In the year 2000, the beautiful mind of Mr. Alf Kramer decided to
create a world championship for baristi. Based on the format of the
Norwegian barista competition, I believe the main idea was to create a
marketing tool for speciality coffee. Another goal was to create an
event where coffee people could meet and have some fun, yet in the 2005
World Barista Championship (WBC) finals in Seattle enjoyment was not
what I found.
What happened?
After travelling to many countries to participate as a judge in various
national barista competitions I have experienced many things that
indicates a decrease of interest in the barista competitions.
First of all the press is not showing up any more. Barista competitions
are yesterday’s news in many countries. In Norway where the whole
competition format started in 1998, we faced another problem in 2006,
we barely managed to arrange the competition due to lack of sponsors
and volunteers. Even the audience is getting smaller and by looking at
their faces I can tell they are not having much fun.
While I was
in Moscow in march, watching the Russian barista competition, something
came to my mind; I couldn’t see the barista. There were 7 judges, 1
camera man, a speaker, a time keeper and a runner on stage and they
were all running around and hiding the poor barista who tried to
perform at her best. I said to myself “No wonder this is not a very
audience friendly barista competition, I can’t see the barista at all”.
In some countries like Russia, the sponsors are more willing to support
the more audience friendly latte art competitions than the main event,
which should be the barista competition. Is this what we want? Is the
future of espresso and speciality coffee going to be simple drawings
and milk patterns in a cappuccino? Then what about the taste and
quality of the coffee?
I believe that something needs to be done. But where do we start? What
do we want the WBC to be? What is wrong with today’s format and
to whom do we address these issues?
While I was
in Moscow in march, watching the Russian barista competition, something
came to my mind; I couldn’t see the barista. There were 7 judges, 1
camera man, a speaker, a time keeper and a runner on stage and they
were all running around and hiding the poor barista who tried to
perform at her best. I said to myself “No wonder this is not a very
audience friendly barista competition, I can’t see the barista at all”.
In some countries like Russia, the sponsors are more willing to support
the more audience friendly latte art competitions than the main event,
which should be the barista competition. Is this what we want? Is the
future of espresso and speciality coffee going to be simple drawings
and milk patterns in a cappuccino? Then what about the taste and
quality of the coffee?
I believe that something needs to be done. But where do we start? What
do we want the WBC to be? What is wrong with today’s format and
to whom do we address these issues?
Rules and regulations
If you read the WBC judges rules and regulations there are many things
that makes sense, but there are numerous rules that seems to have
nothing to do with the WBC mission statement at all. Still there are
reasons for the rules to be there. It all started as an idea that the
WBC could be a training tool. In fact one of the WBC’s objectives
is “to grow the Barista’s knowledge of and expertise in, the
preparation and serving of specialty, espresso coffee through
competitions.” In many countries that are arranging the barista
competition for the first time, the average competitor does not have a
clue what the competition or what espresso is all about. The level can
be as bad as serving cappuccinos with whipped cream instead of steamed
milk, or even to serve 50 ml. espresso shots extracted in 2 seconds.
While most will agree that these baristi needs some basic training and
that starting with introducing the WBC standards is a good idea, I am
not certain that creating narrow standards is the best idea for the
future of espresso culture and speciality coffee. How can the
baristi be creative when the rules and regulations are so
comprehensive? In my opinion, the fact that there are so many different
ways of serving and preparing espresso based drinks is what makes the
espresso culture interesting.
Preparing and serving espresso is a
craft. If we set too many standards for this craft, the baristi will
end up becoming a super automatic machine instead of being a creative,
knowledgeable and passionate barista. The WBC standards are so
excessive that there are rules and regulations not only about the shape
and the colour of the cups used, but also what the barista should do at
the start of his or her presentation: Quote : “At the start of the
competitors competition time, he/she will introduce him/herself and
make eye contact with each of the four Sensory Judges and the Head
judge....” Talk about being open to cultural differences and to foster
creativity. If all competitors in the WBC end up doing the same
performance with the same glassware and the only thing they can be
creative about is the signature drink and what coffees they use, well I
think I might zap and watch the latte art channel instead.
