Brewing Competition Structure

[Stuster]

Following on from the AABC 2006 thread, I thought I'd start a new thread to try to thrash out what we think is the best way for competitions (especially the State and National ones) to structure their contests. As Colin said, let's try to be constructive for the future now. Here are some issues that spring to my mind.

Is it best to use the BJCP styles or use and improve the guidelines that were used this year?

If we stick with the same guidelines, how can they be standardised across the States? What about the scoring systems?

Should there be a separate Best of Show judging round?

I'm sure there are heaps of other issues out there. What do you think?

G'day Guys.
As I started this National Competition I thought I should add my bit.
Running these things is a thankless job. You can't please all the people
all the time. Constructive criticism is the best way to help. Attend
meetings and help these guys help you. Commitees DO need to know
what you think but do it without malice. HELP< HELP< HELP !!!!!!
Get a delegation together and put some ideas forward, you have the
forum here.
Off my soapbox now.
Cheers
Colin Penrose :chug:

 

[warrenlw63]

It's the usual thing. Australia is over-governed. Get one elected national body that sets the rules in concrete with no concessions. Have state reps who oversee that this happens in an orderly but friendly manner.

No ifs, no buts. If everybody knows the rules right from the outset there'd be no avenues for arse-bleeding which IMO kills the whole competition scene.

Warren -

 

[Stuster]

Sounds good, warren. I agree about simplifying it all. As you may be able to guess, I'm in favour of going with the BJCP system. It seems to me that the competition system there is has been going so much longer and is so much bigger that to ignore it is simply arrogance. There would have to be changes to some of the styles (especially light lager) to fit with Australian brewing. But other than that I can see no reason not to adopt (adapt) it.

BoS round should standardise things and again, I can see no reason why not.

Well, if only the world were left to me to manage. Everything would run so much better. :lol:

 

[///]

Be prepared to embrace change within the hobby - brewers in the hobby have changed what and how they brew markedly in the last 10 years, the comp structure should reflect this and position itself as such.

Incorporation and transperancey for a National Body is the only start.

Scotty

 

[AndrewQLD]

It's the usual thing. Australia is over-governed. Get one elected national body that sets the rules in concrete with no concessions. Have state reps who oversee that this happens in an orderly but friendly manner.

No ifs, no buts. If everybody knows the rules right from the outset there'd be no avenues for arse-bleeding which IMO kills the whole competition scene.

Warren -

Warren "I love your work" :lol:
What you have said is exactly what needs to happen but sadly is not happening.

The National body should create the rules, catagories, styles ect. And the State organisers should follow these to the letter, giving a nice easy transition from State comp to National comp.
It is when individual state organisers decide that their comp should have x and y catagories that don't tie in with the national comp that all hell breaks loose.

A State "qualifying" Competition should run in order for brewers to be able to advance to the National competition, it should not be run for its own benefit, but as a part of the national competition.

And that means it should be run to the same rules and Catagories as the National comp.

 

[warrenlw63]

It's a pity that Kerry Packer's not with us any more.

He could buy the whole comp scene and get us brewing in coloured pyjamas. B)

Warren -

 

[bigfridge]

The National body should create the rules, catagories, styles ect. And the State organisers should follow these to the letter, giving a nice easy transition from State comp to National comp.
It is when individual state organisers decide that their comp should have x and y catagories that don't tie in with the national comp that all hell breaks loose.

A State "qualifying" Competition should run in order for brewers to be able to advance to the National competition, it should not be run for its own benefit, but as a part of the national competition.

And that means it should be run to the same rules and Catagories as the National comp.

Andrew,

I fully agree.

The problem that NSW experienced concerned the announcement of the rules. When the AABA decided to adopt the BJCP styles we planned our comp to include all relevant styles.

When the restricted list of styles was released by the AABC organising commitee a few weeks before the comp it was too late to do anything about it.

Better communication and clearer rules are needed.

