Levi, I return to the gist of my original message...
There are solid tenders who don't buy the hard shake. Their reasons are scientifically justified. I don't take a position, I merely report. I think the cocktail-enjoying portion of the anecdotal research required to study this disagreement is fabulously enjoyable. I don't see how that's worth arguing about.
I see why this is controversial. It's controversial by definition. I don't see why it has to lead to animus. How many times must I repeat the following...? I have no position, I have no position, I have no position, I have no position. I don't know. I just report. When there's a double-blind study, with controls, I'll posit to whatever it reports and defend it to the ends of science. Before then, it's all enthusiasm. I love enthusiasm. I can't possibly defend my vinous enthusiasms with science. I can only proclaim them.
Your excitement about this hard shake has made me enthusiastic. I'm eager to experience it for myself. But there are good, talented, thoughtful bartenders who think it's bullshit. You know: so what? There are good, talented, thoughtful winemakers who think any wine you might now mention is bullshit. You know: so what?
So I will answer each and every one of your questions, explicitly, since this appears to be important:
I think this is a bullshit battle of reputations, which no one other than your wrestler can win. It's someone at Drink. If we're comparing CVs, obviously your champion wins this round. But I don't see how that's relevant. Surely the cocktail (double-blind created and judged) is the argument, the defense, and the conclusion. Until we all try it and trial it, it's just a contention.
If someone calls BS on the technique of a bartender who has been working for 45 years, aren't they the "people calling out other people"?
Actually, since I have no idea what's going on in the Japanese-language world and I don't suspect that you mean for us to respond to same, I see that it's you that's calling out other people here. That's fine. That's admirable. Calling out the sedentary is worthy. But now we're pitting your argument against those who do and say. In other words, a person who does
not do, but says, against those who both do and say. Unless I'm underestimating your mixology skills, in which case I apologize. If not, we're not pitting you in an avatar role against your detractors, but if so, this is a situation in which I'd suggest that you should make your own, non-Tokyo-based, arguments for the technique.
Where has Uyeda-san said that someone else's technique was BS? I'd be curious to see the reference.
If he hasn't, then that's admirable of him, because in my opinion he understands the debate better than either of us. But he, to my knowledge, isn't posting on this forum. You are. And you object, strongly, to the contrary viewpoint. That's fine, but if you're going to advocate to this extent, then you need to own the advocacy. You can't say, "well, it's on him" if you're the one making the controversial contentions. You either need to pass the puck and let him take the shot, or take the shot yourself. But don't pretend you're not playing hockey.
And Thor, have you had the chance to do a double-blind taste test on Overnoy?
This is a non-sequitur. Double-blind against what? For what purpose? For what relevance in the context of this debate?
There, I've answered each of your questions. I hope that's helpful.
