[tommymorris]

No offense but the op sounds a bit peeved that he did well in bluebonnet but not NHC

I don’t think so.

[Bel Air Brewing]

No offense, I'm not sure about the OP.

I entered with encouragement from friends saying good feedback would be gained. There was little, if any. That's my gripe.

[hopfenundmalz]

No offense, I'm not sure about the OP.

I entered with encouragement from friends saying good feedback would be gained. There was little, if any. That's my gripe.

Will you mention that to your friends? Have they entered the NHC?

[Iliff Ave]

No offense but the op sounds a bit peeved that he did well in bluebonnet but not NHC

My bad not the op

[Bel Air Brewing]

No offense, I'm not sure about the OP.

I entered with encouragement from friends saying good feedback would be gained. There was little, if any. That's my gripe.

Will you mention that to your friends? Have they entered the NHC?

Yes, for sure this week when they come over for a round table evaluation of my entries. I saved a bottle of each. I am not certain if any of them have entered before, but will find out.

[denny]

No offense, I'm not sure about the OP.

I entered with encouragement from friends saying good feedback would be gained. There was little, if any. That's my gripe.

Will you mention that to your friends? Have they entered the NHC?

Yes, for sure this week when they come over for a round table evaluation of my entries. I saved a bottle of each. I am not certain if any of them have entered before, but will find out.

It sounds like they gave you incorrect advice because they didn't understand how it works

[reverseapachemaster]

I entered with encouragement from friends saying good feedback would be gained. There was little, if any. That's my gripe.

Will you mention that to your friends? Have they entered the NHC?

Yes, for sure this week when they come over for a round table evaluation of my entries. I saved a bottle of each. I am not certain if any of them have entered before, but will find out.

It sounds like they gave you incorrect advice because they didn't understand how it works

Then the AHA needs to be honest and transparent about the feedback entrants will receive. From the 2023 NHC site the first line of the page for entrants reads:

"The National Homebrew Competition gives you a chance to receive invaluable feedback on your entries"

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/national-homebrew-competition/entrant-volunteer-information/

The website has the announcement for changes from 2022 which state:

"Entry feedback comment sheets for the 2022 National Homebrew Competition will include enhancements to Judge ID, descriptive sensory attributes, easy to read visual sliding scales, flaws and off flavors, and other metrics useful to entrants."

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/news/whats-new-for-the-2022-national-homebrew-competition/

Every year after NHC the same conversation occurs that people don't feel like they get much useful feedback from judging and it is rare that anybody ever claims they received much useful feedback. Usually it's comments about how incomplete and illegible the scoresheets are. The 2022 announcement asserts the reason for going to a single site was in part to improve the quality of the judging pool and that was in part the reason for increasing the entry fee; but I've only seen the same complaints we have every year.

I get that assembling a competition of this size with the number of volunteers relied upon is no easy feat and getting enough people to sit down and judge that many beers is tough. The AHA could reduce the size of the competition so the feedback they advertise could happen. Or the AHA could just advertise the NHC as a competition for competition's sake and encourage people to enter other competitions for feedback to refine their recipes for big competition. I realize the NHC is one of the bigger moneymakers for the organization so there is an incentive to get as many entries as they can muster but if the AHA is going to advertise the competition less than honestly, then the frustration from entrants is warranted.

[tommymorris]

I entered with encouragement from friends saying good feedback would be gained. There was little, if any. That's my gripe.

Will you mention that to your friends? Have they entered the NHC?

Yes, for sure this week when they come over for a round table evaluation of my entries. I saved a bottle of each. I am not certain if any of them have entered before, but will find out.

It sounds like they gave you incorrect advice because they didn't understand how it works

Then the AHA needs to be honest and transparent about the feedback entrants will receive. From the 2023 NHC site the first line of the page for entrants reads:

"The National Homebrew Competition gives you a chance to receive invaluable feedback on your entries"

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/national-homebrew-competition/entrant-volunteer-information/

The website has the announcement for changes from 2022 which state:

"Entry feedback comment sheets for the 2022 National Homebrew Competition will include enhancements to Judge ID, descriptive sensory attributes, easy to read visual sliding scales, flaws and off flavors, and other metrics useful to entrants."