David

 

[///]

Any organisation has to be about more than Rules - it is about structure and proceedure.

A working structure needs a strategy, to understand its market, have folks are elected to represent their states, a marketing function and call me crazy a training function etc etc.

The focus on rules, rules and more rules makes for much chatter, but no action!

Scotty

 

[DJR]

I'm not going to look back at the past but here's my thinking.

National comp uses BJCP scoresheets and categories (minus a couple of things like Pumpkin Ale :lol All categories always used unless there is no qualifying entries from any state, in which case that category is dropped. If there are less than 3 entries in a given category, that category could be combined with another similar category for judging,if within reason. E.g. light hybrid beer could be absorbed into Light Lager. But the prizewinning and qualifications still come as if it were its own category, combining them is just for the judging.

State comp uses exactly the same system. Top 3 beers in each category are allowed to enter Nationals, as long as they have at least a 90 or so score. If categories do not have enough entrants, again, they can be combined for the purpose of judging, but the qualification/prizewinning still stands as if it were its own category.

National and state comps both to use a BoS round where the top 2 or 3 of each flight are re-tasted by a wider judging panel. Stops Big Beer Bias in scoresheets automatically placing people with monster beers winning BoS.

Grand Champion brewer to be decided by picking up points for placings - 3 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd, totals added and GC decided. Winning State/Brewclub decided by same method.

 

[Snow]

This may not be possible, due to logistics, but can I also suggest that all state comps be coordinated as to have their competitions on the exact same weekend, at a predetermined period before the Nationals. This would eliminate inconsistencies across states with, for example, a beer from one state having more time to mature or degrade, than the same style of beer from another state.

In addition, I would suggest they drop the condition allowing someone to enter a different beer if they have run out of a qualifying beer. I just can't see the point in this rule. If I qualified last year, maybe I should be allowed to enter beers from the same category the following year...and the year after that... <_<

Cheers - Snow

I'm not going to look back at the past but here's my thinking.

National comp uses BJCP scoresheets and categories (minus a couple of things like Pumpkin Ale :lol All categories always used unless there is no qualifying entries from any state, in which case that category is dropped. If there are less than 3 entries in a given category, that category could be combined with another similar category for judging,if within reason. E.g. light hybrid beer could be absorbed into Light Lager. But the prizewinning and qualifications still come as if it were its own category, combining them is just for the judging.

State comp uses exactly the same system. Top 3 beers in each category are allowed to enter Nationals, as long as they have at least a 90 or so score. If categories do not have enough entrants, again, they can be combined for the purpose of judging, but the qualification/prizewinning still stands as if it were its own category.

National and state comps both to use a BoS round where the top 2 or 3 of each flight are re-tasted by a wider judging panel. Stops Big Beer Bias in scoresheets automatically placing people with monster beers winning BoS.

Grand Champion brewer to be decided by picking up points for placings - 3 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd, totals added and GC decided. Winning State/Brewclub decided by same method.

 

[Steve Lacey]

A topic close to my heart. Since I don't live in Australia anymore I probably shouldn't comment. But I will anyway, so please indulge me.

The National body should create the rules, catagories, styles ect. And the State organisers should follow these to the letter, giving a nice easy transition from State comp to National comp.

This is the ideal situation. But the problem is that ever since my first exposure to the world of Australian brewing comps, back in about 1998, it quickly became evident that the political landscape for hobbyist brewers was equivalent to that of our country before Federation. There was no such thing as a national body. To the best of my knowledge, despite considerable improvements, that is still effectively the case. Responsibility for running the Nationals used to rotate from state to state and the rules and guidelines and standard of the comp were highly variable. The situation has improved vastly, but clearly, judging by this thread, there is room for more improvement.

Compounding the problem of there being no national body is that neither do the states have one, or most of them in any case. I think VICBREW is perhaps the only one (happy to stand corrected, is SABSOSA a state body in SA?). In NSW, the responsibility for organising the state comp rotated (sort of still does) to whichever group protested least strenuously about doing it. There is no state body as such. Again, happy to be corrected. But anyway, this loose to non-existant structure is what leads to...

