I have seen a few posts on Instagram and similar sentiments communicated during the championship this week about how it is unacceptable for national champions competing on the world stage to receive a score of 2.0 (average) from the judges. I want to give some perspective from someone who has judged all the way through the finals (Milan) and semi-finals in Boston and Melbourne.

The logic to this query seems to be:

Expensive, accomplished coach + expensive, award-winning coffee + countless hours of practice and preparation ≠ less than a score of 3.0.

I want to say that I really get the frustration (and when I say “get,” I mean I understand it as best I can from a judge's perspective). Getting a low score after investing so much into the competition and risking so much is frustrating and demoralizing. Debriefing competitors who have scored lower than they thought they should is one of the most difficult parts of being a judge, especially knowing the hard work that has gone into these routines. I say this to create a context for providing an alternative perspective to the above formula.

First is to say that with any competition, the integrity of the outcome is directly linked to the level of objectiveness of the judges. While we are aware of the quality of coffee being used, the past accomplishments of the barista, and the notoriety of the coaches, it is our job to, as much as possible, put that aside and score what we taste in the cup on that day. An impossible feat to be sure, since we all have implicit and explicit bias to some degree, but WCC has been actively working with judges to help us identify those biases in ourselves so that we can evaluate as objectively as possible. So for me, the argument that the context of a competitor's investment into their routine should determine the score, doesn't really hold up. This year on the stage, I evaluated espressos with 10 second shot times. No matter how much investment you put into your routine, a 10 second shot time is probably not going to provide a quality tasting experience if it wasn’t an intentional decision by the competitor.

Second, while it is difficult for competitors, I am not sure that the fact that the competition is this way is negative . There is already a great fairness imbalance in the competition. We have seen for years the same countries make it into the semi-finals, countries that are well resourced. Other less resourced countries have greater hurdles to overcome and a far lower chance of placing well. Part of it is because less resourced competitors often can't afford the coffees and coaches of the other competitors. They also may not have the resources to make an origin trip to increase their personal connection with the coffee. Also, less resourced national chapters don't have the capacity to create the type of national competition structure that will increase the competitiveness of their national competitor on the world stage (i.e. the capacity to hold regional qualifiers before the national championship). I do, then, find it notable that complaints are coming from competitors and coaches who already have seen their investments produce rewards in terms of competition ranking, advocating for a system that would result in increased unfairness in the future. So any part of the competition that takes the power away from "how much a competitor can spend" to focusing on hard barista skills is a plus for me.

Some thoughts on competition evolution

Having said all of that, I do believe that there is an evolution that can and should take place in the competitions and here are a few thoughts that I have:

1. We need to close the gap between the judge/organizer's understanding of the competition and the competitor/coach's understanding. When I have heard some (even experienced) competitors talk about the competition, I have been astounded by how much their understanding of the competition in general so vastly differs from what the judges are looking at. I'll go into more detail below about the specifics of this below, but I think we need to first address the ways where the rules and regulations are not clear. Just today, I saw a comment on Instagram referring to the fact that the quality level of a 2.0 score is a commodity coffee. An expensive coffee, pulled wrong, can also easily get a 2.0 score when described as "acidity sharp, sour, and mono-dimensional, under-supported by a low sweetness, with an unpleasant bitterness appearing at the end." I saw another Instagram comment today from a judge suggesting a competitor/judge calibration so that competitors can more clearly understand judges' quality expectations before the competition begins. I think that is a great idea.

2. The competition should be brought into greater alignment with the experience of its spectators. It's really difficult when you have a dynamic, emotional, and flawless presentation paired with lower beverage quality scores because it means that spectators really can have no idea how a competitor will do based on watching their routine. So that when a competitor who is riveting doesn't come close to the ranking that it appears they would get, it is understandable that observers might think that something has gone array in the judges' scores.

3. Better feedback must be given to competitors. The quality of notes needs to be improved on, and the quality of the debriefing as well. I have personally seen the toll it takes on competitors when they receive notes from a judge that say "I just didn't like your espresso." And this improvement needs to happen not only on a world level, but on a national and regional level as well.

