johnnyboy1965 said:
Ive never been happy with the concept of "judging" a beer. Who`s to say that one beer is better than another. Everyone has a different idea of what a beer should be, and brewing it to please someone else is against all I believe in homebrewing.
If you reject any notion of styles perhaps... If you accept that commercial and historial examples of beers help give an idea of style then their are criteria to judge against. Alternatively or additionally you could judge against intentions - what was the brewer trying to achieve and did they do so? Both are valid, and not necessarily exclusive. I have VERY different ideas of what a pilsener should be compared to a schwartzbier, a rauchbier, a weissen, a wit, a belgian blonde, a dubbel, a saison, a bitter, an american pale ale, a cascadian or a stout (to name the styles I;ve brewed) and of those I think some have been good, soem poor (my dubbel never quite worked) and some great (my wit and now my orval-inspired beer). I didn't brew ANY of them to please someone else - I brewed them for me. But I'l enter them in comps and see how I do but the judges feedback will only be one aspect of that experience. And their comments will be useful . Events like CBA meets with peer judging are interesting and educational, peer review on threads here is also judging.
johnnyboy1965 said:
My beer, is my beer. I really appreciate your feedback/critique, but why would I want to put it up in a competition against your beer.
Maybe it's all about the taking part not the winning? Getting feedback? Comapring your beers with others? Feedback from an educated/experienced other and your peers can be fun, informative and incredibly interesting. At the spring thing I didn't agree with some of the judges comments but they were his to make against a criteria I didn;t really go for however the beers marked higher than mine were better against the criteria of the style category (for stouts) and I also recognised in the winning entries really really good beers and therefore people I could learn from who had mastered these styles (bosium and aleman for lagers - so no surprises there!)
johnnyboy1965 said:
Beer Judges.......If these people think that they can "judge" a beer, they are greatly mistaken. They might be able to tell you what ingerients are in the beer, they might be even able to tell you how you could improve it, but to have the ability to say one beer is better than another is totally wrong.
Or... it isn't... There are criteria they can be assessed against, there;s also room for ample discussion, disagreement and rejection of these views - which is where the substantive and interesting contributions to this thread have come from.
johnnyboy1965 said:
Ill give you a example.
Brewer No1....Limited budget....Woodfordes Wherry Kit...Bog Standard and it comes out fine, hes happy with it.
Brewer No2...No expence spared. A/G mini micro brewery set up, brews a beer and he is happy with it.
Who is to say that one beer is better than the other.
Someone else who drinks them both. Being happy with it is not the same as saying it's good - I'm happy with most of my beers but I'm careful which one's I say are good, which I say are great and which I think are OK. The one's I;ve been happiest with haven't been the best - the criteria of assessment is different.
johnnyboy1965 said:
With beer, quality cannot be defined by end product. As homebrewers we brew beer for the enjoyment of the whole process, not the end result.
I find this totally nonsensical TBH. All that effort and it's not assessed by the end product? I assess my beer by the beer not the quality of the brewday (though I
love a good brewday, but will live with a bad one as long as the end result is good). I sometimes have friends round to brew and enjoy the socialising but I share the end product not the experience. If it's not about the end result and your criteria of comparison is a woodforde's kit then I really don't get your frame of reference at all.
johnnyboy1965 said:
And to you.