It is when individual state organisers decide that their comp should have x and y catagories that don't tie in with the national comp that all hell breaks loose.

It might be hyperbole to describe it as all hell breaking loose, but certainly there have been many unhappy episodes and incidents over the years concerning the transition from state to national comp. But the ideal situation outlined in the leading quote won't come about until there is a fully federated structure with an overaching national body with affiliated state executive bodies. The role of such a structure would have to extend beyond the organizing of comps (what Scotty said) and would, in a lot of ways, need to resemble that of the AHA in America. In fact, it would form a good mechanism by which to establish a tweaked BJCP, style guidelines etc. customized to our landcape.

But homebrewers are a laid-back bunch averse to formality and procedure, and so far there has just not been enough impetus to get something like this happening. Basically, not enough people could be arsed. It would be a hell of a lot of work and as Colin Penrose, who knows only too well, says, it goes pretty much without thanks.

So, get a proper "structure and procedure" (Scotty, this thread) in place, and everything else follows. Until then, until there is enough collective willingness to roll up sleeves and do what is required, the current situation of gradual, iterative, sporadic improvement will continue.

My apologies for butting in where I am not really entitled, due to my non-residence, but this is a view I have held for at least seven years. One of my (many) regrets about leaving Australia is that I would have liked to have participated in working with like-minded brewers towards such a vision. I think it is also a matter of timing and maturing of the hobby, and I really sense that that time might just about have arrived.

 

[MHB]

We all want something from a comp or we wouldnt be entering.

I think it is fair to say we present our best efforts when we enter. We want that entry to be judged on its merits, treated with the respect it deserves by people who know and understand what we have presented, and the effort that has gone into the making of it.

The terms "level playing field" and "a fair go" are as Australian as it gets, that is all any of us can ask for. For this to happen we must have one uniform set of standards, it must be inclusive rather than exclusive, it must be contemporary; above all it must be fair.

Personally I have my criticisms of the BJCP; however at this time I dont think there is a better alternative than to adopt a some what modified version as a national standard. It offers the best defined most inclusive stylistic descriptions, judge training and a structure for both entrants and judges.

These features are sorely lacking in the Australian competition scene at present. If you want change, chace up your state delegate, hell put your hand up for the job, or come up with a better fairer system than the BJCP.

My class Gold from 2002 is still proudly displayed. The AABC is I believe the best national brewing comp (sorry SA) in Australia, I want my Gold to mean something in 4 more years.

MHB

Australian Amateur Brewing Championship

C. Structure and Rules of the AABA (Australian Amateur Brewing
Association)

C1. Delegates.
The AABA consists of delegates (normally two) from each State and Territory willing to support the Aims of the Association (section B). It is the responsibility of each State/Territory to nominate their own delegates.

C2. Deliberations
The main deliberations of the AABA will be by email or similar means.

C3. AGM.
An annual meeting of the AABA will be held in conjunction with the annual AABC.

C4. Web presence.
The AABA will maintain a web presence, through a dedicated site (if possible) or hosting and mirroring at amateur brewing sites such as oz.craftbrewers.org, www.vicbrew.org, www.canberrabrewers.org, www.sabsosa.com, and nsw.craftbrewer.org.

C5. Decision-making.
Where possible, decisions of the AABA will be reached by consensus. If voting is necessary, each State/Territory will have two votes on the AABA with issues decided by a simple majority of those voting provided that votes are received from at least three States/Territories. Any issue to be voted upon must be circulated (by email) to all current delegates with at least 14 days provided for discussion.

C6. AABC Local Organising Committee.
A local organising committee responsible for running the annual AABC will be selected by the AABA based on nominations received. In selecting the location of the AABC, the AABA will, amongst other considerations, attempt to give all States/Territories the chance to host the AABC, and will take into account the track record of the organising committee.

