By Andrew Luberto
“Yeah, well, you know, that’s just like your opinion, man” – The Dude
Beer and Relativism
Beer judges like beer. Most people wouldn’t dispute this fact. However, it could possibly be one of the few facts you wouldn’t find at least some BJCP judges debating. This is because if there’s anything that some in the organization like more than beer, it’s winning an argument. At the start of the 2015 film The Big Short there’s a quote attributed to Mark Twain, “It’s not what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so” – fittingly, this quote most likely wasn’t by Mark Twain1.
I suspect that most judges have either been party to or witnessed the following scenario: Two paired judges disagree about the score and/or attributes of a beer – a discussion ensues that may or may not get rather heated and one of the judges “pulls rank” to end the debate. In other words, they use their BJCP level to “prove” who is right and who is wrong. A leap of logic rooted in the belief that being a higher rank within the BJCP means that your sensory perception is more acute than those of a lesser rank. This assumption is one in which many within the organization have fervently warned against, and with good reason. Pulling rank is a terrible disservice to the entrant, the competition, and your own personal growth as a judge. More importantly, however, is that oftentimes these people are wrong.
Winning the Battle but Losing the War
A number of years ago I decided on a whim to take the certified Cicerone exam. At this point I already held the rank of BJCP master judge. While I did quite well on the written and oral parts on the exam, I earned a 45 on the tasting portion. A 45! This was a major blow to the identity I had formed around my judging ability. After the initial shock, it occurred to me that, although I had spent a significant amount of time filling out BJCP exam score sheets and studying the technical aspects of brewing, there were significant gaps in my sensory perception.
This might have been due in part to the structure of the BJCP tasting exam which measures your overall ability across a segment of 6 beers, with more than likely only 1 or 2 of them possessing a major flaw(s). As a result there can be deficiencies in your judging ability that could either be compensated for with strengths in other areas on the exam or may simply be not evaluated as part of the particular exam you were administered. As such, I was able to attain the rank of master judge at the time within the BJCP without ever realizing just how significant the gaps were in my ability to accurately assess beer. I want to make clear that this is not a criticism of the BJCP tasting exam, in fact, I wholeheartedly endorse the current format.
The point here is that even if you’re a high ranking or experienced judge, it’s very possible that your evaluation ability could be lacking in some key areas without ever being aware of it. Oftentimes there isn’t even an absolute “right” when it comes to tasting beer, there is only general consensus. You give me any Best of Show table run multiple times with the same judges, and I would wager their final picks would vary each time. It’s a mistake to believe that all our palettes equally and consistently perceive flavors and compounds at specific and consistent levels. The science of flavor is much more complex than that. Our perceptions can be vastly different from each other, even our own perceptions change based on a host of factors like time of day, mood, health, surroundings, or age. This is why many professional tasting panels are done in the morning. If you’ve ever judged a flight, then gone back to a particular entrant at the end and had a completely different opinion of it, you understand what I’m talking about here. Although most judges try to mitigate outside influences as much as possible, there is still some impact whether conscious or not.
Being Correct vs. Being Right
“Could I be wrong” when used as a mental statement during a table discussion enhances, not diminishes, the skill of a particular judge. I’m wrong a lot when evaluating beer – you probably are too! What distinguishes better judges is the ability to have a detailed awareness of what their sensitivities and thresholds are for common sensory perceptions that arise during judging or to just simply entertain the idea that maybe you’re wrong. Judging is more about consensus then it is about debate and there’s a qualitative difference between being correct and being right. Being correct means presenting substantive points that benefit the entrant in the overall scheme of the competition. Being right means just trying to win an argument to placate your ego.
I’ve even heard some argue that drawn out debates are giving the entrants their money’s worth. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. Since time is a finite aspect of any competition, it’s in actuality taking time away from the worthwhile discussions and evaluation of other entries. Weighing the cost benefit of a prolonged disagreement to the entrant, the competition, and your fellow judges before engaging in one shows substantially more expertise than wearing down others with meaningless debate.
Judging is a Perishable Skill
Judging is a skill and like most skills, if you don’t use it you lose it. If you’re not refreshing your palate on particular beer styles, off flavors, and just general sensory cognition on a consistent basis, it’s easy to fall out of practice. A few years ago I had the pleasure of meeting Lauren Limbach of New Belgium brewery. I was interested in tasting panels at the time and I was able to ask her how New Belgium set up their tasting panels. At the time(1) she informed me that their panels evaluated product for four hours a day and that at least one of their samples were spiked on a regular basis to make sure they were picking up off-flavors. Panelists were required to attend off flavor sessions once a week, in addition to three full days of sensory training every year. Additionally, they split up their panels based on assessed sensitivities. New Belgium recognizes that no single person was a champ at perceiving all off flavors all the time.
Most of us by that metric are woefully deficient in our training. While I’m not saying that all judges should either receive this type of intensive training or are useless, most of us are hobbyists and should keep that in mind when considering our own fallibility. Like musicians and athletes we must continually train in order to maintain skill. Being cognizant of this fact and working to better your craft instead of just hanging your hat on past glories makes you a better overall judge, not to mention just more pleasant to judge with.
“In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, in the expert’s there are few.” -Shunryu Suzuki
BJCP rank is a measure of knowledge, experience, and achievement, however it may not correlate at times with substantive discussions at the judging table. Additionally, arguing for the sake of arguing neither showcases your prowess as a judge nor impresses anyone. So let’s keep it civil and, for the love of god, just ask another judge to weigh in when you come to an impasse at the table. But, of course, you’re welcome to disagree…
1. This is to the best of my recollection from a conversation that happened a while ago, my apologies if the information is not 100% accurate
Andrew Luberto is a Grandmaster II and the Northeast Representative for the BJCP.