Mandatory Comment Cards for a score below a 6

[PimpSmoke]

I'd really like to see KCBS track judging scores because scores are subjective. What one person sees as a 7 another may see as a 9. Neither individual is necessarily wrong. But having a system that puts an level judging score history per table would balance differences.

Not only that, but it squashes any possible collusion. If judges start "putting their mark" on their scores I think there would be HUGE changes in numbers.

 

[Slamdunkpro]

Not only that, but it squashes any possible collusion. If judges start "putting their mark" on their scores I think there would be HUGE changes in numbers.

Judges are already supposed to sign their scorecards

 

[Slamdunkpro]

I'd really like to see KCBS track judging scores because scores are subjective. What one person sees as a 7 another may see as a 9. Neither individual is necessarily wrong. But having a system that puts an level judging score history per table would balance differences.

How can you do this? Not every sample at every event is a 7,8,or 9. If you hit 3 or 4 tables over 3 or 4 events as a judge where the samples you get aren't good and you score accordingly then your score average as a judge goes down.

 

[Jorge]

How can you do this? Not every sample at every event is a 7,8,or 9. If you hit 3 or 4 tables over 3 or 4 events as a judge where the samples you get aren't good and you score accordingly then your score average as a judge goes down.

Easily, if the judges #(if a CBJ) was entered during data entry.

Edit: The analysis of the data after just a few contests would be pretty revealing, and over time would paint a pretty clear picture.

You just really messed up my day, since I write code for a living!

 

[PimpSmoke]

Judges are already supposed to sign their scorecards

Understood, but not my point. Does someone actively track this?

Does anyone look to see if Judge69 somehow had Team69 land on his/her table more than a few times over the years and compare the scores?

I think ithe results of that would be very interesting.

 

[KC_Bobby]

How can you do this? Not every sample at every event is a 7,8,or 9. If you hit 3 or 4 tables over 3 or 4 events as a judge where the samples you get aren't good and you score accordingly then your score average as a judge goes down.

Good point and I sure won't claim that I have the answers (not meaning that was implied) but maybe some thoughts will brainstorm into better ideas.

Maybe the scoring system per judge is based on a +/- score based on the table average score. Complex yes, but smart people can write that data entry code fairly easily.

 

[Slamdunkpro]

Easily, if the judges #(if a CBJ) was entered during data entry.

Edit: The analysis of the data after just a few contests would be pretty revealing, and over time would paint a pretty clear picture.

You just really messed up my day, since I write code for a living!

Your assuming that the entries are a constant - they aren't.

 

[Smokedelic]

If it's a 7, then it should be scored a 7. I just hope that every judge that scores an entry a 7 fully understands the impact that can have on a team. While you may view a 7 as a good score, it can kill the chances of a team in contention for a GC and that's a fact. Bob pointed out the impact it has on the score. At the top end of the field, this year, the contests are that close. I don't think anybody is asking the judges to start at 8 or 9, but I don't think the bar should be set so high by a judge as to make getting that 8 or 9 virtually unobtainable.

If a team turns in something that could be scored a 7, then they aren't in contention for a GC anyway. 8s and 9s aren't unattainable, because the best cooks are getting them every week.

IMO, if a cook wants 8s and 9s, then they need to learn how to cook and present everything PERFECTLY....every week, because that's what the best cooks do week in and week out. The best cooks take "table luck" out of the equation by consistently cooking and presenting everything better than the rest of us.

So the way I see it, you can either complain about judges, and KCBS not tracking judges scores, etc. or you can focus on perfecting your craft...because if you do that, the rest of it won't matter.

JMO...

 

[mfreeman73]

So the way I see it, you can either complain about judges, and KCBS not tracking judges scores, etc. or you can focus on perfecting your craft...because if you do that, the rest of it won't matter.

I think that's what it ultimately comes down to. If a team is consistently at the top, is it because they get lucky judge's tables all the time? No, it's more that they just cook some good food.

The system isn't perfect, but it isn't bad either. I think they try to help out with the "bad judge" situation by dropping the lowest score. That way if five judges at your table scores you 8's and 9's and one gives you a 5, well their score won't count anyway (unless there's a tie).

I really only see two options to help with this:
1. More education for judges
2. Keeping track of judge's scores and addressing those that are way out of line with the other judges at their table.

Both would take more time and money, so they're not easy solutions. I think as judges do more competitions, they get better about deciding what is good and what is not so good. I know I judge a bit better now than when I did my first comp. That first one I had no clue. And I bet a lot of judges are like that.

Maybe if someone doesn't do but maybe one contest a year or something like that they have to retake the CBJ class every so often. Kind of like saying that the way to not have to keep retaking the CBJ class is to do more judging. So, judges would either be getting more education by retaking the CBJ class or judging more competitions. Anyway, just throwing ideas out there.

 

[KC_Bobby]

So the way I see it, you can either complain about judges, and KCBS not tracking judges scores, etc. or you can focus on perfecting your craft...because if you do that, the rest of it won't matter.

Perfect your craft and a team won't find a table that gives out less than 8s?