Take the technical score sheet for instance. Do we really need to judge
the baristi technically? What does technical qualities matter if the
espresso tastes excellent anyway. Do the customer care about the
technique of the barista? And is it not so that bad technique will give
you a less appreciated result in the cup? I realize that there is a
certain need for specific guidelines for the barista to follow in order
to get consistency in his / her technique and therefore more easily
gain knowledge of the espresso craft.
It is also a great training tool for both new and experienced baristi.
Still there are so many different techniques practiced that in the end,
judging what is right or wrong seems like an impossible job.
More rules and regulations
The words “cultural differences” is often used in the WBC rules and
regulations. Still the technical score sheet for the 2006 WBC has the
criteria of “correct dosing and tamping”. In my opinion this is
impossible to judge as “correct” because there are so many ways of
dosing practiced throughout the world and I prefer to use different
ones depending on the coffee I use and the flavour I want to create. It
is even written in the judge’s rules and regulations that “the
technical judge must understand how to evaluate each type of roast in
relation to taste and correctness in the basket e.g. – This area of
judging requires extensive knowledge of coffee roast profiling.” Is it
just me or does this sound out of this world. Does this mean that the
judge has to have expert knowledge in profile roasting, cupping and
preparing espresso? In my opinion the technical judge cannot possibly
evaluate this, as he or she will never taste the beverages prepared.
Even if they did taste the espresso, how can they be able to say it is
correct or not? If a barista wanted to use 3 different coffees for the
3 different drinks prepared and practice different dosing on the
different blends to create various flavour profiles, he will more
likely be punished by the judges for his inconsistent dosing than
rewarded for his insight in different dosing techniques and for his
conscious dosing and in depth coffee knowledge. (Unfortunately,
according to the rules, the barista is restricted to use only 2
grinders during the presentation, making it quite difficult for the
competitor who wants to treat the judges with 3 different coffee
flavours. Is restrictions like these a great way of promoting
speciality coffees grown throughout the world?)
What if a barista is able to pull the best espresso ever made on planet
earth in a 19 second extraction. He / she will loose 1 point per judge
because of the required 20 to 30 second extraction time. Does this mean
that he / she has to compromise the espresso quality to be able to meet
the WBC standards and have a chance to become the world champion? The
answer is definitely, yes. I remember when I created my espresso blend
for the WBC in Trieste, I actually had a recipe for (in my opinion) a
much better tasting espresso blend than the blend I competed with. The
reason I did not use the superior one was because the blend’s poor
persistence of the crema. The delicate crema tended to break up within
30 seconds after brewing. This means I would have lost a lot of points
in the competition because of the following reasons; the judges are
judging the crema and want it to last as long as a 100% robusta blend
and have the colour of a 100% arabica blend. This means that
consistency, persistence and colour of crema is almost as important as
the taste of the espresso. But isn’t taste the most important criteria?
I could of course have served the espresso immediately after brewing
but this means I had to serve only 2 espressos at the time and not 4 as
the rules require. How did this rule ever come up? Isn’t the meaning of
the word espresso, to serve and prepare the coffee “exprès pour vous” ?
It is even written in the competitor rules and regulations that
“Espressos should be prepared specifically for the judges, and
immediately served.” So why do the barista have to serve the drinks 4
by 4 and let two of them wait as he / she prepares the other two?
Just one more rule
The best example of how these rules are created is to look at the rule
that came up in Seattle 2005. It suddenly said “There should be no
“pucks” or “cakes” left in the portafilter at the start of the
competitors competition time.” There were many baristi and judges that
did not like this rule, and I am one of them. After testing this for a
long time I am convinced that leaving the puck inside the filter is
better for the quality of the espresso. Mainly because of better
preservation of the heat in the filter basket and also to prevent
metallic flavours in the espresso. I realize that leaving the puck in
the filter for a long period of time is not good for the espresso
quality, as the oils in the filter will become rancid. This was the
main argument by the people responsible for the judge’s certification
too. I remember they said “As customers in a cofeeshop we don’t know
how long that puck has stayed in the filter.” Well, one thing is for
sure. In the WBC, that puck has not stayed there for more than a
maximum of 15 minutes during the preparation time. Do we really need to
imagine every possible “everyday scenario” in order to create more
rules for the competitors so that they will have a harder time gaining
points in the competitions? Is creating more rules the
right focus in order to fulfill the WBC statement; “to promote the
growth, excellence & recognition in the Barista profession.” ?
