ever get yourself into a judging system that doesn't contain perceived significant flaws by those being judged. But please don't think I am not in favor of researching and finding ways to improve the process and reduce the TOD experiences etc......I am all for that!!!! I just worry that achieving the results may be like going on a snipe hunt.
 
Back
Top