By Allen Huerta
At every competition we judge, we are told to ensure that entrants are receiving quality feedback and scoresheets. It sounds like an easy task that everyone should be doing, but some of the less experienced or newer judges may not know precisely what this entails; it’s not just about the lack of blank space on the paper.
But how can we ensure this is happening? With time constraints on the competition space, the number of judges, and the number of entries needing to be completed during each session, there is not always enough time to constantly inspect and ensure each beer is getting the proper treatment it deserves on paper.
While it is the duty of each judge to write a proper scoresheet, remember that it is an even worse error to only write a few comments, which is seen from time to time. How can we fix this problem? It comes from working within and training fellow judges along the way. Due to the tasting exam and ranking structure, this problem is frequently seen with judges not in the program. But as the day gets long and judges become complacent, it can begin to creep into sections of a beer’s evaluation by judges of all levels.
One of the easiest way to combat this, and give interested stewards a chance to enhance their judging skills, is a simple discussion. Naturally, this happens at varying levels after every beer, but if you see scoresheets beginning to suffer, take it a step further. All initial notes have been made at this point, but taste the beer again and together highlight the basic aspects of the beer that are listed in each section of the scoresheet. Alternate and discuss.
For instance, in the Aroma section, begin simply by discussing the malt character. What you notice, the intensity, the specific characteristics. Take that next into how it plays with the hop character of the beer. Move to the yeast, and anything else that stands out. Both positive and negative. Just remember to stress how it comes to play versus the style guidelines. If you haven’t taken the time to review the guidelines together, pull them out now and take the opportunity to do it. While this may cause the evaluation of a couple beers to take a bit longer, you will have a refreshed understanding of what the beer should be and what is expected on the scoresheet. This should also help the later beers in the flight move faster, as now there is a greater understanding of the beers being presented to you.
While this may sound like a cliche, and may not be completely possible in every situation, invoking memories about the beer and translating those memories helps to build a better scoresheet. Even if the only memory you can recall is that of another beer or brewery, write that down. While it may be a tricky area saying something such as, “This beer is reminiscent of an -insert brewery name- product”, it shows at a minimum the beer is of commercial grade.
Specific memories typically mean nothing to another person. For instance, how many people out there have tasted your grandma’s homemade rhubarb pie? But in general terms, everyone should at least have an idea of basic concepts even if they have never experienced salt water taffy, charleston chews, or chocolate covered cherries. Getting judges and stewards to reach and expand their thought process while drinking a beer leads to better understanding.
When it comes to the Overall Impression section of the scoresheet, it is easy to discuss major faults and give troubleshooting advice for those. But what about the very good beers that just have minor stylistic issues? The ones that score well but are just missing that unexplainable wow factor. While it is easy to talk about your personal brewing process, you do not know what the entrant has done. Suggesting the increased use of one malt or the decrease of another runs the risk of having the entrant becoming discouraged or adds to a certain prejudice some homebrewers have towards the organization. They could have used 100% of a malt you suggested they add more of. Or, the beer is actually an all extract beer and they have no control over the character content with their current procedure.
This can be a difficult section, and sometimes judges struggle with what to include here. Begin by giving your basic thoughts on the beer in regard to the entered style. Also, if the beer is a good example of a style, but not the style entered, be sure to not only say it is miscategorized but where it should go. There are times when entrants received this feedback but they were not told why the beer was out of style or where it should go instead. After that you can move into talking about how the beer missed the mark in sections where it was either not previously discussed or where the “major” issue lies.
Ask the judge you are working with to contrast the characteristics of the beer with the guidelines. While working on those areas, also consider the balance of the beer. The bitterness of a beer can be right for the style but paired with the body or yeast character, there may be a struggle for power. Comments in this vein will give more experienced homebrewers ideas to think about rather than what some see as “high and mighty snobbery” and will give the less experienced homebrewers an idea of what the score they received actually means in regards to their beer.
While consistently creating high quality scoresheets takes time, taking it one section at a time and filling it out as carefully and accurately as you can is of huge value to the brewer. A poorly completed scoresheet has no value to anyone and detracts from the judging process. For the BJCP to remain a valued and desired entity in the beer world, quality and consistency are a must. Taking the time to make sure your scoresheets, and those of the people you are judging with, are the best they can be will help you and your fellow judges improve and be of the greatest benefit to the organization.
Allen Huerta is a Certified judge currently stationed in Germany.