KCBS Appearence Scoring

[Buster Dog BBQ]

Originally Posted by Redheart

Lakeland was my first KCBS competition. My scores were crazy over all categories. I admit my boxes could have used some work but what I cannot understand is how I could get 999776 on brisket taste. Since I am new to the comp circuit my emphasis will be working on consistent taste scores, then I will worry more about the appearance. But I understand you brother and your rant.

Could have been a dry piece. That's the thing with individual pieces of meats is one has a chance of drying by the time judge 6 gets it.

[mgwerks]

What about eliminating the garnish altogether? that way the meat would have to stand on it's own...

[Lake Dogs]

Originally Posted by mgwerks

What about eliminating the garnish altogether? that way the meat would have to stand on it's own...

Dont go there; mistake! Been there, done that, have the scars!!!


> I think the rules are very complex and should be simplified: Treat garnish like sauce. Keep it optional, but allow it to be judged as part of the dish. That's my thought on the matter.

Lost in my earlier crap was this very point I was trying to make but
didn't. The rules where garnish is involved are complex at best and
really are confusing. For the sake of the judges, I think it would be
better if simplified. Appearance is appearance. If the appearance of
the product is superior, then score it so. If the garnish supplied brings
down the appearance and looks sloppy, score it so.

Honestly, that's probably what's happening, even though the rule says
something about cannot be taking into account.

[stlgreg]

Originally Posted by dmprantz

Exactly. Judges are told to judge the meat, not the garnish, which means you aren't supposed to score up from a good garnish, but if the garnish is illegal or rotten, you can score down. :(

dmp

As a judge I can tell you I dont factor the garnish itself in on the score. However the garnish does factor into how good the meat looks. After judging 5 contests or so you may get a better idea.

I dont look at the parsely to decide what kind of score to give. I am looking at the meat. Like you say I am looking for how much I want to eat that piece of meat. However there are a lot of things that go into decision. Like "same exact size and shape" or "how it is plated". Platting does relate to how much i want to eat it. It can illustrate how much the cook likes what he is turning in.

Ok, you watched Pitmasters i am sure. remember when Paddio Daddio just tossed his chicken in the box? Now change the way that chicken looked on the outside to something you really wanted to eat. it still wouldnt look as good as something you have already seen. The score will not be good. he took no care in making his presentation. Every molecule in that box tells the judge a story and that story is how good his BBQ is.

Sure illegal garnish will cause the score to go down. When the garnish rules were conceived they decided which garnishes can be used to achive a certain affect. The look that was decided at the time to be at that ime. Just look at red leaf lettuce. It can leave an entirely different effect on the meat. Or look at kale. It would real easy to use. I am sure everyone would be using kale if we could. No effort to use it and it looks good.

You have to be careful with what you say spell out what consititues a good appearance score. Its a slipperly slope. The more you define the more you take away from innovation. I have seen some spectular boxes. If you say for a box to look good it must have the chicken must have the right tone of red. Well now you have to have red sauce. What if you say so much of the bone has to be showing - boneless is out. To clarify without limiting is the issue.

[Alexa RnQ]

Originally Posted by stlgreg

Ok, you watched Pitmasters i am sure. remember when Paddio Daddio just tossed his chicken in the box?

That was Paul from Pablo Diablo. I know that John from Patio Daddio takes great care with his KCBS boxes.

Carry on!

[Southern Home Boy]

I've been following a few of these threads on the garnish question and it's quite apparant that folks are pretty passionate one way or the other (but then what about BBQ isn't passionate??).

From my perspective, the garnish makes sense and the more ambigous the rules, the better. That probably annoys the CBJs out there, but here's my reasoning:

BBQ is an art, not a science. Too much regulation both in how something is cooked/presented and how it's judged, moves the whole experience from the art end of the spectrum to the science end. Now, I recognize that this is a competition and there has to be rules to level the playing field, but in the end, the judges are judging an "Experience" not necessarily a product.

A huge part of that experience is the "look" of what it is you're eating. We all eat with our eyes first. This is one of the first things you learn in culinary school. The more "pleasing to the eye" the food is, the more the mind tells you it will taste good and more anticipation is built up. Anticipation whets the appetite. The mouth waters, the stomach pulses and the gastric juices begin to churn... all these physical factors tell the brain that food is coming. In our culture, these factors are almost universally associated with positive sensations.

