IF you had the power over KCBS for 24 hours dicusion / debate thread.

[GrillBillie_D]

1. Reps/Judges - I would start with training the Reps. They are the ones who speak to every judge at an event. They should explain that over the years different rules were taught on where to start scoring. Explain that the rules have changed and explain how it should now be scored as they are about to actually judge at a contest. I think this would eliminate the need to re-train every single judge. They can get their education right there when they are in front of the Reps.

2. Judges - seat judges based on historical averages

3. Scoring - Allow scores to include decimals...even if it just half points or quarter points. There needs to be more than just whole numbers. I'd be okay with tenths of a point as well.

 

[egorham]

1) Seat judges based on an algorithm, the idea is the same as scoring average but I think it would be better to have someone go back into the data, write and algorithm and then monitor it going forward. I would like an algorithm that would give more weight to recent scores and could incorporate some type of rating of teams being judged. I know this is something very easy for the people that crunch data all of the time because I have seen it done in business.

2) Add a creativity category to the scoring and make it the same weight as appearance.

3) Change up the 4 meat categories. Chicken - stay the same as it is now but hopefully the creativity score will push teams to do more than just basic thighs. Ribs - I would keep this the same, it is what people think of most when they hear the word barbecue. Pork This would be the biggest change, just use any part of the animal other than ribs. Brisket Keep the same, this is the other traditional barbecue meat so I would keep it the way that it is.

Getting the judging right is important for everyone and if there is a way to do this without adding more of a burden to the reps on the day of an event then it should be looked at.

The one negative aspect of how barbecue has grown over the last several years is that teams are constantly chasing the last flavor profile to win. A team can win the KCBS category or overall and a thousand teams run out and buy the sauce/rub/injection that the team uses and try to get as close as possible to that flavor profile. Rather than having some creativity and diversity everyone is trying to get as close as possible to the same look/tenderness/flavor and it just gets boring. I think it would be great if a team decided to do a pork belly, a pork loan, a ham or even make a great pork sausage in the pork category. I would like it if a team got rewarded doing chicken wings, breast meat or some combination in the chicken category.

 

[Candy Sue]

Yippee!!! I'm off the board and can answer this without repercussions.

1. Change scoring to match how "normal" scoring is done in school. 95, 82, 99, 68 etc. Leave weighting the same. A score could read 99 75 80. Note: a decimal would work too.

2. Do away with the existing CBJ training system. CBJ training standardized by being done the same way by video presentation. Could still have cooks cook samples, have reps there to "conduct" the training contest, but all of the actual training is done one way. Retraining existing judges -- watch the video, take a quick test, all online.

3. Improve communication. Some of the topics above have already been done and how many people didn't know??? I.e. Guinea Pig IS a qualifier -- sanctioning changed from competitor to standard contest (this happened in February).

Do I have to stop with 3?

4. Work on filling in the Kid BBQ range to incorporate teens. 5. Expand backyard, embrace and expand Guinea Pig. 6. Update computer systems, back office and kcbs.us. 7. Move detail sheets to member login section of web site. At the contest, every team gets a detail that has all relevant info, EXCEPT for the category details. I never knew how much paperwork reps have to deal with getting the packet together! Make it easier for everyone, organizers included (no more getting a copier make copies).

I'll quit now.

 

[WTP-Josh]

The biggest thing i would do is make competition supply the meat, that way backyarder like me would be less affraid to get in the arena with the big boys. You already like a deer in the headlight when you first compete then after you realize that the price of the winning brisket is the same price that you payed for all your meat for the week-end. May the best cook win not the one who have access to the best stuff or the best connection everybody start on the same level and then fight' on !

 

[chefman316]

1. The KCBS logo seen as "The good housekeeping seal of approval for BBQ". Allow the sanctioning body to use their seal to promote BBQ using the products from their teams. Teams that participate would be chosen by KCBS rather than teams being allowed to just pay for the privilege. When chosen to receive the seal a nominal fee can be paid to be listed I amsure.

2. The KCBS needs to do more to include those under 18. My two kids have been part of my team since before they can even remember. My daughter has been so influenced she has joined me on a number of occasions including a Bull Burger Battle we won a trip to Las Vegas to compete in the World Food Championship. She wants to go to culinary school as well. But through it all the only thing we have gotten from KCBS on it is grief basically. Not actively disapproving of it but having protocols written that exclude them. I think 14 should be the age for a Head cook and membership to the KCBS. My daughter could enter a field of seasoned competitors and get calls. That being said a number of kids who cook with other teams,or on their own, could on any day beat her while handling the adult teams just as well.

