MAH, I was relieved to see you didn't take my comments personally. Happens so easily on forums when one attempts to discuss ideas and opinions. Generally I am not an argumentative fellow and definitely don't go out of my way to make trouble, so it is good we can have a civil conversation about this.
Nope you haven't misrpresented what I have said. I've made two points. A) I don't think the high ground can be claimed based on BJCP accreditation, because IMHO the actual accreditation component, the exam, is not a good basis for determining an individual's ability to assess the quality of beer.
I agree that it is not a panacea and that there is no justification for taking any high and mighty position about having certification or following the comp guidelines. What I think it does more than anything else is provide a referent to a whole framework of meaning such that once you say the words "the comp follows BJCP format and every panel will have at least one BJCP certified judge" then prospective entrants can understand what that means, and so it is an efficient way of communicating the comp structure and that it has some level of competency. Otherwise it is a comp-by-comp process of carefully reading the classes and style guidelines etc and wondering whether the judges are as qualified as the bozo mentioned on
this thread. So, this is not to say BJCP has any greater authority other than the sheer numbers of amateur brewing enthusiasts involved in honing it over the years, but it does provide some form of standard, and having been involved in comp organizing in Australia in the late 1990s and 2000, I can only say that that is a good thing.
B) Beer comps seem to be taken too seriously, it's just a hobby.
Yes, I couldn't agree more. The sad fact is that as soon as you put the word "competition" into anything, it seems to bring out the worst in some people. I'm afraid I am talking about competitors here (i.e., not all, just a noisy minority who spoil it for others) and inevitably forces organizers into being increasingly transparent and having to guard themselves against attacks from all kinds of angles -- as soon as egos are involved, blech, you are going to get people taking it too seriously and being precious about the results and process. I'm sure that with the size of the hobby in the States, which was built on the philosophy of Charlie Papazian's RDWHAHB, it was this kind of thing, plus the desire to get away from re-inventing the wheel for every comp, that led to the BJCP standardization approach. So, really, I see BJCP as a form of inferring some kind of credibility (albeit with the limitations you point out) while cutting down the work of organizers and providing a sound basis for comparing and assessing beers.
Well if you are going to put yourself out their as accredited then it should be a valid process.
I'm sure this is a legitimate point. But it's one I'd like to see addressed to the BJCP Grand Privy (or whatever the overseeing body is called). As in, I'm sure they would vigorously defend their process and claim that it is valid, or perhaps, if you have some very concrete ideas on what they could do to improve the validity, perhaps they would listen, or perhaps they could assure you that such steps are unnecessary, I don't know. Wouldn't it be better, though, to build on this very substantial base and improve what we have rather than focus on what it is not and ditch it to start something anew? Which brings us to...
But we can also go one step further back and question whether it's even needed.
True. To a large extent though, this is exactly the conversation and process that has taken place within and by many comp organizers in Australia since, as I mentioned, dating back at least 8 years or so. Trying to hold a national comp with that comp and every state comp having different sets of classes and guidelines was a nightmare -- even given that you were just trying to do it for a bit of fun. Judging standards were very inconsistent within and between comps. This is an on-going but, it would seem, ever-diminishing problem (not because of BJCP but because of the growth in the hobby and better flow of informaton on forums like this). Perhaps you haven't been part of the conversation, but I can assure you it has taken place. Definitely something was needed for the reasons I outlined above in answer to your point B), and given that BJCP already exists, and given the small size of the hobby in Australia, and given that there is enough universality with beer styles to make it mostly as applicable here as anywhere...people gravitated towards adopting BJCP guidelines. The judge certification proces was a natural follower I suppose. So, yes, ask the question by all means, but it is the community of competition organizers, as nebulous as that sounds, that are best positioned to decide this.
One more time, I'll give praise where it's due and say that the journey of gaining BJCP accreditation is a worthy one. The actual exam and the shingle, I personaly don't give much credit to, but the journey taken, the effort made to go and try a wide variety of beers and expand an individual's knowledge, well a big thumbs ups.
Then it would seem your main problem is with the exam format. So let's acknowledge everything that the BJCP program is, and perhaps raise the exam format issues with the US administrators and find out what they have to say about it. Or have some involved in administering the program in Oz respond to your specific criticisms (note, I am not qualified to speak about that). BTW, I agree that the shingle should be regarded for exactly what it is: verification that you have been through the aove-mentioned worthy process and thus are assured of having the basic knowledge required to judge a homebrew competition. It doesn't necessarily make you an expert or necessarily superior to others who have acquired their credentials through a less formal process.
For me, it boils down to this: if you are going to have competitions, some kind of standardization and transparency and quality assurance is highly desirable. At the moment, the options for that are BJCP and ...
I guess that's about all I have to say. It' been a pleasure discussing the topic. Shame it was done here and not over a :beer:
Steve
Disclaimer for those who do not know me: I have no affiiliation or vested interest in the BJCP or AHA or anything related to them. I've just been involved in a few comps in the past.
