Educate me: IPL vs Pilsner

Well the way the numbers work on this site your assumption will generally be true within a style but not across styles. As I said in the post you responded to, that requires constraints on the ratings which are not used on this site or it requires numerical manipulations of the ratings which are also not applied to the scores on this site. And sometimes it may require both.

 

Once I figured out what I truly liked and what was truly well crafted, I just stopped rating altogether. Makes life more fun, and you aren't forced to look back and roll your eyes.
Comparing beers of totally different styles is just fruitless.

 

Of course, if you are taking about autocross, most people who know what autocross is would choose the miata. That is a small subset of people overall though (which was my point).

 

Keep telling people this in as many different ways as you can and as often as you can!

BTW, Since I don't review as much as I used to I've found that my memory for things I've had and liked is diminished and no as clear and focused, leading me to narrow the range of beers I like and buy. Once certain time constraints are resolved I intend to take it up again a bit more actively as I've learned to appreciate more than one new beer or style from doing the review.

 

That is the right answer. Does anyone know of a brewery makes both an IPA & IPL and uses the same base beer for both?

 

I think this discussion illustrates just how silly things have gotten when it comes to trying to define beer styles. IPL is a term made up to take advantage of the popularity of hoppy beers and sell more product. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just marketing. But to try suggest that there is a clearly defined rigid category that everything fits into is asenine. With all the different subtle variations in beers today, everything could be given it's own style category. We get closer to that every day.

 

IPL = India Pale Lager. Like an IPA, only Lager.

 

You cherry picked my first review ever from six years ago. I have a rule that I do not delete reviews, but that in NO WAY reflects my preferences in 2014.

If you scroll up to my two most recent reviews, you'll notice Peak Organic's Fresh Cut Pilsner (a very hoppy pils) was rated a 2.2. And the review before it is of my favorite, much less hoppy, Troeg's Sunshine Pils at 4.5.

What did I prove again?

 

The #1 American Pale Lager: Jack's Abby Hoponious Union at 6.7% abv and 65 IBUs. Description reads....

This lager harmoniously combines lager yeast fermentation and west coast IPA hops. Our India style Pale Lager is like a traditional IPA but with a twist - it’s fermented cold and aged for extended periods. A blend of classic American hops creates a huge tropical fruit and citrusy hop aroma.

The #3 American Pale Lager: Otter Creek's Citra Mantra at 5.75% abv and 55 IBUs.

 

American pale lager is really india pale lager?

 

Absolutely true. That is why the numerical score of a beer is only marginally useful, Granted a beer rated awful (with over 100 reviews) probably is, and a beer rated world class (with over 1000 reviews) is probably pretty darn good. But the middle ground say between 3.50 to 4.50 is probably about equal across styles. That is why written reviews are important, they tell you what the beer is like when numbered ratings say nothing. As far as the perception that some styles are underrated, a big factor in that is the fact (easily proven ) that most BA raters only bother to rate beers they like. More positive reviews= higher scores and thats just a fact jack.

 

Do I have numbers? No.

But this recent thread suggests many Beeradvocates, including those whose opinion on lagers I respect, think this is a great beer.

 

In other words you accept the categorization system that lumps together two beers such as Hoponious Union and California Lager. Yet in a thread some weeks ago you questioned why Nugget Nectar was an Amber Ale rather than an IPA. Got it.

 

My post had nothing to do with the quality of the beer and asked for justifcation of the claim that if it were a totally different beer it would get higher ratings.

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point here. Are you simply agreeing with me, that if a beer is hoppier, it will get higher ratings?

And no, I don't accept the system that lumps those two beers together.

 

Would more people buy founders dissenter if it was labeled as a pilsner insteas of an ipl? Or would they sell less?

 

Is that accurate? What does "good chance they won't contain any pilsner malt" mean? If you can't nail down what ingredients are used to make the beer, what useful information is really conveyed beyond "hoppy lager?" Which isn't a style.

 

By comparing Hoponius Union and California Lager you are saying they are both categorized accurately as the same style. If Hoponius Union and California Lager are not both the same style of beer then comparing the ratings of HU to those of CL is as meaningful/meaningless as comparing the ratings of Cantillon Gueuze to the ratings of California Lager.

And no I don't agree that if a beer is hoppier it will necessarily get higher ratings. I know of many supposedly hoppy beers that have very low ratings. e.g., Boatswain IPA from Rhinelander Brewing.

 

Well, guess what? I used to autocross, doesn't mean I can't respect the power and allure of a good muscle car -- let alone a classic vehicle like a 30s Cord or the capabilities of a Jeep Wrangler. So really, my point is (and always has been) enjoy diversity in all things and don't try to single out what you might feel is alien because it's different.

 

I would be very curious to know this as well.