3. A simplification of the rules to exclude all the shoehorned exceptions, additions/removals that change the expectation of the original rule set and unnecessary clarifications of a friendly set of rules. Many seem to want to change the KCBS from a friendly organization of barbecue enthusiast to a cold and callous administrator of contests. The rules are a loose guideline for competitors to self police themselves with. Its not meant to be done with enforcement agents in a manner that rails against the friendly nature. As well if this doesn't suit you find another competitive food circuit that does it like you want. Many KCBS members like knowing its still about the fun of it all. Bad eggs are smelled easily once they crack. Competitors and reps will know when something smells off and it will correct but trying to change what we are so you can feel comfortable isn't what its all about.

What culinary school is she looking at?

 

[pahutchens]

1. require all cook team members to judge a minimum of 1 contest or 10% of annually contest competed, which ever is greater (compete 40 contests judge 4, less that twenty judge once)

2. Allow half points and put the point floor at 5. Really scores of 4,3,and 2 are like rolling a drunk. And yes I've rolled the drunks because I take my judging seriously.

3. Re-evaluate mission statement: "Recognizing barbeque as America's Cuisine, the mission of the Kansas City Barbeque Society is to celebrate, teach, preserve and promote barbeque as a culinary technique, sport and art form."

I don't see in here where its all about the prize money. There seems to be an increasingly vocal minority that appears put their winning as first and the reason KCBS exists is to provide a venue for them.

Side rant: I think if we are going to entertain that judges to be seated by algorithm / judging history etc.... It might be fair then to only allow cook teams that have minimum floor of scoring or history that way we can continue to grow an elitist attitude and further the animosity that some teams seem hell bent to perpetuate.
Or we could go like the US political system and create an electoral college of BBQ where the real (populist) votes don't matter.

 

[erichasaces]

I dont understand why you want to allow half points but put the minimum score at 5. If judges actually used the range from 1-9 you have 9 levels that you can score, but if you make it from 5-9 with .5 points you also have exactly 9 levels that you can score. I think what might need to change is where stuff sits on the scale. We are at the point that most judges think "average bbq" is an 8.

 

[pahutchens]

I dont understand why you want to allow half points but put the minimum score at 5. If judges actually used the range from 1-9 you have 9 levels that you can score, but if you make it from 5-9 with .5 points you also have exactly 9 levels that you can score. I think what might need to change is where stuff sits on the scale. We are at the point that most judges think "average bbq" is an 8.

I would be curious on how much you have judged? I don't know so please accept my explanation based on that lack of knowledge about you

KCBS: "The scoring system is from 9 to 2, all whole numbers
between two and nine may be used to score an entry. 9
excellent, 8 very good, 7 above average, 6 average, 5
below average, 4 poor, 3 bad, and 2 inedible."

Aside from the issue that judges if predominantly are having competition BBQ the average value would move so that eventually things that were 9's would eventually become a 6. They would become average.

As a judge I swear "to objectively and subjectively evaluate" I personally have had to think long and hard on some samples, including taking more bites (yes plural) to get the coin to fall over say between a 8 and 9 or a 7 and 8. I believe/feel the half point would be easier for judging (I do not know)
We are assigning numerical values to words. The history/social location/context of(for) the judge creates a weight to the word. How different is excellent and very good is SUBJECTIVE.
It's not just KCBS, we are part of a society that views average as an abject failure. And you are a winner just for showing up. Here's your ribbon and please don't use red ink as its bad for the student self image. :blah::blah::blah::blah::blah:

 

[tduffy]

The biggest thing i would do is make competition supply the meat, that way backyarder like me would be less affraid to get in the arena with the big boys. You already like a deer in the headlight when you first compete then after you realize that the price of the winning brisket is the same price that you payed for all your meat for the week-end. May the best cook win not the one who have access to the best stuff or the best connection everybody start on the same level and then fight' on !

the best cooks win with good meat. I stick by the rule that if it's garbage in, it's garbage out. If you are spending less on all your meat than others are spending on a brisket and aren't able to spend anymore then chances are you cannot afford to do a meat provided contest either.

 

[egorham]

Side rant: I think if we are going to entertain that judges to be seated by algorithm / judging history etc.... It might be fair then to only allow cook teams that have minimum floor of scoring or history that way we can continue to grow an elitist attitude and further the animosity that some teams seem hell bent to perpetuate.
Or we could go like the US political system and create an electoral college of BBQ where the real (populist) votes don't matter.