Here's an example from a score sheet I have from this season:

GC Team
C - 173.1428
R - 172.5714
P - 173.1430
B - 168.0000
O - 686.8572

RGC Team
C - 162.8570
R - 169.7142
P - 153.1428
B - 174.2856
O - 659.9996

The big difference their was the pork scores, lets look at them closer:

GC team - 35.4286 30.2858 27.4286 35.4286 36.0000 36.0000
RGC team- 26.2856 32.0000 33.7142 32.5714 28.5716 24.5716

GC's team had fairly consistent pork scores other than judge 3
RGC's pork scores were all over the board - 3 decent scores, an 877 and 2 hideous scores

Let's hypothetically assume that the two pork entries were close to equal in quality then trade the tables the two entries hit. (as I've heard from both cooks that two recipes are somewhat similar)

All of a sudden the RGC's overall score becomes 679.8570 and the GCs score becomes 666.8570

While I will not mention who the two teams are, both historically do well in pork.

 

[Alexa RnQ]

If a team turns in something that could be scored a 7, then they aren't in contention for a GC anyway.

We received a 6 on our first-place brisket this past weekend, where we GC'd.

True, we're still perfecting our craft, but that does not mean the judging system is without flaws.

 

[DawgPhan]

We received a 6 on our first-place brisket this past weekend, where we GC'd.

True, we're still perfecting our craft, but that does not mean the judging system is without flaws.

and they still didnt spell your team name right on the website. Congrats on the win.

 

[Alexa RnQ]

Thanks! Hell, we've barely got our usual reps trained on the spelling. :becky:
< /threadjack >

 

[Muzzlebrake]

I think that's what it ultimately comes down to. If a team is consistently at the top, is it because they get lucky judge's tables all the time? No, it's more that they just cook some good food.

The system isn't perfect, but it isn't bad either. I think they try to help out with the "bad judge" situation by dropping the lowest score. That way if five judges at your table scores you 8's and 9's and one gives you a 5, well their score won't count anyway (unless there's a tie).

I really only see two options to help with this:
1. More education for judges
2. Keeping track of judge's scores and addressing those that are way out of line with the other judges at their table.

Both would take more time and money, so they're not easy solutions. I think as judges do more competitions, they get better about deciding what is good and what is not so good. I know I judge a bit better now than when I did my first comp. That first one I had no clue. And I bet a lot of judges are like that.

Maybe if someone doesn't do but maybe one contest a year or something like that they have to retake the CBJ class every so often. Kind of like saying that the way to not have to keep retaking the CBJ class is to do more judging. So, judges would either be getting more education by retaking the CBJ class or judging more competitions. Anyway, just throwing ideas out there.

I agree with just everything you said, and I think at least in the Northeast, teams are cooking better to make for higher scores and KCBS scores seem much more consistent, which I attribute to more experienced judges.

One thing I am curious about is, as cooks we have our score to use as a benchmark or standard for bettering our performance. What benchmark/threshold/standard can judges use? How does a judge, judge their performance?

 

[Alexa RnQ]

I think they try to help out with the "bad judge" situation by dropping the lowest score.
...
I really only see two options to help with this:
1. More education for judges
2. Keeping track of judge's scores and addressing those that are way out of line with the other judges at their table.

I heartily agree continuing education at periodic intervals for judges, and would even go so far as to wish for better quantification at training of what exactly constitutes a particular numerical score for each aspect of the four meats.

I would add one more factor in the table composition, though: the number of new/inexperienced judges. What we often see out here is organizers who rely on a Thursday-night class to fill their judging tables come Saturday morning. After a low score is thrown out, you've still got wildcards sitting on that table. I understand that's likely less of a factor in areas that are better supplied with experienced judges.

 

[KC_Bobby]

After a low score is thrown out, you've still got wildcards sitting on that table. I understand that's likely less of a factor in areas that are better supplied with experienced judges.

I think this is exactly what happened in my example above as the CBJ percentage was low for the area.

 

[Muzzlebrake]

I heartily agree continuing education at periodic intervals for judges, and would even go so far as to wish for better quantification at training of what exactly constitutes a particular numerical score for each aspect of the four meats.

I would add one more factor in the table composition, though: the number of new/inexperienced judges. What we often see out here is organizers who rely on a Thursday-night class to fill their judging tables come Saturday morning. After a low score is thrown out, you've still got wildcards sitting on that table. I understand that's likely less of a factor in areas that are better supplied with experienced judges.

In talking with organizers this year it seems that we may be past that point in our neck of the woods. This past weekend, we had over 100 experienced CBJ's at a 70 team contest. Contests seem to now be filling up the judges seats long in advance of the contest.

 

[Jorge]

Your assuming that the entries are a constant - they aren't.

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that the judges are judging the entries as presented and doing the comparison against other judges over time. A bad entry or two will skew results, but in time they will even out. The consistent judges become a benchmark.

 

[Smokedelic]

We received a 6 on our first-place brisket this past weekend, where we GC'd.

True, we're still perfecting our craft, but that does not mean the judging system is without flaws.

Congrats on your win last weekend, that was huge! I'm guessing your 6 was a score that was dropped, but maybe not. When you beat a field like that by 6 or 7 points, I'd say your craft was pretty close to perfect that day.:thumb:

FWIW, I never said the judging system is flawless, but I can't control that. I can only control how I cook, and I choose to focus on that.

 

[Bentley]

Judges are already supposed to sign their scorecards

I have never been told to sign a KCBS score card in 8 years. I am told to put my name on it, maybe that is what you mean.