C7. AABC Decisions.
Where it is necessary for the successful running of the AABC, the local organising committee is authorised to make decisions on issues not previously agreed upon by the AABA. Such decisions should be guided by the other AABC rules, the Aims of the AABA and, where possible, the views of other AABA delegates.

C8. Categories & Styles.
The categories and styles for the AABC will be decided upon by the AABA. In order to maintain some consistency from year to year, a maximum of three changes are allowed per year.

C9. Rules for State Qualifiers.
State/Territory Qualifying Championships shall, where possible, follow the same (relevant) rules as the AABC. However, in order ensure that all interested amateur brewers have the opportunity to qualify for the AABC, the AABA will make reasonable efforts to accept entries from State/Territory Qualifying Championships, provided that all AABC entrants are treated equitably and fairly.

C10. State Qualifier Registration.
The State/Territory Qualifying Championships shall be registered by 1st March each year through advice to the AABA delegate list and registration on a dedicated web site. The information shall at a minimum be competition date, categories, and organiser contact details.

C11. Accreditation of State/Territory Qualifying Championships.
There shall be only one Qualifying Championship in each State/Territory. If there is more than one nomination for the competition to be used as the State/Territory Qualifier, this shall be decided upon by brewers from that State/Territory. In the event of a dispute, the AABA will nominate which competition is to be used as the State/Territory Qualifying Championship. Each State/Territory Qualifying Championship shall accept entries from throughout that State/Territory. If there is no Qualifying Championship in a particular State/Territory, then another State/Territory Qualifier may chose to accept entries from that State/Territory. The beers from both States/Territories would be judged together but for the purposes of qualification for the AABC, the placings for each State/Territory would be decided by only considering the scores for the entries from that State/Territory (see the example in the explanatory notes).

C12. Categories for State/Territory Qualifying Championships.
It is recommended that all State/Territory Qualifying Championships be run using the published AABC categories and styles. However, if other categories and style guidelines are used in a State/Territory Qualifying Championship, then it is the responsibility of the State/Territory to select the best three beers that will qualify for the relevant categories in the AABC. The organisers of State/Territory Qualifying Championships shall inform entrants before entries close for their State/Territory Qualifier of the method to be used in these cases for selecting qualifying beers for the AABC.

C13. Results from State/Territory Qualifying Championships.
The organisers of the State/Territory Qualifying Championships will supply the full results of placegetters in their competitions and their contact details to the AABC organising committee within one week of the running of the State/Territory Qualifying Championship.

 

[berapnopod]

Just found this topic...

I think the best way forward is not to just have a consistent set of guidelines for state and national comps, but also to have a set of guidelines that best accomodates the brewers (aka adapt), but more importantly is correct.

When I read the AABA style guidelines in 2004 for the first time, I could see a lot of flaws. Rather than sit on my hands, I have been trying to change them for the better. It took a while for me to get going because it was hard to find out who the AABA were in the first place. But since then, I have been making suggestions on how to change them, with some success.

My agenda is basically to see Australian comps run in a similar manner to the US BJCP comps. Using BJCP guidelines, incorporating a BoS round etc. In my experience with US BJCP comps, these are the model of a comp that is as unbiased as practical, and accomodates the brewer's needs best.

Last year, I suggested to the AABA that national and state comps adopt BJCP guidelines for their comps. Obviously, there have to be some changes that accomodate some uniquely Australian styes. Great leaps forward were made, by using the BJCP style wording where available, rather than the old AABA wording.
This cleared up a whole lot of inconsistencies and factual errors. However, not all BJCP styles were included. I intend to ask the AABA to consider using *all* BJCP styles in the future.

