Do rules exist just so they can be broken? Maybe.

I'm just back from the 2009 Western Regional Barista Championship Finals. The spacious competition floor and plentiful seating allowed me a closer look than usual at barista technique. What surprised me was how one competitor after another (but not all), filled the basket, left a mound in the middle and then tamped without leveling off the mound. Most rapped the portafilter on the dosing fork once or twice to settle the grounds, but few leveled the coffee off.

The competitors were using doserless electronic Mazzer Majors with 83 mm burrs. Details here: http://www.espressoparts.com/product/MAZZER_MAJOR_E/Mazzer_Major_Electronic_Espresso_Grinder__Doser__83mm_Burrs.html.

I asked some of them about this, and they said that the Major ground so evenly and the funnel distributed so well that leveling was completely unnecessary, even with a very visible mound. Nick Griffith, the winner, was one of the non-levelers.

Of course nothing is ever really settled in these matters. The employer of one of the competing teams assured me this was nonsense and that all of his baristas in the competition were leveling their doses.

I'll try a few level-free shots at home to see what happens.

Marshall wrote:What surprised me was how one competitor after another (but not all), filled the basket, left a mound in the middle and then tamped without leveling off the mound.

Ciao Marshall,

Isn't that the same as updosing? I only just started doing that myself (tamping the mound) with my PV Lusso, and it seems to be working fine. If I can do without the Stockfleth Maneuver, neato. Someday I hope to dispense with the WDT as well! (That probably means a new grinder.)

Happy Brewing,
Wayne

Marshall wrote:
What surprised me was how one competitor after another (but not all), filled the basket, left a mound in the middle and then tamped without leveling off the mound. Most rapped the portafilter on the dosing fork once or twice to settle the grounds, but few leveled the coffee off.

I was watching the live stream of the WRBCF and noticed this and commented via the forum that leveling is obviously overrated. I was kind of surprised to see just a knock down then tamp also. The coffee, grinder and tamp also play a part in this so its hard to tell for sure. Veeeery interesting.

roastaroma wrote:Isn't that the same as updosing?

No. They were certainly updosing. But updosing doesn't preclude leveling.

As a follow-up, I will not be giving up leveling. The Cimbali doser simply doesn't leave a gentle, centered mound like the giant Mazzer's funnel.

That's interesting to learn. I always give the PF a few hits against the fork while dosing. It's a habit that helps distribute what my Mazzer invariably ends up throwing against the side of the basket, even if I do spin the PF while dosing.

As a thought, perhaps those with dosers can introduce a more concentrated funnel at the exit of the doser to help concentrate the grinds a little more. I dose very slowly, and that does help, but it still still has a bias to the left side of the PF. I can no doubt create conditions that make it necessary to distribute, but a little care in the dosing with a good grinder (i.e. not too many clumps) can help make most of the effort moot, imo.

Interesting. I would think the center weighted dose would compact more where the coffee is mounded regardless of the grinder. That denser center would lead to over extracted perimeters with an under extracted center, a sour/bitter in one cup shot. I do a very minimal distribution with my Max, but I do level off the mound if I have on. I try to perimeter dose around the basket so I don't have a mound in the center of the basket. Then I just thump the portafilter on the tamp stand to level and give it a light tamp. I don't have access to a big doserless Mazzer so I cannot try it.

Marshall, I've noticed the same phenomenon of hands-free distribution. I know James Hoffman has talked about it, but I think I took notice when I saw my friends at Cuvée Coffee do this on their Super Jollies and K30s. It certainly works for them. And while Dan can thwack the crap out of the Super Jolly and hold the portafilter at a slight angle and get a perfectly centered mound that looks just like the ones out of the Mazzer Electronics, the K30 mounds are rarely so pretty--often fairly clumped-looking, in fact. But Clancy tamps them down, locks into the LM, and pulls. Always really nice results--even flow, and just wonderfully bodied shots.

I tried this with the Robur on my Vetrano some time ago with almost indistinguishable results from my carefully leveled shots. The Elektra T1 is a total $#%@& about it--really horrible results if you don't distribute the mound out to the sides: terrible channeling and sink shots below.

Marshall wrote:The competitors were using doserless electronic Mazzer Majors with 83 mm burrs. Details here: http://www.espressoparts.com/product/MAZZER_MAJOR_E/Mazzer_Major_Electronic_Espresso_Grinder__Doser__83mm_Burrs.html.

I thought the grinders were K30s (the WBC model).

shadowfax wrote:... but I think I took notice when I saw my friends at Cuvée Coffee do this on their Super Jollies and K30s. It certainly works for them. And while Dan can thwack the crap out of the Super Jolly and hold the portafilter at a slight angle and get a perfectly centered mound that looks just like the ones out of the Mazzer Electronics, the K30 mounds are rarely so pretty--often fairly clumped-looking, in fact.

There was a K30 at the "fourth machine," where shots were pulled for the audience. One of the shop owners manning it complained about clumping (they prefer a super-fine grind for their coffees). I told him about the WDT and offered to run out and buy some yogurt. He politely declined.

malachi wrote:I thought the grinders were K30s (the WBC model).

