The score doesn't match the details.

Yes, they would.
Macro breweries don't get much love from most BAers, but the simple fact of the matter is that Budweiser, High LIfe, Lite, even Ultra are excellent beers for what they are and exemplars of their styles.

 

I saw above that some have trouble with that as well. I don’t pick up anything that puts me off here though, but again I have a strange palate. I find I have more problems with wheat for what that’s worth. Not always, but I pick up some things I don’t like here and there, it applies to bourbons too, some heavily wheated bourbons just don’t work, but some do, on a case by case. It all comes down to personal preferences I suppose, which I take ratings with a grain of salt.

 

Since saying that a macro AAL or American Light Lager could/should be rated as a 5.0 in those styles I'm even having second thoughts about a score that high for such a 'plain Jane' beer.

Excellent quality control for these beers does make them consistent and precisely what the brewer intends for taste, but what if there is really no creativity in the recipe? These beers have been brewed by using the same basic recipes since the 1800s (or earlier?), so no creativity exists nowadays.

Today's beers from micro breweries have a lot of creativeness in them (all styles) because of the brewer's choice of malts, hops, fruits, etc. so that creativity should be factored into the standard rating process. (Is it worth a .25 in the rating?) Therefore, without that .25 factor, maybe a Budweiser and the other macros should never be rated above a 4.75 and we should reserve that extra .25 for exclusive use for well crafted beers? But that question is for an entirely new thread.

 

By that logic, the hypothetical world's best "plain" Pilsner that has existed for a century couldn't inherently be given as high a score as another brewer's vanilla/mango/rye/Rakau lager conceived a week ago.

 

So, since 3.25 is in the neighborhood of Average here, you think your average student is a failure?

 

That's a terrible argument for reviewing to style. It's a fantastic argument for rating all the American IPAs, DIPAs, big stouts and milk sugar pastry mango triple pilseners as high as possible.

Most of my highest rated rDevs are AALs because I try to review them to style. Budweiser is fantastic for an AAL and probably deserves a 4.75-5.0. I only gave it a 3.5 and that still equaled over a 50% rDev. My point: I think even when BAs try to review to style, they can't help themselves and default to your theory that craft is greater than macro.

It's not right or wrong, just what is.

As for the OP's original message, I think the reviewer simply had it out for Heady Topper and wanted to make his/her statement that it doesn't deserve the hype. Who knows?

*drops two pennies on table, walks off into the sunset*

 

There is definitely a difference between the various AALs and Light Lagers. I have tried to fool my "single brand" friends by substituting a similar beer (e.g. Bud Light for Miller Lite, Coors Banquet for Bud, etc.) and it almost never works. Often they say something like, "WTF is this? I don't know what you brought me, but it isn't Bud." I had someone refuse to drink a Coors Light because it tasted different than Bud Light.

I don't drink macro AALs often, but will in the right circumstances (friend's house, chain restaurant, sporting event, concert, etc.). I've enjoyed a number of craft American Lagers (some aren't listed as AALs, though), and that's the standard against which I judge the macros. Is that wrong? Are they not brewed to the particular style? FWIW, I have a clear preference when it comes to the macro AALs, so I can't buy into the idea that Bud is among the pinnacles of AAL beers. I've done a few blind tastings, and between that and general drinking, there is a clear pecking order.

1. Short's Local Lager (now classified as a Light Lager)
2. Narragansett Lager
3. Coors Banquet (fresh on-tap at a Rockies game) (outstanding)
4. Lone Star
5. Hamm's
6. Bohemian
7. Black Label
8. Red Stripe (above average)
9. Modelo Especial
10. Coors Banquet (in cans/bottles)
11. Old Style
12. Molson Canadian
13. Teacate
14. Labatt Blue.
15. PBR
16. Budweiser (average)
99. Rolling Rock (terrible)
9999. MGD (I always feel sick after having one of these)

 

Most of the the students I teach lack a stable environment and don't get their basic physical and emotional needs met. Even when they don't pass, failure isn't a word I would use for it. Anyways, I failed enough classes myself and I feel like I turned out alright.