A few suggestions

Here are some practical suggestions that I have for how we might see this evoluation take (note: I sent these to WCE in an email this week):

1. The competition should evolve in a way that rewards creativity, innovation, sustainability, and the concept of the entire routine. Currently, we as judges can only evaluate and score the quality of the concept very marginally in a few areas (two of these areas are limited to the signature beverage course only):

• Signature Beverage: Well Explained, Introduced, and Prepared (a score with no multiplier, I might note)

  • Part of this score is the concept of the beverage and to what level the coffee they are using is the focus of the beverage. There are lots of other factors that go into this score so a competitor may only be able to pick up a couple of points for a quality signature beverage concept.
    

• Signature Beverage: Creativity and Synergy (also a score with no multiplier)

  • Here we can take into account the creativity of the beverage and its elements, but that is tethered by how the creativity is synergetic with their coffee used. So creativity should be there, but only as it serves to highlight and elevate the coffee used in the beverage.
    

• Presentation/Professionalism (yet and again, no multiplier)

  • Here we are evaluating the quality of their presentation, yes, but it is more tied to how well the competitor communicated about the coffee they are using. Also included in this score are things like the quality of the workflow, their customer service skills, command over routine, and eye contact. So any influence of concept in this score is marginal at best.
    

• Total Impression

  • This is the score where the concept of the total routine might have the biggest opportunity to earn some points especially with that 4x multiplier. However, in order to get a range for the score, judges look at all of the scores they have given throughout the scoresheet and come up with a rough average. This means that a routine with average espresso scores of 2.5, milk beverage scores of 3.0, and signature beverage scores of 2.0 will probably be somewhere in the range of a 2.5 and could go up or down be a maximum of 1 point (and usually only 1/2 a point) based on the quality of the concept and the judge's overall perception of the barista.

So doing some simple math, a competitor may only be able to pick up a maximum of 20 to 24 points between all four judges that are directly tied to the concept of their routine or signature beverage. A competitor without any significant concept, who knows their coffee well, provides all the required tools, offers friendly, attentive customer service, and whose beverages are higher in quality could easily score higher than someone with a quality concept. Those are all essentials of a good barista to be sure, but I am observing a strong desire from the community for the competition to also reward things like innovation, non-coffee-specific themes, sustainability, real-life application, etc. If that is the direction we want to move as a community, I think that this is where the competition has room to evolve. A possible way to do this is to add additional scores or opportunity for bonus points for the following:

• creativity/innovation of the entire routine, not just the signature beverage

• successful delivery of presentation (maybe this would just be an adjusted presentation/professionalism score)

• integrating sustainability into competitor routines

2. Competitors should have a greater understanding of how to score well in the competition. Part of this can be aided by the organizers providing additional clarity about the competition format and expectations. This is also the responsibility of the competitor and their team to understand the rules and regulations of the competition and any coach worth paying should make it a priority to help their competitors understand this. Unfortunately, a lot of the preparation that will maximize points on the scoresheet is boring and tedious. It's focusing on things like Taste Experience (ensuring that the basic tastes of sweetness, acidity, and bitterness are balanced, of good quality, and complex) and on getting a positive tactile experience that are the most important to rank well. Competitors might benefit from getting feedback and input from judges as well on their routines as opposed to only from coaches who are past competitors.

3. Alternative milks should be introduced into the competition. I believe that this is something that is already being worked on. As the industry has pretty rapidly gravitated towards a preference for alternative milks, the competition should reflect this in order to increase in relevancy and replicate the cafe experience in the competition itself.

4. Focus should be given on improving the spectator experience and providing greater context and understanding for those who are observing the competitions. Great effort has been made to do this for Olympic competitions. Things like live commentary, a live scoring component, and replays help to provide greater context and understanding to spectators and increase enjoyment for those watching. I think that many of the problems the competition is facing have to do with lack of clarity for those who aren't judging and the disparity between what is displayed and what is tasted. For example, simply having someone who is experienced in how the competition has progressed over the past couple of decades can help a new spectator understand if using a whipping siphon in signature beverage preparation is actually creative and innovative at this point in time.

What is clear to me is that if we are going to make any meaningful progress in helping the competition evolve, it is going to take effort and the input from all of its stakeholders: competitors, producers, coaches, judges, and organizers. While that process will no doubt include healthy debate, it can be done respectfully without unnecessary finger pointing and vilifying. From my perspective, the championship is made up of wonderful people in each of those roles who are doing the best with what they've got. I know that's not always the case, but I think it is the case a majority of the time. So let's give one another the benefit of the doubt and work together to make a better barista championship!

What do you think about what I've shared? Do you have additional suggestions for how the competition could evolve? Share your thoughts in the comments below.