Looking at the New York results and it’s obvious that something should change. Category 26 has 77 entries and Category 27 has 6. Yet they’re both competing for three spots to advance.
My numbers are guesstimates, but here’s an idea. Say right now AHA awards ribbons to 10% of the entries that make it to the final. They could use that number throughout the competition. In the first round, if there are 77 beers in a category, 8 advance (minimum of one). Same in the finals. If from all the regions, 100 beers from one category make it to the finals, the top 10 are recognized at the conference award ceremony. About the same total number of brewers would make it to the podium, but it would be a fairer representation of their accomplishment.
I imagine they will simply rearrange the specialty category next year and break out some of the more popular sub cats to their own cat. I give them benefit of the doubt this year because the new release of BJCP Cat 28. I don’t think they had concrete evidence to base a decision on in that regard. If they did American Wild as its own cat, and only got 5 entries per region, we’d be talking about that instead.
Keep in mind, that if you are looking at mead/cider categories, they historically have much lower numbers going on compared to the beer categories. I assume there are just less people making mead/cider and/or entering with those.
4 trad meads in Seattle. But ya know what? - more than one BEER category failed to advance 3 last year. Where does it end; do we decide 4 entries is not enough but 7 is? 11, but not 10?
The categories have been available for months; anyone not expecting a huge Specialty Category was simply not paying attention. This is one of a very small handful of comps that is about access to Finals, accolades for winners, and not about feedback. I enter where I think I have the best chance to win. So far, lager entry numbers are up; perhaps others are doing the same.
Frankly if I could do one thing it wouldn’t be to even the categories, but to improve the first round judging by getting more experienced people.
FWIW, Randy Scorby and I (both GM II/Mead judges) judged the Traditional (27) and Specialty Mead (29) categories together last Friday afternoon in Seattle early before moving on to other categories. We were the only 2 Mead judges there on Friday with no mead entries.
Even though there were very few entries, we were quite happy that they were all very good/excellent. I looked at the winners lists of those two categories. I am not surprised in the least that the winners – Tim Leber (advanced 3 meads), Brian Searfass (advanced a beer and a mead) and Rodney Kibzey (the Long Shot 2 Timer) advanced 1. I personally know all 3 of them and know that all 3 have been to the 2nd round more than once before. (I don’t know Avi Shayevitz or his brewing partners, but I know for certain that their mead that came in 2nd was excellent.)
So, I guess my point is, you will still have your work cut out for you thinking you’ll nose in on these just because there weren’t many entries. There was some outstanding competition in that small group.
That’s going to be the nature of doing a first round where they try and guess how many entries each category is going to have based on aggregate numbers from previous years. There are going to be variances in sites where certain categories get over-represented and others get under-represented in certain regions. Also, they’re not necessarily going to be the same year to year (you might have a site that had only 4 ciders last year get 16 this year since people thought they could take advantage of that). However, the advancement is still based on having a minimum score, so to advance, you still need to brew a Very Good example of the style. And as pointed out, some of those styles that get few entries are styles brewed by stiff competitors in the first place.
[quote]My numbers are guesstimates, but here’s an idea. Say right now AHA awards ribbons to 10% of the entries that make it to the final. They could use that number throughout the competition. In the first round, if there are 77 beers in a category, 8 advance (minimum of one). Same in the finals. If from all the regions, 100 beers from one category make it to the finals, the top 10 are recognized at the conference award ceremony. About the same total number of brewers would make it to the podium, but it would be a fairer representation of their accomplishment.
[/quote]
That’s not going to happen for a lot of logistical reasons.
Exactly. When I first started entering years ago, I tried this approach with no luck. Every time I brewed for a smaller entry category it would be slammed the following year, or the judging site would be heavy with entries in that category. Now I just brew what I enjoy drinking and competing with. It really is luck of the draw, so to speak.
This has happened to me more times that I can count. Happened again this year too. I decided to brew a Cal Common to take advantage of my cold spare bedroom in December and January, but I’d be lying if I wasn’t also looking at Amber Hybrid in Seattle with only 6 entries. Submit my Cal Common… this year 21 entries in Amber Hybrid. I’d convinced myself that I was almost guaranteed to medal… NOPE. Ah well… such is life.
Doesn’t help that it was my lowest scoring entry. Either a bad bottle or storage just not nice to it. Comments about oxidation and a possible infection. Try and try again…
I agree. The entry counts are so low that there should be a separate limit, and the Ninkasi should be beer only.
Maybe have a separate Ninkasi for mead and cider.
I had the same exact reaction… I’ll reiterate it here:
I have to be honest somethings gotta change with these BJCP 2015 guidelines if this is going to continually happen.
Lager categories continually average 12-18 entries
IPA/American IPA have been separated and now average about 35 entries a piece (the irony is because the IPA category was getting too large)
Specialty categories average 55-81 entries across the board, with multiple sites seeing 70+… that’s ridiculous…
But alas, I got good feedback, so goal is accomplished for me.
Read the 2015 guidelines, and you will see that some changes were made to collapse categories to be more like 2008. The NHC specialty was collapsed from 2015 BJCP styles 28,29,31,32, 33,34,27. All going into 26.
Next year it might be good for the first round to follow 2015 BJCP, but the fear is always how to get more categories judged in the second round, which is the real bottleneck. So this year the problem became how to judge all of the specialty in the first round. It will be discussed for next year. The competition committee has a tough job. Any suggestions?
