just a quick thank you!

I don't think the brewers are being unethical by submitting a bigger beer. I think the BJCP is stretching it on respect if their judging procedures are so easily manipulated that pro brewers and home brewers alike know what it takes to manipulate their system, and that's it's so likely to work. Do these people judge beers, or are they just big beer enthusiasts? We could just talk ratings if we're wanting things to be biased towards big beers. I had this silly notion that BJCP would be less easily manipulated and more solid in their style recommendations and subsequent judging of beers submitted on those recommendations.

This seems like it's quite a possible necessity.

I'm being harsh here, if some BJCP judges could chime in, I'd love to hear it.

 

Their judging blind, and relying on their pallets and sensory ability, so unless the beer is noticeably bigger (e.g. hot) its hard to tell. I doubt many of us could pick up a 0.5-1.5% swing in ABV between otherwise identical beer.

There are also metrics/rubrics for how to assign points, etc. that judges should, but may or may not follow. Its really case dependent (Judge, whether they score to style or just what they like, correct interpretation of BJCP guidelines [e.g. they don't judge optional flavors/aromas as necessary], position in flight, etc.).

 

Just curious. How do you know the IBUs, color, etc of this other contestant's beer?

 

I brew what I like and submit them 90% of the time. When I brew styles I haven't brewed before I'll read the style guidelines (And try the recommended commercial examples) to get an idea of what the subcategory and related subcategories require, and brew something pretty simple within the guidelines and then depending on how much I like it, complexify if needed, make minute adjustments or scrap it completely if its shit and start over.

 

“Bigger doesn't mean better.” That was never a point of my discussion.

Permit me to put it a different way. For the sake of discussion let’s say that there are two beers within a given category that are very good (e.g., are tasty in a manner consistent with the style guidelines and no discernible off flavors). Beer A is brewed within the style guidelines while Beer B is on the BIGGER side (either on the upper levels of the style guidelines or exceeds the style guidelines). I truly believe that Beer B has a better than a 50/50 chance of obtaining a higher level. The statistics of the 2012 NHC competition bears out that this ‘trend’ is valid.

Please feel free to provide some more personal anecdotal experiences but it will not change my opinion on this matter.

Cheers!

 

Do you guys think that judging can be affected by regionality? Is a bigger hop bomb American Amber gonna score better in California or Colorado (Dale's pale ale is delicious, but not to style) than it would in say PA, or Kentucky? I would imagine that regional beers would influence a regions taste perception. So a guy in CA who binge drinks pliny, green flash, and racer 5 may have a different palate than the guy from PA drinking Yards IPA, Perpetual, etc..?

 

I don't know. But I know I just found a liquor store here that keeps dale's pale not-to-style ale in stock, and always cold (like all their beers, all the time). Their selection isn't fantastic but it's plenty OK, and it's within walking distance if need be. That's gotta count for somethin'

Figured this thread could use another derail again

 

Are we talking 2012? It medaled as an American APA. Not even in the strong APA.

Category: 50 American-Style Pale Ale, 109 Entries
Gold: Brickstone APA, Brickstone Brewery, Bourbonnais, IL
Silver: The Weight, Piece Brewery, Chicago, IL
Bronze: Zombie Dust, Three Floyds Brewing Co., Munster, IN

 

I think it's a bit of an overgeneralization for us regarding the "bigger beer usually wins" argument. Many thousands of beers are judged every year, and for how many do we know the beers' stats? A very small handful of published recipes. It could be an issue, but until some scientific analysis is done, it's all rumor and innuendo. I've been judging for 17 years, and what sets the winners apart from the rest of the pack for me most of the time is lack of flaws. A close second is stylistic features, including too "big" (or too small). Could a beer that is too big for style hide flaws that otherwise might hurt its score? Maybe, but in my experience it would require a beer to be too "over the top" style-wise to hide otherwise noticeable off flavors or aromas. I've been on a number of BOS panels, and I would go so far as to say that overly big beers may be at a disadvantage at that level. Once you're judging all the gold medal winners, there aren't many flawed beers, and the stylistic character features more prominently in the judging. Just my $0.02.

Oh, and sorry to the OP for the way his thread got highjacked. Congrats on your medal!

 

I blew it. Was reading this thread (http://beeradvocate.com/community/threads/gabf-winners-rants-n-raves.44055/page-5#post-559053), and the comment I remember and used to mangle the results stated that Zombie Dust fit better as an IPA ABV wise (It was actually your comment!).

 

Yes it is more of an IPA when you look at the ABV and IBUs. The brewer can call it what they want and enter it where they want think it will medal.