Overruled
If you watch a barista competition you might start to wonder if it
really is a barista competition. It sometimes appears more like a judge
competition. I do not disagree. (There are 7 of them on stage and only
1 barista.)
After judging for some time in various competitions it
sometimes looks like the judges are competing in giving the lowest
score or to be recognized as the strictest judge on the planet. Even in
the WBC finals you rarely see the judges putting down the score 6 and
5. I have even seen judges put the score 1 on a signature drink in the
finals, because they did not listen to what the barista had to say
about the flavour profile of the drink. How can a world-class barista
get 1 on the taste criteria of the signature drink in the WBC finals? I
have even seen working stations that seems untouched at the competitors
competition start time where the judges will put down a 4 on the clean
working area score. Even if you dress in a tuxedo and have the most
pleasant appearance in the universe, you barely see a score better than
5 in the appropriate apparel category. Is this the way to encourage the
competitors? If the judges are not willing to give the score 6 in a WBC
final, then when or where else should the score 6 be given?
What is even more provoking is that during the debriefing that took
place after the 2005 WBC finals, where the competitors got a chance to
have a look at their score sheets for 5 minutes with a judge present,
most of the judges did not show up. I believe that giving feedback to
the competitors is one of the most important tasks for the judges. So
why did they not show up? Are they too embarrassed to show the
competitors the score they gave them? After competing in the WBC 3
times, I have yet to see my score sheets, even if I have asked for them
several times.
Why all the secrecy?
Doesn’t it say in the WBC
mission statement “to grow the Barista’s knowledge of and
expertise in, the preparation and serving of specialty espresso coffee
through competitions.”? It should be compulsory for a WBC judge to
participate in these debriefings and why not give the competitors their
score sheets right after the competition. Maybe the WBC could hand out
a copy of the full length video tape of the barista’s performance so
that they could have a good memory on tape to show their grandchildren
once they get older.
During a discussion I had with Mr. Alf Kramer, he suggested to create
an open scoring system for the WBC where the judges have to show their
scores to the audience right after the competitor has finished his /
her presentation. It is already practiced and working in sporting
events such as ski jumping and even in the latte art world
championship. I believe it would be even more exciting for the audience
to watch and the scoring will be totally transparent. By introducing an
open scoring system, the judges really have to answer for what scores
they are giving and this will make it more difficult for a corrupt
judge to give scores in favour of his or her own interest. Imagine if
we changed the barista competition’s scoring format in to the one used
in ski jumping competitions. The finalists would keep their
scores from the semi-finals and the first competitor out would be the
one with the lowest score and the last man competing is the one with
the highest score. Perhaps that would add some excitement to it.
Are you experienced?
The speciality coffee business is getting more and more in to various
certifications. For example you can buy bird friendly, fair trade and
organic certified coffees, yet there are no guarantees for this
certified coffee to be a good tasting one. In other words,
certification is not the answer to everything, and it is definitely not
synonymous with quality. The reason why I am bringing this up is that I
believe we are facing the same problem with the certification of the
WBC judges. Up until this day, there are no other quality assurance of
the judges except a written test and a sensory skills test. But what
does this have anything to do with judging the quality of an espresso
and a barista? I remember taking the sensory skills test in Seattle
during the 2005 WBC, and I did not pass the criteria of 70% correct on
the last test. This means I am not a WBC certified judge. After talking
to my friends who were at the same test, many of them simply guessed
the answers because the test was quite difficult. (Even Mark Prince,
king of coffeegeek.com,
claims he guessed the results and passed.) Some of them passed and
others did not.
However, many people doubt that this test is relevant
to be able to judge in the WBC? Why do we have to recognize different
levels of salt sweet and sour in order to differentiate a good espresso
from a bad one? Why was bitter, one of the most important tastes for
evaluation of the quality of espresso coffee, left out? How can a
person that is still (after the judges workshop) unable to separate an
over extracted espresso from a well prepared espresso get certified as
a judge by guessing on a sensory skills test and answer some questions
in a written test. How can a person that has judged in only 1
competition in their entire life get certified while other persons who
have judged hundreds of competitors, and even competed them selves, not
get certified? Is it only me that believe there is something wrong with
this picture?
I believe we need more experienced baristi to judge in the WBC, just
like there are only experienced chefs judging in the Bocuse d’Or.
“Knock knock! Who’s there? The Future.”