So, usually, before the food is even smelled - which in itself is at least 85% of the taste of anything - the brain has already set the stage for a "good" or "bad" experience based on the visual input of what it looks like.

Therefore - IMHO - artistry in creating a visual display that enhances the experience of the food SHOULD be a part of the judging and anything that a cook can use to make that happen should be embraced.

[Alexa RnQ]

Originally Posted by stlgreg

Sure illegal garnish will cause the score to go down.

Another instance that I can think of where garnish would cause legitimate scoring down is when that garnish obscures the meat.

[Lake Dogs]

Originally Posted by Southern Home Boy

I've been following a few of these threads on the garnish question and it's quite apparant that folks are pretty passionate one way or the other (but then what about BBQ isn't passionate??).

From my perspective, the garnish makes sense and the more ambigous the rules, the better. That probably annoys the CBJs out there, but here's my reasoning:

BBQ is an art, not a science. Too much regulation both in how something is cooked/presented and how it's judged, moves the whole experience from the art end of the spectrum to the science end. Now, I recognize that this is a competition and there has to be rules to level the playing field, but in the end, the judges are judging an "Experience" not necessarily a product.

A huge part of that experience is the "look" of what it is you're eating. We all eat with our eyes first. This is one of the first things you learn in culinary school. The more "pleasing to the eye" the food is, the more the mind tells you it will taste good and more anticipation is built up. Anticipation whets the appetite. The mouth waters, the stomach pulses and the gastric juices begin to churn... all these physical factors tell the brain that food is coming. In our culture, these factors are almost universally associated with positive sensations.

So, usually, before the food is even smelled - which in itself is at least 85% of the taste of anything - the brain has already set the stage for a "good" or "bad" experience based on the visual input of what it looks like.

Therefore - IMHO - artistry in creating a visual display that enhances the experience of the food SHOULD be a part of the judging and anything that a cook can use to make that happen should be embraced.

Kudos, well said, and would be great if the rules allowed it to be so.

[Capn Kev]

Originally Posted by KC_Bobby

Oh yes - sorry I guess my mind must have been wondering by that point.

How about strips of bacon garnish? (I just saw a commercial for Beggin Strips)

Now you're talkin' my language!!

[Southern Home Boy]

Originally Posted by Lake Dogs

Kudos, well said, and would be great if the rules allowed it to be so.

Any rule that applies to a competition like this has to walk the line between creating an equal opportunity for all competitors and allowing for individual expression.

The way that I read the KCBS rules - and mind you, I'm still pretty much a Newb - the garnish rules attempt to do that. Are they perfect? Nah. But nothing is.

For my part, I'd like to see the restrictions eased a bit. Like STLGREG said, Kale is a great garnish, but then so are radishes, citrus, berries.... I mean the list goes on and on for what you COULD put in a box to really make your meat pop (...get your mind out of the gutter...)but eventually there has to be a line. I think the garnish rules for KCBS do a fine job of walking that line.

[EatonHoggBBQ]

Originally Posted by dmprantz

Exactly. Judges are told to judge the meat, not the garnish, which means you aren't supposed to score up from a good garnish, but if the garnish is illegal or rotten, you can score down. :(
dmp

A judge can score down if the garnish is rotten???

[michiana mark]

Originally Posted by Southern Home Boy

I've been following a few of these threads on the garnish question and it's quite apparant that folks are pretty passionate one way or the other (but then what about BBQ isn't passionate??).

From my perspective, the garnish makes sense and the more ambigous the rules, the better. That probably annoys the CBJs out there, but here's my reasoning:

BBQ is an art, not a science. Too much regulation both in how something is cooked/presented and how it's judged, moves the whole experience from the art end of the spectrum to the science end. Now, I recognize that this is a competition and there has to be rules to level the playing field, but in the end, the judges are judging an "Experience" not necessarily a product.

A huge part of that experience is the "look" of what it is you're eating. We all eat with our eyes first. This is one of the first things you learn in culinary school. The more "pleasing to the eye" the food is, the more the mind tells you it will taste good and more anticipation is built up. Anticipation whets the appetite. The mouth waters, the stomach pulses and the gastric juices begin to churn... all these physical factors tell the brain that food is coming. In our culture, these factors are almost universally associated with positive sensations.