I don't understand, and perhaps you could explain, how seating by algorithm/average is elitist? To me it is the exact opposite, it is simply acknowledging that judges come from different backgrounds, geographies, experience levels and perspectives that impact the scores they give. Rather than try to force volunteer judges into more training so they are able to all come up with the same score on an individual entry every time, something that I don't think any amount of training would accomplish anyway, we would be accepting the judges as individuals and simply using an algorithm to balance tables based on the individual judges history.

When I said I thought seating judges based on algorithm was a good idea it was because I dislike the bashing of judges and I think the expectations that some cooks have on scoring are not realistic. I much prefer using a method, and I obviously think an algorithm would work well, where we accept the variations in scoring from the judges but use the information that we have to balance tables to make it fair for the competitors.

 

[Jorge]

The biggest thing i would do is make competition supply the meat, that way backyarder like me would be less affraid to get in the arena with the big boys. You already like a deer in the headlight when you first compete then after you realize that the price of the winning brisket is the same price that you payed for all your meat for the week-end. May the best cook win not the one who have access to the best stuff or the best connection everybody start on the same level and then fight' on !

I think the better teams gain a greater advantage with meat supplied by the organizer, to all contestants. Sure a top team may draw slightly inferior meat, but they are also more likely to be able to deal with it successfully. An inexperienced cook is better off finding out that they have a problem trimming their meat at home on Wed. night and picking up something that works better for them. I think it's an interesting concept and that there is a place for it. If the teams are for it, they'll vote with their feet and wallets.

 

[WTP-Josh]

Aveling

I think the better teams gain a greater advantage with meat supplied by the organizer, to all contestants. Sure a top team may draw slightly inferior meat, but they are also more likely to be able to deal with it successfully. An inexperienced cook is better off finding out that they have a problem trimming their meat at home on Wed. night and picking up something that works better for them. I think it's an interesting concept and that there is a place for it. If the teams are for it, they'll vote with their feet and wallets.

The other advantag that a supply meat would provide is that top sponsored team wouldnt be able to cook 3 brisket 3-4 butt and so on. Yes they might have a better understanding of the cut but when your limited your limited. It's a bit like poker cash game vs tournament.

And i also think you should be able to pay to enter only one or two categories that way backyarder would be able to do the transition easyer

It' just my perspective

 

[Candy Sue]

I think in theory the algorithm for seating is a good one. In real world, I don't think it's workable. Judging is more fluid than cooking, even though some cooks do sign up at the last possible minute. How would you handle judges who fail to appear? Wouldn't it toss the entire seating arrangement out if you have to last minute fill spots?

 

[tduffy]

Aveling

The other advantag that a supply meat would provide is that top sponsored team wouldnt be able to cook 3 brisket 3-4 butt and so on. Yes they might have a better understanding of the cut but when your limited your limited. It's a bit like poker cash game vs tournament.

And i also think you should be able to pay to enter only one or two categories that way backyarder would be able to do the transition easyer

It' just my perspective

cooking multiple cuts of meat has absolutely NOTHING to do with not understanding your cut but understanding that every piece of meat is different no matter what it looks like some will turn out better and if I'm going to spend the money to go to a contest I'm going to have options to pick from during turn in time. To me it sounds like you need to learn how to cook and quit worrying about what others are doing.

 

[pahutchens]

I don't understand, and perhaps you could explain, how seating by algorithm/average is elitist? To me it is the exact opposite, it is simply acknowledging that judges come from different backgrounds, geographies, experience levels and perspectives that impact the scores they give. Rather than try to force volunteer judges into more training so they are able to all come up with the same score on an individual entry every time, something that I don't think any amount of training would accomplish anyway, we would be accepting the judges as individuals and simply using an algorithm to balance tables based on the individual judges history.

When I said I thought seating judges based on algorithm was a good idea it was because I dislike the bashing of judges and I think the expectations that some cooks have on scoring are not realistic. I much prefer using a method, and I obviously think an algorithm would work well, where we accept the variations in scoring from the judges but use the information that we have to balance tables to make it fair for the competitors.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the application of the algorithm. My concern would be that eventually only high scoring judges would get seated. And instead of blind judging we would be creating a one way mirror for the teams into the judging tent. Over the past few years Judges seem to have been increasingly reminded that after the judging if a team asks about our experience that day that we only speak of the entries in the most positive of terms.:tape: I feel its a little disingenuous.