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/news/whats-new-for-the-2022-national-homebrew-competition/

Every year after NHC the same conversation occurs that people don't feel like they get much useful feedback from judging and it is rare that anybody ever claims they received much useful feedback. Usually it's comments about how incomplete and illegible the scoresheets are. The 2022 announcement asserts the reason for going to a single site was in part to improve the quality of the judging pool and that was in part the reason for increasing the entry fee; but I've only seen the same complaints we have every year.

I get that assembling a competition of this size with the number of volunteers relied upon is no easy feat and getting enough people to sit down and judge that many beers is tough. The AHA could reduce the size of the competition so the feedback they advertise could happen. Or the AHA could just advertise the NHC as a competition for competition's sake and encourage people to enter other competitions for feedback to refine their recipes for big competition. I realize the NHC is one of the bigger moneymakers for the organization so there is an incentive to get as many entries as they can muster but if the AHA is going to advertise the competition less than honestly, then the frustration from entrants is warranted.

This sounds very reasonable to me.

[Bel Air Brewing]

They would be better off if the entries were more restricted. How in the world can you accurately judge 146 beers in one category? You can't do it and be fair to all of the entrants. At least not with the logistics in place. And the imposed time constraints, based on the feedback on other forums.

And why do they combine so many sub-categories? This is a problem with many of the competitions. Putting a German Pils against a New Zealand Pils is like comparing oil and water.

Further restrict the category entrants, and do not combine beers that are worlds apart.

[Cliffs]

To me, it shows the general progression in homebrewing.  Pilsner used to be one of the lesser entered categories, but now it was the highest entered.  That says a lot about the improved skill of homebrewers.

A few years ago I sat in only several judging tables for the first round of the NHC, including the pilsner category. That category was by far the best and most stacked category. There were a dozen beers that all deserved to move foreward.

[Wilbur]

I entered with encouragement from friends saying good feedback would be gained. There was little, if any. That's my gripe.

Will you mention that to your friends? Have they entered the NHC?

Yes, for sure this week when they come over for a round table evaluation of my entries. I saved a bottle of each. I am not certain if any of them have entered before, but will find out.

It sounds like they gave you incorrect advice because they didn't understand how it works

Then the AHA needs to be honest and transparent about the feedback entrants will receive. From the 2023 NHC site the first line of the page for entrants reads:

"The National Homebrew Competition gives you a chance to receive invaluable feedback on your entries"

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/national-homebrew-competition/entrant-volunteer-information/

The website has the announcement for changes from 2022 which state:

"Entry feedback comment sheets for the 2022 National Homebrew Competition will include enhancements to Judge ID, descriptive sensory attributes, easy to read visual sliding scales, flaws and off flavors, and other metrics useful to entrants."

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/news/whats-new-for-the-2022-national-homebrew-competition/

Every year after NHC the same conversation occurs that people don't feel like they get much useful feedback from judging and it is rare that anybody ever claims they received much useful feedback. Usually it's comments about how incomplete and illegible the scoresheets are. The 2022 announcement asserts the reason for going to a single site was in part to improve the quality of the judging pool and that was in part the reason for increasing the entry fee; but I've only seen the same complaints we have every year.

I get that assembling a competition of this size with the number of volunteers relied upon is no easy feat and getting enough people to sit down and judge that many beers is tough. The AHA could reduce the size of the competition so the feedback they advertise could happen. Or the AHA could just advertise the NHC as a competition for competition's sake and encourage people to enter other competitions for feedback to refine their recipes for big competition. I realize the NHC is one of the bigger moneymakers for the organization so there is an incentive to get as many entries as they can muster but if the AHA is going to advertise the competition less than honestly, then the frustration from entrants is warranted.

I think there's enough big regional competitions to use those as a "first round". Require brewers to place in a competition with at least X entries (300? 400?) the previous year. You encourage folks to enter more local competitions and you make it easier for NHC judges. I figure quite a few who are serious about winning NHC are already entering a beer in one of the others (Bluebonnet, Drunk Monk, etc.) These regional competitions are spaced out through the year too, so if you screw up you have another chance. There are a small amount of brewers from outside the US that enter NHC, and there might need to be modifications to these rules to facilitate their entry into the competition but I don't see that be a reason to not improve the experience for everyone else.

[denny]

I hope some of you with ideas for NHC will consider running for GC next time around and get your ideas implemented.

