 |
| The Brewers' Choice |
|
It has become acknowledged in the world of brewing that different competitions rightly should have different criteria. The constitution of the judging panel is one such.
THE BREWING INDUSTRY INTERNATIONAL AWARDS are judged only by currently working professional brewers of proven commercial background and expertise in tasting. They are there to reward ‘the commercial worth of the beer quality.’
Individually, the members are likely to be Head Brewers, Production Directors or Quality Managers. Collectively, the panel’s experience of brewing will cover a very wide range of styles, and between them they are brewing (or have brewed) in every corner of the world. |
 2005 stewards team with
Chairman of the Judges, Roger Putman. |
 |
Why is diversity of experience important?
Judging for these Awards is by consensus, not by scoring and, only in the judging for a Champion Beer, by voting. In other words, panel members are divided into teams (which change each session during the period of judging) and are expected to argue out the case for which beers they are to put forward to the next stage.
One brewer may have slightly more experience than others of a particular style being judged and may take the lead in the discussion. But all team members know when a beer has faults and all can judge the moreishness or otherwise of the product before them. These Competitions promote the fact that nearly every type of beer brewed on the planet can find a place in one of its broad categories. The diverse experience of the invited panel ensures that even the more obscure beers will not be beyond the knowledge of some members.
Consensus works.
The dedication of the judging panel is obvious to all who closely observe it in action. Brewers are, by common consent, devoted enthusiasts of beer and love to debate it. Despite their own often considerable experience, many past members have told the organisers that their time on the panel has taught them new things and opened new perspectives by hearing their brewing colleagues’ opinions.
In this judging context, no entry is lightly dismissed at any stage. Merits and demerits are weighed. The Chairman of the Judges briefs all panellists beforehand and asks them “to promote those beers on which they would like to rely for their pension”.
There are other built-in safeguards with this system:
-
judges are always presented with a manageable number of beers to compare in any one session – the classes with larger entries have more teams judging them in the early rounds.
-
as the number of beers in contention in a class is reduced, so the size of the judging panel assessing them increases, culminating in the entire panel of 30+ selecting the Champion Beer in each of the 9 categories. Thus, each subsequent panel will either ratify the best beers or quickly eliminate the lesser candidates which have come through the earlier stage.
|
 |
 |
Each and every class at these Awards is so competitive, that discussion may be the only means of separating the entries in final contention for a medal. Where a points-scoring system might produce an average entry ‘coming through the middle’, a consensus method ensures that the competing claims are well and truly aired.
The result of this process is a coveted Award for the brewers of three beers in each class. It also confers the undoubted right to claim the valuable commercial advantage that their beer is truly ‘the brewers’ choice.’
|
 |
|
|
|
|