One interesting and rather unnerving thing I have found throughout this whole process is that there is an undercurrent of resentment in Australia for the BJCP, because it is American. This I really don't understand. I think it is a major contributing factor to how slow this process has been. I would really like to hear an argument from anyone as to why a system is crap, just because it is American. I have no problems if someone wants to point out flaws with the BJCP, I don't think its perfect either - just better, but avoiding BJCP guidelines just to keep the Seppoes from taking over our competitions doesn't make sense.

If you think it does make sense, I want to hear from you!


I see the 2006 problems between state and nationals as a result of the changing competition structure and guidelines - growing pains. As I said, I hope the AABA will adopt the BJCP (plus Australian) styles as a consistent set next year, which will eliminate the problems we have seen.

Berp.

 

[Linz]

I'm sorry guys...BUT,


Why is there always a mention of TWEAKING the BJCP guidelines???? This is what caused the Hoohaa this year..NSW ran the full gamit and the Nationals ran a TWEAKED version of it.


Fosters Lager is in the BJCP as a classic example of Standard American Lager, Coopers would fit into english pale ales and everyone reckons the rest of Australian beer is crap anyway?? Why change what works..if it aint busted, dont fix it..

MHB the real reason youd want to stay with the AABA is so that..." I want my Gold to mean something in 4 more years." B)

 

[BrissyBrew]

My agenda is basically to see Australian comps run in a similar manner to the US BJCP comps. Using BJCP guidelines, incorporating a BoS round etc. In my experience with US BJCP comps, these are the model of a comp that is as unbiased as practical, and accomodates the brewer's needs best.
...
One interesting and rather unnerving thing I have found throughout this whole process is that there is an undercurrent of resentment in Australia for the BJCP, because it is American. This I really don't understand. I think it is a major contributing factor to how slow this process has been. I would really like to hear an argument from anyone as to why a system is crap, just because it is American. I have no problems if someone wants to point out flaws with the BJCP, I don't think its perfect either - just better, but avoiding BJCP guidelines just to keep the Seppoes from taking over our competitions doesn't make sense.

Berp.

Now I dont mind the odd bit of American bashing but I have to agree if it works, and it is standardised why not use it? Why tweek it?

If there is an Australian style that you dont feel fits perfectly in the BJCP style guide after we adopt the BJCP style guide we might have cause to petition them for inclusion of a new style at a later date. Somebody should start a poll vote see who would agree, club, state, nationals BJCP guidelines.

Yes no system is perfect but why exert energy on reinventing the wheel. Meanwhile we dont have a peek Australian home brew association. Meanwhile every brew club, state body, the series of bodies claiming to be the national body, uses a different system.

I would love to see the winners of the Australian national comp be entered into the finals for the American HBA comp, if you want some kudos for American bashing why not beat them at their own game.

 

[MHB]

Linz

Well there were some other issues: -

"This is what caused the Hoohaa this year..NSW ran the full gamit and the Nationals ran a TWEAKED version of it".

The nationals excluded some entries, this isnt tweaking this is editing or deleting, this excludes rather than includes.

But your point about the style guidelines being tweaked; I for one can't find a good home for Aussie Old in the BJCP descriptors.

The Fosters sold in North America is I believe different to that sold in Europe and the UK. As well as being significantly different to the blue can stuff we all know and love.

The point that some people got screwed is undeniable (Jesus - here I go mentioning the war) there are problems, at this point they are serious enough to cause a major fractioning of the Australian home brewing competition scene.
This I think is the worst possible outcome and one I want to help avoid. Blindly following a transplanted process wont work (if for no other reason than that people wont accept it), what we have isnt working.

Yes I would like to see an ongoing national level comp, that includes rather than excludes - I would even like my gold to remain valuable.

Something is busted and it needs fixing.

MHB

 

[Linz]

"I for one can't find a good home for Aussie Old in the BJCP descriptors."

Ever thought the possibility of it being an example of a Dark Lager?(although the accepted assumption that its an Ale through its labelling)

The "Aussie" style guidelines seem to have been written to accept the one or two mainstream beers ...