But to address what I think you were trying to say. An average in academics is usually considered a C (a mid-range C is 75%). On the BA scale that's 3.75, not 3.25, so I'm not sure what you meant. A 3.25 is a mid-range D. So would I give feedback on a D essay and say it's "solid"? Don't make any changes, I'd be fine with revisiting that again next time? Of course not, and I certainly do not enjoy reading them when I get them. Fortunately, unlike with beer, if I teach my ass off I can count on a better one next time. That's the point I was trying to make. In any event, if I drink something I'd be happy to have again I'd score it higher than 3.25

Probably most people haven't even looked at the scoring guide and are just throwing out numbers, but even for those who do read the scoring guide on the how to rate a beer page, I feel like the word used for 3.0-3.49, "okay", might seem to imply more value to some than others. If it were changed to "acceptable", "tolerable" or "inoffensive" it might reflect the score better.

 

Do you grade on a 1-5 scale, with only 1/4 point increments?

Because that is the hard and fast grading scale here. No random, amorphous letters that are fluid upon emotions.

If there is a flaw here, it's in the terminology attached to the numbers. I'm certain that you've noticed that the top of the scale here is broken down in half-point increments, using large, hype type words. Whereas anything below 3 is lumped into a single numerical bucket, using less than complimentary verbiage. There is a vast difference between 2.99 and 2.00, yet that bucket is described with the same terms.

I know: I'm old and cranky, and haven't adapted to the "everybody gets a gold medal" of our modern world. But, I have to work with 20+ year olds who were consistently rewarded, yet can't do basic math on the fly, in their heads, in a real world situation.

Maybe, just maybe, I'll come around to your view, and give all my students (beers) straight A+s (5s) going forward. Everyone, including the helicopter parents (breweries) would be happy then, right?

 

I get what you're saying and am just as cranky and am probably not much - if at all - younger than you. But the example you're giving is why I think the scale here is so similar to an academic scale. The cut-off for an F is 60%, which is a 3 here, and that's right where you note the negative verbiage comes in. And just like you mention, all the scores below that are reduced to a sweeping negative, just like an F would be.

Anyway, you're misinterpreting most of what I was trying to say. It's not that I thought people should be rating more highly at all. I'm all for people giving a mediocre beer its proper due and giving it a 2 or a 1 if they don't like it. But based on my interpretation of the numbers, what people were saying was often wildly off from the numerical score. That's all I was talking about.

 

Okay, my logic has flaws, I'm not perfect. But your logic is flawed too. Who would ever give a 5.0 to a pilsner with vanilla, mango, rye, and Rakau (I have to look that one up)? You can't bastardize a pilsner like that and have it still be a pilsner. That beer has to go into the fruit and field category, and it might be worth a 5.0 just for the brewer's daring do.

 

Should I have to admit twice that my logic is flawed?

 

Your tasting experience is much greater than mine if you've had all of those beers enough times to be able to rank them like that. I'm pretty sure that I've had all of them over my 68-year drinking 'career' but I can't remember them enough to create a list like that. I ended my AAL experience by settling on a 'favorite' over time, and fwiw, that beer was your #9999.

 

No, I did a bad job pointing out how your logic is reality. Or let's say humans are flawed. We can't help ourselves but think a hand-made product is better than a mass-market produced product no matter the actual qualities of both products.

You perfectly dissected how the average BA scores beer. I did not perfectly point that out. I blame the whisky. Sorry about that!

 

I'm mainly a rater/ticker at this point, but think there will be a time when I have all the beers again and properly review. I may leave the ratings as they are, hope there will not be a very large discrepancy...

 

While not quite the same as the beer rating/scores, one item that has always befuddled me is the "selection" category for Places. Some of my favorite places anywhere in the world might only serve 1-2 beers. I can't really justify giving them anything above an average score for that category as a result. I always try to mention that in my reviews, but IMO it's a situational rating category.

 

If I was looking for perfection I'd have to turn off all the lights in my house.
Kidding aside, I was just being purely hypothetical. It's not about how someone might score such a beer, but the idea that it would essentially have a higher score cap or ceiling. No worries.

 

Since this is a 1-5 scale, (and not 0-5) 60% is 3.4.

 

Good point. You just can't go lower than 1... otherwise we might see some zero macro lagers.

 

Mostly it was from concerts, sporting events, going over the bridge to Windsor, and cookouts (I have a lot of value-minded friends). Oh, and I usually order a Mexican beer at Mexican restaurants. Plus, these are fairly general rankings. I think the tiers (if we're rating by style) accurately reflect my preferences but the exact order might differ here and there. I do think that 3 - 3.25 is the right score for Budweiser (drinkable/inoffensive/okay), so I started there and went up the scale. I wouldn't say any of these are a 5, but 4.25-4.5 for the top 3 seems justifiable. Honestly, I'm having trouble even imagining what a world-class AAL is like (whereas I can picture that kind of experience for other pale lagers).