From 6 to 5 judges....

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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%).

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.

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

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.

As myself and many others have stated, 6x6 , while not perfect, overall works best. I like the fact that they drop the low score. I feel this levels out the field more plus, keeps scoring more consistent and lessens the odds of getting burnt by a bad call. In contests that are not 100% CBJ your chances of receiving a undeserved score, either hi or low are greater IMO.