[chinaski]

They would be better off if the entries were more restricted. How in the world can you accurately judge 146 beers in one category? You can't do it and be fair to all of the entrants. At least not with the logistics in place. And the imposed time constraints, based on the feedback on other forums.

And why do they combine so many sub-categories? This is a problem with many of the competitions. Putting a German Pils against a New Zealand Pils is like comparing oil and water.

Further restrict the category entrants, and do not combine beers that are worlds apart.

I strongly encourage any brewer to become a BJCP-certified judge and participate in competition judging and/or organizing.  It might change your perspective about lots of things.  I know that it did for me. 

I do think that it is possible to separate judging/ranking of entries from the process of providing feedback that is clear and useful to the brewer.  As Denny mentioned, both entrants and competition managers should be clear about what the goals are- ranking of beers, providing good feedback, or both.

[tommymorris]

I entered with encouragement from friends saying good feedback would be gained. There was little, if any. That's my gripe.

Will you mention that to your friends? Have they entered the NHC?

Yes, for sure this week when they come over for a round table evaluation of my entries. I saved a bottle of each. I am not certain if any of them have entered before, but will find out.

It sounds like they gave you incorrect advice because they didn't understand how it works

Then the AHA needs to be honest and transparent about the feedback entrants will receive. From the 2023 NHC site the first line of the page for entrants reads:

"The National Homebrew Competition gives you a chance to receive invaluable feedback on your entries"

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/national-homebrew-competition/entrant-volunteer-information/

The website has the announcement for changes from 2022 which state:

"Entry feedback comment sheets for the 2022 National Homebrew Competition will include enhancements to Judge ID, descriptive sensory attributes, easy to read visual sliding scales, flaws and off flavors, and other metrics useful to entrants."

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/news/whats-new-for-the-2022-national-homebrew-competition/

Every year after NHC the same conversation occurs that people don't feel like they get much useful feedback from judging and it is rare that anybody ever claims they received much useful feedback. Usually it's comments about how incomplete and illegible the scoresheets are. The 2022 announcement asserts the reason for going to a single site was in part to improve the quality of the judging pool and that was in part the reason for increasing the entry fee; but I've only seen the same complaints we have every year.

I get that assembling a competition of this size with the number of volunteers relied upon is no easy feat and getting enough people to sit down and judge that many beers is tough. The AHA could reduce the size of the competition so the feedback they advertise could happen. Or the AHA could just advertise the NHC as a competition for competition's sake and encourage people to enter other competitions for feedback to refine their recipes for big competition. I realize the NHC is one of the bigger moneymakers for the organization so there is an incentive to get as many entries as they can muster but if the AHA is going to advertise the competition less than honestly, then the frustration from entrants is warranted.

I think there's enough big regional competitions to use those as a "first round". Require brewers to place in a competition with at least X entries (300? 400?) the previous year. You encourage folks to enter more local competitions and you make it easier for NHC judges. I figure quite a few who are serious about winning NHC are already entering a beer in one of the others (Bluebonnet, Drunk Monk, etc.) These regional competitions are spaced out through the year too, so if you screw up you have another chance. There are a small amount of brewers from outside the US that enter NHC, and there might need to be modifications to these rules to facilitate their entry into the competition but I don't see that be a reason to not improve the experience for everyone else.

This is similar to how the Boston Marathon works. You have to run a qualifying time at another approved marathon. Many other marathons follow the Boston guidelines so they can market themselves as Boston Qualifiers.

[jeffy]

They would be better off if the entries were more restricted. How in the world can you accurately judge 146 beers in one category? You can't do it and be fair to all of the entrants. At least not with the logistics in place. And the imposed time constraints, based on the feedback on other forums.

And why do they combine so many sub-categories? This is a problem with many of the competitions. Putting a German Pils against a New Zealand Pils is like comparing oil and water.

Further restrict the category entrants, and do not combine beers that are worlds apart.

I strongly encourage any brewer to become a BJCP-certified judge and participate in competition judging and/or organizing.  It might change your perspective about lots of things.  I know that it did for me. 

I do think that it is possible to separate judging/ranking of entries from the process of providing feedback that is clear and useful to the brewer.  As Denny mentioned, both entrants and competition managers should be clear about what the goals are- ranking of beers, providing good feedback, or both.

There is a homebrew competition that does this (or used to) called Masters Championship of Amateur Brewing - MCAB