When did malt get a bad rep?

sounds to me like you suffer from some butthurt yourself.

 

Maltiness is rarely a problem for me. So many of beers great flavors are coming from the malt. It's all about balance though, the yin and the yang. The hops and the malt. I was reading some stuff Brian Dunn said about his IPAs, Titan and Hercules, he was saying Hercules has more malt AND more hops, but is generally perceived as the better balanced of the two (and also more expensive to make).
Beer without sufficient malt is just hop water. Beer without enough hops is a sweet syrupy mess. Balance is love, balance is life.
Also hops are extremely important in stouts, big and small. GD Yeti is 75 IBUs. I have had imperial stouts at 80 or 90 IBUs. It's all about finding that balance.

 

Is anyone actually struggling to find IPAs with what they consider good malt/hops balance, or are people just cranky that the Kids These Days don't think Celebration is all that great?

 

Seriously, though, there's a right way and a wrong way to pull off malts in an IPA.

An IPA with a nice hop character, alongside a prevalent yet nuanced and well-attenuated malt profile that still finishes dry? Good.

An IPA with little more than a huge wave of one-note crystal malts, excessive bulk/sweetness, and minimal hops? