Australian Amateur Brewing Championship

[dan@twtr_dan]

+ finally full results.... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7-x6q2NS-7KSi1LSnEta0toZTA/view

Hmm IPA was judged but my cider not listed..

 

[barls]

i look forward to the score sheets as both my beers went from 40+ point beers down to high 20 and low 30.

 

[PaleRider]

i look forward to the score sheets as both my beers went from 40+ point beers down to high 20 and low 30.

yeah mine went down a few points.... but to be honest I was kind of expecting it given the distance travelled / handling etc....
When I saw this pic on the AABC facebook last week I was just hoping mine weren't in the grain sacks in the back of the trailer....

 

[dan@twtr_dan]

Geez..no wonder. They would be empty though? There is quite a bit of spread in the results across most categories. A worse case example here but if you look at APA 41 down to 19.. Given all our entries were top 3 in each state and would have scored high 30's/low 40's.. the low scores need some explaining??

 

[PaleRider]

Geez..no wonder. They would be empty though?

You'd hope so.

 

[NealK]

Really! I know that we are amateurs and it takes a lot of hard work from volunteers to put even a small competition together but this is the pinnacle of Australian home brewing. The fact that it has taken sooo long to get the results out was a touch annoying but when the organisers can't even be bothered to put them in place order speaks volumes. Passionate brewers that have worked hard to win a spot in their state championships deserve better communication than this. Again I understand the pressure involved in organising competitions but the results are what most brewers look for, and look back at for reference. If this set of results represents the best that can be done at a national level then I'm very disappointed.

edit - too harsh

 

[Codehopper]

When I saw this pic on the AABC facebook last week I was just hoping mine weren't in the grain sacks in the back of the trailer....

In the photo, the bottle visible upside down seems very empty to me, so I'm buying that other bottles are empty, too.

Another thing is that probably a good half of styles require rebrewing - anything xPA and wheat, at least. If those were not rebrewed, they might have lost points for being not fresh enough. If they were rebrewed, they might have turned out not as good as the original entries. Yes, I know, we all here are proud of consistency of our brew etc, but things may happen. I hope that scoresheets would be readable enough to explain things (my personal experience is that 60% of them are not).

Otherwise, I feel like giving a credit where credit is due, it was fairly well organised competition. On a scale from 0 to 10 (the latter being the last one in NSW - hat tip to Stuart Upton and ISB folks), this was a firm 8. The last year's comp in Adelaide was, probably, 5.5.

What still makes me shaking my head.. was it really difficult to sort the results by score in descending order?

 

[Parks]

You guys seem to think AABC is some professional organisation with directors and funding and business experience.

AABC doesn't really exist. It's a committee made up of the state delegates. Considering how amateurishly run some of the state competitions are you can't expect miracles. AABC could become a properly run business but there is no way to fund that. Every dollar goes to running the comp and going back to the entrants.

By all means offer constructive criticism, voice your expectations but don't think Bob that works full time and has to get his kids to bed is going to have a week of sleepless nights after the comp just to bust out scores of those who didn't place.

I know someone says it every year but if you want things to be done better - get involved. Make a difference.

 

[pcqypcqy]

Not complaining: But I did notice some entries that wouldn't have benefited from a re-brew got marked down heavily at AABC c.f. QABC. I'll be interested to see the score sheets, but in one example (stouts) I can't see how a 44.5 point beer only gets 29.5, and a 40.5 beer only gets 26.5. A few points reduction is fair enough if you've got better judges and better beers to compare against, and maybe freshness is an issue as well. But 15 points doesn't seem right.

 

[Parks]

The biggest change is scores can also be because different judges have different levels of perception to faults and also have different experience levels with the style of beer they are judging.

One judge might be bad at picking up oxidation and give you 40. The next might think it's heavily oxidised and give you 20.

One judge might have been to Belgium and drank all the best examples of Belgian beers, the next might be going purely off the vague ranges the BJCP uses to cover such beers.

It sucks, but it's reality.

 

[Hermies]

The biggest change is scores can also be because different judges have different levels of perception to faults and also have different experience levels with the style of beer they are judging.

One judge might be bad at picking up oxidation and give you 40. The next might think it's heavily oxidised and give you 20.

One judge might have been to Belgium and drank all the best examples of Belgian beers, the next might be going purely off the vague ranges the BJCP uses to cover such beers.

It sucks, but it's reality.

And that is why I don't enter comps any more is because of the inconsistencies . I had one beer judged by a reputable accredited BJCP he said it was a solid 40pts . Put it in a comp and it only received average 32pts .

 

[beachy]

By all means offer constructive criticism, voice your expectations but don't think Bob that works full time and has to get his kids to bed is going to have a week of sleepless nights after the comp just to bust out scores of those who didn't place.

I know someone says it every year but if you want things to be done better - get involved. Make a difference.

If the features of the software that all entries were registered through had been used correctly results would have been available within 24 hrs as they are in every ANHC year now.

 

[Parks]

If the features of the software that all entries were registered through had been used correctly results would have been available within 24 hrs as they are in every ANHC year now.

By all means tell me more about the software that everyone is using for the first time and let's just "click and hope for the best".

 

[user 37368]

in one example (stouts) I can't see how a 44.5 point beer only gets 29.5, and a 40.5 beer only gets 26.5. A few points reduction is fair enough if you've got better judges and better beers to compare against, and maybe freshness is an issue as well. But 15 points doesn't seem right.

The 44.5 point winning stout in QABC was about 3 months old and was effectively the same recipe as the best in show from gcabc which was about 5 months old when judged. Freshness isn't an issue there.

 

[beachy]

By all means tell me more about the software that everyone is using for the first time and let's just "click and hope for the best".

You want me to explain the process of data entry and scanning to you ?

If there are now 1100 unscanned score sheets to deal with I don't envy the person with that job.

 

[Parks]

No, I want people to understand just because software can do something doesn't mean you just set it up, click a button and let it go.

New software (to our comps), new people using it, checks and balances to have plus limited volunteer resources. You don't want to just release scores without sanity checking the results.

And as you say 1100 score sheets to scan (not sure the actual number).

 

[pcqypcqy]

The 44.5 point winning stout in QABC was about 3 months old and was effectively the same recipe as the best in show from gcabc which was about 5 months old when judged. Freshness isn't an issue there.

Agreed, that's my point. I can understand anything hoppy struggling with the limited re-brew times for the eastern states and the long trip over, as well as the potential for handling and storage to complicate things. But something like a stout should hold up very well to all of that.

 

[pcqypcqy]

No, I want people to understand just because software can do something doesn't mean you just set it up, click a button and let it go.

New software (to our comps), new people using it, checks and balances to have plus limited volunteer resources. You don't want to just release scores without sanity checking the results.

And as you say 1100 score sheets to scan (not sure the actual number).

Hey Parks, putting my hand up now to get involved for next year's QABC on the scoring/data side. Will there be a volunteer portal through the same website again?

 

[Parks]

Hey Parks, putting my hand up now to get involved for next year's QABC on the scoring/data side. Will there be a volunteer portal through the same website again?

There will be but I will contact Colin (registrar) and we will arrange that with you directly. The volunteer section is more for the game day lackeys where no real pre-planning or involvement is required on their part.

 

[Colbatt]

I know someone says it every year but if you want things to be done better - get involved. Make a difference.

I emailed an offer to help get the scoresheets out a week ago but haven't had a response. The offer still stands.