"Perfectly balanced"

Not trying to negate anything that kzoobrew is saying.

I agree with most of his points AND I don't think most beers are brewed to be balanced. My paradigm of balance is how I learned it from Ray Daniels in "Designing Great Beers" (i.e. BU:GU ratio).

Something like a bock would have a ratio of .34 where an American IPA is going to be .8-1.1.

 

OK- I thought it looked like you were arguing for equal elements to be a defining factor.

I always thought that BU:GU Ratio was pretty handy, myself, although I'd say it is a way of describing how to achieve balance for each particular style.

 

A beer can be balanced and hop forward at the same time, try an SNPA if you can find one.

 

Touche. It's a good point to make. To be fair, I do think that it's a tendency more common perhaps amongst brewers than drinkers. I think that motivates many a decision to include the IBU on the label. (Most) Consumers don't give a beer high marks for the IBUs/bitterness per se. They rate it highly because they like it.

 

Balance is terribly important and all good beers are balanced. That's what makes them good. Context and style dictate what balance means to a specific beer. That said, there is a lot of bad, unbalanced beer in the world.

 

Balance is a buzzword

 

balance ought to mean harmony between the different aspects of a beer. for example, a beer might be balanced if it had an estery profile that was tempered by a dry finish and given buoyancy by fine carbonation. or a beer might be balanced if the hop character smelled and tasted really nice while dually quenching the palate in a non-astringent way.

unfortunately most people around here use balance as an oafish layman's term for something that's at once malty and hoppy. the irony being that in most of those beers, caramel and crystal malt neuter the hoppiness while fatiguing the palate with residual sugar -- imbalance defined.

 

I feel like 'balance' consists of the two forgotten stages of beer reviewing... 'Smoothness and Drinkabitly..... Especially 'Drinkabitly' why that's not in there with 'Taste' 'Aroma' 'Feel' and 'Look' and is beyond me.

 

A lot of "oafs" have defined it as exactly the balance b/t gravity:bitterness like Ray Daniels, John Palmer, Mitch Steele, etc. http://beersmith.com/blog/2009/09/26/balancing-your-beer-with-the-bitterness-ratio/

 

Perfectly balanced means the hop bitterness and the hop flavor and the malts are all balanced complimenting each other.

 

I have 2 (beer) problems.

One is getting any committee to agree to any definition and the other is brewers brew what they like. There is no spec.

I would think in common sense terms and who knows if that fits here. But If a beer is brewed to be hop forward it cannot by definition be "balanced" its like the term "style" is it mealiness unless Everyone agrees to WHAT it means. Of course if its malt forward then its also "unbalanced". I tend to follow the so called experts, at first at least.

In the real world; we drink, they brew. The liking the beer part comes first. If you hate it balance does not mean anything. on a beer forum its all just useless beer chat. still its fun to debate this stuff. I frankly like hearing all sides.

If we all liked SA PA there would be very little else out there that Americans WOULD BREW. IMHO
Kind of why Cheap lagers took over in time. there was always a small number that hated those beers.
Lucky for us on this forum, most of us, we all like different beers.
only when you HB can you control the Spec's. YMMV

 

perfectly balanced beer = everything from new glarus

 

I judge balance by style: I want my IPAs to be hoppy but not overly harsh/bitter, and I want my maltier beers to be smooth but not too sticky sweet.

As others have said I think IBUs are a good judge but I don't use them as the end all/be all and there are too many other factors at play...I have had Pale Ales with a 40 IBU that I thought were terribly bitter and IPAs that were in the 70s that I thought were great and not harsh at all. I have quickly learned that malts can make a huge difference as well and certain malts make the beer taste "harsher" to me.

 

Simply put, if it feels right - if it feels like it strikes a balance - it's malty and hoppy but not too malty and not too hoppy - that's what I call balance. That's for a style that's intended to not be too malty or hoppy though - I suppose . . . man, good question… what's a well balanced stout? a well balanced ipa?

 

Yeah I just tell people I like hoppy beers cuz I believe it will make them think I have a larger penis.

Right on. That may be one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen.

 

I am an American. I do not understand this question of balance.

 

It is absolutely tied to bitterness.. but it DOESN'T take how much malt is being used in relation to the IBUs. I think that is a major distinction to make, but yes, bitterness is directly tied to International Bittering Units...

 

Reposting for the damn truth

 

It's actually not. There is a huge discrepancy between iso-alpha acid, which is the main contributor to bitterness in beer, and IBU numbers depending on how the hops were used in the brewing process, and even the variety. There are other, less bitter compounds that affect IBU readings. IBU is a very complicated measurement that really only means something to the brewer for consistency purposes in a single beer, and even then doesn't accurately portray perceived bitterness. This also doesn't even touch the issue that most IBU numbers form small brewers are pure fantasy and never actually tested. The idea of BU:GU is cute and appealing but has little real meaning.

 

For many, identifying balance only comes after you've ticked in the region of 5000 beers.