Organizers want to be known for great contests. It is always with pride that they declare 100% CBJ. What happens when you give the data on the judges? Will the natural inclination be for only the best judges, meaning the high scorers? Will judges then start inflating the scores they give just so they CAN judge?
Once you apply a metric how will it change the existing situation.
Even if its just about perceptions we are already dealing with people/teams that at best consider the judges as the enemy or other...
Oh your not a cook you don't understand. There is a dualism at play here that I should know better than to push against....

Which is why I feel that more teams(cooks and crew) should Judge Regularly
And maybe judges need to be with cooks more often than the one required time for the Master sign off.

Don't misunderstand me, I could be completely batsh!t wrong, I'm just floating out potential unintended consequences. I gave my 3 things I would do.

I really ENJOY judging and KCBS events, I'm pushing 50 contests as this season starts.
I have friends that are Judges, Cooks, and Organizers. (The Reps I know are very professional so can't include them, different dynamic though I wouldn't mind calling them friends)

 

[Jorge]

I think in theory the algorithm for seating is a good one. In real world, I don't think it's workable. Judging is more fluid than cooking, even though some cooks do sign up at the last possible minute. How would you handle judges who fail to appear? Wouldn't it toss the entire seating arrangement out if you have to last minute fill spots?

Not if the system is designed with that in mind.

 

[Jorge]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the application of the algorithm. My concern would be that eventually only high scoring judges would get seated. And instead of blind judging we would be creating a one way mirror for the teams into the judging tent. ...

That's essentially what it is now.

Organizers want to be known for great contests. It is always with pride that they declare 100% CBJ. What happens when you give the data on the judges? Will the natural inclination be for only the best judges, meaning the high scorers? Will judges then start inflating the scores they give just so they CAN judge?

You don't give the data to organizers. In a perfect world organizers would use the Judge registration site that's available. If not organizers could send a judge list to the office. Finally, it wouldn't be difficult for reps to input CBJ #s into a laptop on site to take care of any last minute changes. If security is determined to be desirable, encryption isn't difficult.

 

[egorham]

I think Jorge did a good job of answering the questions but I will add my thoughts.

1) Under no circumstance would the organizer have access to the judges data. I don't even think the reps need to see the data, although if it is in a program on their computer they could get it if they tried hard enough.

2) The program would be used for assigning tables only, not deciding which judge works an event.

As far as what Candy Sue wrote, this is what I envision. The algorithm based seating would be part of the event day program that the reps use anyway for scoring. A rep should get a list of judges and alternates prior to travelling to an event that could be entered at home or,preferably, entered by the organizer. Prior to leaving for the event the program could retrieve all of the relevant data on the judges including alternates assigned to the event.

On the day of the event there are a few scenarios that could happen. If judges don't show up and are not replaced (an alternate that you have data on is used) then you have all of the data you need to run the program, just remove the judges that did not show and replace with the alternates and run the program and get your table assignments. If you have to replace a judge(s) at the last minute and you don't have data on that judge(s) one of two things would happen, if you have internet access you could have the program retrieve the data for the new judge(s) and if you don't have internet access you can assume the replacement judge is an "average" judge. Even by assuming a replacement judge is "average" this would yield a situation where most of the tables are assigned by algorithm and the last few judges might be assigned essentially as all judges are currently seated, this still seems like a better outcome.

 

[Jorge]

On the day of the event there are a few scenarios that could happen. If judges don't show up and are not replaced (an alternate that you have data on is used) then you have all of the data you need to run the program, just remove the judges that did not show and replace with the alternates and run the program and get your table assignments. If you have to replace a judge(s) at the last minute and you don't have data on that judge(s) one of two things would happen, if you have internet access you could have the program retrieve the data for the new judge(s) and if you don't have internet access you can assume the replacement judge is an "average" judge. Even by assuming a replacement judge is "average" this would yield a situation where most of the tables are assigned by algorithm and the last few judges might be assigned essentially as all judges are currently seated, this still seems like a better outcome.

Or the Monday after a contest weekend when the judging data is in, a handicap or average is generated and the results placed in MySQL (as an example). Reps download it along with judge list. On site, the CBJ # is entered and the necessary data is pulled. A non CBJ is more difficult because it's my understanding that their data is not available. Theoretically it should be possible to go back by reverse engineering existing results, but that's quite a bit more work. No internet access needed and as flexible as possible.