So, usually, before the food is even smelled - which in itself is at least 85% of the taste of anything - the brain has already set the stage for a "good" or "bad" experience based on the visual input of what it looks like.

Therefore - IMHO - artistry in creating a visual display that enhances the experience of the food SHOULD be a part of the judging and anything that a cook can use to make that happen should be embraced.

I believe you nailed it as far as I'm concerned. For instance, I was at a comp this summer, in the judges tent, when chicken was brought to the table. As the table captain presented each entry, everyone judged for appearance. The energy at the table was at a normal level. As the last box was opened, all of a sudden the energy at the table went up. You could see judges setting up in their chairs, and an air of "Oh My"replaced the complacency. It was all due to this wonderful, sweet, delectable smell. TThat piece of chicken was probably the best I ever had. Appearance of the chicken in the box was exceptional, taste was incredible, texture was excellent, but it was all set up by that smell. Everyone at the table, said that was the best entry on the table. Just my .02

[lunchlady]

Originally Posted by Rub

This weekend in Lakeland I made 4 putting greens that were all as close to perfect as I can get. My meat all looked spot on, IMO. Prettiest boxes I've ever made, absolutely no reason they shouldn't have been straight 9s. I've done over 130 contests which equates to over 500 boxes built. Appearance scores were:
Chicken - 999978
Ribs - 999998
Pork - 688899
Brisket - 899789
I can live with and understand the occasional 8, but the 7's and 6, no way. OK, rant over.

I hear ya brother.
And you know what 9's look like.... look at your track record.

Here's my theory about the 6's and 7's... and I have talked to more than a few CBJ's about it as well, some of whom actually AGREED with me, which was a shocker...
I think judges that are seeing great boxes over and over and over again, have determined, whether consciously or UNconsciously, that those are AVERAGE-looking.
So now, your previously fantastic-looking parsley boxes, which scored 9's in every comp one or two years ago will eventually begin to come across as average. Here comes your 6's and 7's...

Think about it... the first time you ever saw a rack of ribs, straight off the cooker... you were wowed. Now, after however long you've been cooking ... maybe not wowed so much. It becomes average.

[early mornin' smokin']

i'm not gonna lie, the one comp im really looking forward to this year is Williepalooza on LI, no garnish allowed. Couldnt be happier, put your best foot forward, leave the greens for the vegans, and let the meat speak for itself

[dmprantz]

Originally Posted by stlgreg

You have to be careful with what you say spell out what consititues a good appearance score. Its a slipperly slope. The more you define the more you take away from innovation. I have seen some spectular boxes. If you say for a box to look good it must have the chicken must have the right tone of red. Well now you have to have red sauce. What if you say so much of the bone has to be showing - boneless is out. To clarify without limiting is the issue.

There was a lot in here to try to respond to, but this last bit is the most important. There's almost always a slope, slippery or non, but it's already started in the garnish area with only allowing certain types of garnishes. Am I crazy, or was cilantro recently added as an allowable garnish? Anyway, I digress. And as far as what constitutes a good appearance, my CBJ instructor told us exactly how to test texture: You should be able to press it against the top of your mouth, etc, and you should be able to take a bite of the rib, etc, and we already have "standards" of what constitutes good texture, so either he was teaching wrong, and there were BOD members there to correct, or that's well defined and appearance isn't. A lot of ppl LIKE fall off the bone ribs, but that's not what gets turned in, because competitors conform to what CBJs are told to like. All I'm saying is get rid of the ambiguity: Define what appearance really means, because to me it means does the mean look like it will taste good and be tender, and uniformity of pieces has absolutely no bearing that. The latter is plating, and I'd like rules one what judges are expecting.

This one goes out to a lot of the other responses: First of all, I predicted that a lot of the "old boys" would like things to stay the way they are, so I'm not surprised, but I agree that BBQ is an art. While there are a few competitions, most visual art is displayed in shows where every one has a chance to sell stuff. I have no problem keeping the art side of BBQ, and I'm not suggesting that anything be changed per se, but as a cook, how can I cook what judges are supposed to want to see when there is no standard? I think it was Bremaster who once posted two pictures and asked which one looked like a better competition box vs which one looked like it would be better to eat? The overwhelming results were that the better comp box was not the one ppl wanted to eat. Why should that ever be the case?

dmp