(a) so far the stock response from the UKBC organisers tends to contain the words "we aren't allowed...". Granted, but progress comes from suggesting change, not from accepting the status quo. If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you always got. The rest of the world is moving forward. I'd hate to see the UKBC left behind.
(b) there is an enormous feeling of defensiveness amongst the UKBC organisers. Attempts to question the way things are done or provide constructive input are often taken as just another person being a hater, and therefore ignored. Perhaps several years of viscious criticism from many quarters has made the organisers cynical. If so, perhaps it's time the attacks stopped and a better dialogue began. The organisers are volunteers... many people don't seem to take that into account in their criticism... myself included, formerly. Equally, competitors devote ridiculous amounts of time, effort and money to the competition... much more than many judges give the competitors credit for in their dismissive demeanour. So everyone would benefit from less criticism and more constructive feedback.
Three Suggestions.
1. Run proper pre-heat sessions, in every region. That doesn't mean simply placing a Verona and a K30 on a table. I'm talking about Competitor Calibration sessions, which pass on much of the same information that I presume is passed on during the Judges Calibration sessions. Done well, these sessions would result in more competitors delivering a set that substantially impresses the judges, because the competitor would understand the judges' expectations. Currently a competitor could deliver a fantastic routine and amazing signature drink, but if it isn't what the judges are looking for it will score low. This is wrong. Please note I'm also NOT talking about competitors receiving 'coaching' from judges. The distinction between coaching and transparency seems very clear to me.
2. More control of parameters for the competitors. In real life a barista will source the best beans and brew them the best way. The best way changes with each bean, and it is up to the barista to find it. The ability to increase/decrease the dose, control the brew time, adjust the brew temperature, and deliver an espresso beverage that has a certain mass rather than a certain volume, and to use these to help produce an espresso with a specific extraction target (the best way), are all part of a good barista's skillset. Right now we can't use those skills during the UKBC. The tail is wagging the dog in the competition and baristas are forced to find beans, a roast profile, and sub-optimal brewing parameters that will allow them to adhere to competition rules rather than deliver the best possible espresso.
(a) The machine is capable of brewing at whatever temperature we choose, so let us use the machine to its full potential.
(b) Baskets can be switched out. Let us use whichever basket we choose as long as it fits the portafilter.
(c) Keep timing our shots, but use it to measure consistency rather than to stipulate how long that brew time should be.
(d) Ditch the 2oz rule. It was relevant when espresso was all about the Italian way, but which competitors are still usingdark roasted blends containing robusta? Fully washed, single origin 100% arabica beans that are roasted lighter than traditional Italian methods require completely different extraction parameters to reveal their delicious bounty as espresso. That may be a 2oz shot, it may be a 1oz shot... the volume is irrelevent (within reason). It is optimal taste that matters.
3. Ensure greater consistency in judging. The current method seems to involve 'cramming' the judges with knowledge, and you only have to look at former competitor scoresheets to see that there is too much inconsistency. There are those who feel that the judges are not given enough freedom to score how they want to. Personally I feel the opposite is true. I don't want a judge's personal tastes, views, preferences and dislikes, to have any bearing on competitors' scores. In an ideal world every judge should score exactly the same. That is surely the purpose of the calibration sessions. As a competitor it is utterly disheartening to know that you might have scored higher if you hadn't had that one particular judge who happens to have a personal grudge against Sumatran beans in every shape and form. This suggestion could perhaps be achieved by a more rigorous Judges Calibration programme, extending throughout the year rather than with intense workshops shortly before the competition season.
----
Well that's it. I'm glad to get the UKBC out of my system as it has been part of my life for eight months... which is amazing considering I was only on stage for 15 minutes in this year's competition. Time to step away from it. The World Barista Championships begin in Vienna today and I'll be watching and avidly supporting the UK Champions, Maxwell, Lynsey, James and Havva. GOOD LUCK, TEAM UK!!
Unsung heroes
There are so many people involved in organising the UK Barista Championships and I'm not going to try to give them all the credit they so deserve. But having been a volunteer at this year's events it is clear to me that the guys from San Remo deserve much more accolade than they would ever ask for. Dave Wilson, Brandon Thurley, Steve Partridge, and of course Terry... they travelled all over the uk to UKBC venues, arriving before anyone else and leaving long after everyone too, setting everything up, carrying the heavy stuff, coordinating competitors backstage, doing their damnedest to give every competitor exactly the same chance. They don't ask for praise, and that is exactly why they deserve it even more.
No comments:
Post a Comment