No. The WBC machines are optional for the national and regional competitions. They had a K30 at the "fourth machine" and Mazzers for the competitors. But NS supplied three WBC-approved Aurelias for the competition.

Marshall wrote:There was a K30 at the "fourth machine," where shots were pulled for the audience. One of the shop owners manning it complained about clumping (they prefer a super-fine grind for their coffees). I told him about the WDT and offered to run out and buy some yogurt. He politely declined.

That was a good move, I'd say. The K30s I've seen clump, but it doesn't seem to show up in the cup as a defect. It makes the [home] barista who's used to clumping being associated with channeling and poor shots a little nervous, but I suppose that's part of the road to recovery. Or something. Which leads to an important thing to note about the WDT: the fact that it addresses clumping is nothing more than a side effect of the goal of addressing channeling in espresso shots. It's only intended to address clumping inasmuch as clumping causes channeling. But that's really not the end of the story, is it?

If the grind isn't clumpy, one can level by rocking the tamper slightly before pressing down.

The Kony and Robur electronic doserless grinders distribute slightly forward, but otherwise very evenly. Tipping the PF up a bit causes an even, centrally distributed mound. It is possible on the slower Kony (which I own) to distribute in a level fashion, but I have found that it does not matter whether I do this, or dose in a mound and tap the PF down on tampstand to partially level. If I tamp level, and do not crack the puck on the grouphead screw, I get no channeling. It also works fine to mash the mound with a slightly nutating tamp as the first light tamp.

The process was much more fussy with my Mini-E. I had to finger level, and sometimes WDT. I had to completely revise my technique when I switched to the current setup, which is much more sensitive to overdosing, but much less sensitive to distribution and tamping technique. I think the big and/or conical grinders do make a difference... even the little Kony.

-Mike

AFAIK it started last year at competitions when US baristas like Baca started to use the Super Caimano and skipped levelling. They also mentioned during their performances that with this grinder no distribution by hand was necessary. Morissey then incorporated this into his WBC winning performance. Given the success its not surprising that more and more competitors skip levelling. This year it seems that the doserless Roburs are good for the technique as well. I find that with some coffees I can pull it off as well with my Max.

Would this be a competition phenomenon? These guys have to crank out drinks with a time limit, so in the analysis did they find they could get acceptable results and shave x seconds off each shot? The proof is in the cup of course, but I wonder if this is simply an evolution of competition techinique.

EricL wrote:Would this be a competition phenomenon? These guys have to crank out drinks with a time limit, so in the analysis did they find they could get acceptable results and shave x seconds off each shot? The proof is in the cup of course, but I wonder if this is simply an evolution of competition techinique.

At this level of competition "acceptable" won't cut it. Scoring is weighted toward sensory achievement, and most of the finalists, including the winner, were non-levelers.

But it may well be that this is a technique limited to grinders with 83mm burr sets, not a common appliance, even in the more fanatic home espresso bars.

EricL wrote:Would this be a competition phenomenon? These guys have to crank out drinks with a time limit, so in the analysis did they find they could get acceptable results and shave x seconds off each shot?

I don't think so. Time is also important in busy bars. I think there at at least a couple of cafes that have switched to this method, Gimme for example.

you get scored on waste... so a timed grinder.. equals zero waste equals 6's in that column.

you are judged on consistency of the shot time. so a timed grinder reduces that variable so you probably will get a higher score there.

the shots are probably more consistent by flavor as well...higher scores.

you build the shots faster..

i would say yes it is a competition strategy.

i think leveling gives insight into the dose as much as it is distribution. but with a timed grinder your dose is already determined. it is a bit more difficult to be consistent without a timer on the grinder. i have 2 grinders on the bar. a kony with out a timer and a major with a timer. i can grind and tamp on the major without leveling and it is consistent. on the kony its more of a crap shoot, so i tend to use the traditional level on that grinder, but its more of a dose check than distribution. i tend to weigh a few dosed portafilters throughout the day to check myself as far as dose..from each grinder.

jon

Sounds interesting. I'll have to look for some video. Although these guys are in the big league's, and I know I can't even throw a curve ball. Sounds like the dosing is pretty much right on, just mounded, so they're able to distribute and tamp in virtually the same motion? I'll have to keep my eyes open for the next competition in our area. Sounds fascinating.

RegulatorJohnson wrote:you get scored on waste... so a timed grinder.. equals zero waste equals 6's in that column.

you are judged on consistency of the shot time. so a timed grinder reduces that variable so you probably will get a higher score there.

the shots are probably more consistent by flavor as well...higher scores.

you build the shots faster..

i would say yes it is a competition strategy.

Since technical points are now a max of 77 vs. 239 for sensory, I would say this is a doubtful conclusion, except insofar as producing great tasting espresso is a "strategy." Of course, eliminating useless steps does help on the timing. Scoring sheets here: http://www.worldbaristachampionship.com/downloads.htm