Many people might be comfortable with the WBC the way it is today. In
my opinion the format needs to be changed dramatically in order for the
WBC fulfill the goal “to become globally recognised as the premier
World Barista Event in the coffee calendar.” If the trend in Norway and
Russia is an indication of what is to come for the WBC, then I am
afraid that we need to do something, and fast. Changing the WBC over
night is impossible, but changes will not happen if someone does not
push things forward. So where do we start?
Finance is important for the competition to grow and survive. How can
we possibly make the competition even more interesting for sponsors to
support the WBC? One option might be to let grinder manufacturers
sponsor the competition with grinders and funding. Of course if this
shall be interesting for a grinder manufacturer then we need to force
the competing baristi to use the sponsored grinders in the competition,
just like with the espresso machines. I know many baristi will object
to this suggestion, but in my opinion, if you are a world-class
barista, then shouldn’t you be able to use any espresso grinder on the
market? The baristi are even given a great amount of practice time in
order to test the equipment provided, etc.
Another idea might be to open for use of alcohol in the signature
drink. That is if we want to continue serving the signature drink.
Personally I am not a great fan of signature drinks, mainly because I
rarely taste something that is fantastic and secondly because I do not
think it is relevant to the craft we are practicing behind the espresso
machine in our coffee shops every day. How often do you see a
professional barista make a signature drink to a customer in a coffee
shop? I know that being a barista is much more than just serving
espresso drinks. So, maybe we should create a whole different segment
in the competition. What if we asked the competing the baristi to
create “the ultimate coffee experience” where all senses should be
stimulated.
One of the primary goals of the WBC is “to promote the knowledge and
consumption of specialty coffee to the consumer through the Barista.”
Creating ”the ultimate coffee experience” would be a great way of doing
this and it would also be a great way to challenge the barista’s
creative and communicative skills. They could use whatever brewing
method they liked as long as they stayed within a certain timeframe. In
my opinion this would be much more relevant for a professional barista
compared to the working situation he / she has on a daily basis.
Another possible task could be to make the barista source the best
possible coffee from a specific producing country. Let’s imagine that
India was the coffee sponsor for the WBC one year. Then all competitors
would have to source the best Indian coffee they could get their hands
on and prepare the ultimate espresso or other type of coffee beverage
by using this coffee. This way it might be easier to get sponsorships
from the various associations representing the producing countries. The
WBC committee could decide who to sponsor the next event by making a
draw where all interested producing countries would be possible
candidates.
I am sure the Coffee Board of India would be happy to
promote their coffees through an event like the WBC. Maybe they would
even sponsor a field trip for the new world champion and use him / her
as an inspiration for baristi in their home country? Today the
world champion gets a trophy and some glory by winning the WBC, but
when the party is over he is on his own and it is up to himself to get
something out of his newly achieved title. I have heard people
suggesting that the WBC could create a marketing plan that involved
using the champion for what he / she is worth up until the next
competition. There could for example be arranged trainings with the
champion during the next WBC event, or even better, arrange workshops
and trainings in countries that did not have a competing barista.
Worst-case scenario is that someone would get inspired and actually
learn something from it.
What next?
A lot of work has been done since Monte Carlo 2000 and we are all
grateful for the time and effort that has been put down in the WBC by
numerous persons and volunteers. The WBC has been a fantastic adventure
so far and I believe the speciality coffee industry has changed a lot
because of it and the WBC movement. So where do we go from here? Do we
create more rules and regulations in order to create a manifest for
espresso culture or do we need changes? Maybe there should be more
guidelines instead of definite rules. Are we willing to change format
or is it perfect the way it is today?
In this article I have addressed some of the many issues that I feel
can be done differently in the future in the WBC. I am sure there must
be many other good ideas and point of views out there too, and it would
be great to discuss them all. But where can we discuss these ideas? Why
isn’t there a forum for the WBC at the WBC web page? Who do we
contact in order to influence the future of the WBC?
There will be a general discussion among the different WBC committee
members during the championships in Berne, but most of us are unable to
go there and speak our minds because everything happens behind closed
doors. Why isn’t there more transparency in the WBC?
If you have any suggestions or ideas regarding the future of the WBC, you can e-mail WBC board member Tone Elin Liavaag at
or me as a candidate for the next WBC board at
. Get up stand up!