Aussie ale for coopers (even a Sparkling ale guide for coopers sparkling...C'mon!)

Aussie old for 2es old

Aussie bitter for VB (had to laugh when I saw this)

Aussie premium for Boag, cascade,calton, et al Premium lager

Aussie light lager for all the low alc/carb lagers

The last two have some merit for their own style, but still mirror most world lager styles anyhow

The thing I would rather see is the BJCP drop the use of the word "American" in favour of "Neo" or "Mondo" encompassing the world trend of brewing as all breweries are chasing the same dollar and in the new millenium

eg Neo Pale Ale instead of APA; so LC and SNPA are in the same class (Im sure the poms would have used Cascade if it had been developed eons ago)and the history of the style would still reflect the fact that it originated in the US

Dark Mondo Lager...San Miguel Dark, Beck's Dark,Tooheys Old

My main point is that we can change the BJCP to fit our styles of beers so that we have commercial examples, but its more the system of judging,ranking,rulings,forms,reporting and record keeping that have been around for yonks and the infighting and domination have been sorted

The other thing is where is the guidelines for NZ beerz, Sth African beers, Sth American beers??? Why are we all so obsessed about having Australian style guidlines??

and isnt editing or deleting still tweaking something? B)

 

[Vlad the Pale Aler]

As if things are'nt splintered enough, go and read the schedule for the inaugral Perth beer show/comp

:blink:

 

[Linz]

Heres where the AABA FALLS RIGHT OVER



C1. Delegates.
The AABA consists of delegates (normally two) from each State and Territorywilling to support the Aims of the Association (section B). It is the responsibility of each State/Territory to nominate their own delegates.

So if you have a differing opinion you're a shot duck as far as being able to get on the board....with 2 of the 3 NSW delegates having Business interests in the Home brewing industry..how many of the other delegates have business interests in Home brewing??(Wonder how long a response from the AABA will take??)

What Id like to see is all states form up similar to Vicbrew( http://www.vicbrew.org/ )...which appears to be controlled by the Victorian Home/Craft brewing clubs

Copied from their site

Vicbrew, an informal committee primarily set-up to organise and run an Victorian Amateur/Craft/Home Brewing competition and assist with the organisation and running an Australian Amateur/Craft/Home Brewing competition. It's members are representatives of various Victorian Home Brewing Clubs and as such provide a means of communication between the Clubs which facilitates a co-ordination of Club activities. As a secondary role, Vicbrew will, finances permitting, encourage the novice brewer by providing sponsorship of a "Best Novice Brewer" prize at sanctioned Victorian Amateur/Craft/Home Brewing competitions.

So eg..

Newbrew: The Voice of Craft Brewers in New South Wales, Australia

Newbrew should be established as soon as possible and an informal committee primarily set-up to organise and run NSW Amateur/Craft/Home Brewing competitions and assist with the organisation and running an Australian BJCP Brewing competition. It's members are representatives of various NSW Home Brewing Clubs and can provide a means of communication between the Clubs which facilitates a co-ordination of Club activities. As a secondary role, Newbrew will, finances permitting, encourage the novice brewer by providing sponsorship of a "Best Novice Brewer" prize at sanctioned NSW BJCP Brewing competitions.


and members from each club nominates 3 delegates to their state body and they then vote on delegates for the AABA committee....

 

[Wortgames]

A good solution today is better than a perfect solution never.

I agree that it would seem pretty arrogant to reinvent the 20-year old BJCP - even IF we already had a fully functioning national and state structure to do it. It may not be perfect, but it has to be a bloody good starting point.

If it becomes apparent that a couple of categories need to be created, dropped, combined or renamed to suit the Aussie scene then by all means do it - but do it nationally, once everyone agrees on what to change. Perhaps ultimately the Aussies and the Yanks could even nut out these differences and agree on a universal structure that suits the 'world' of beer styles, not just the way a particular nation of brewers sees it.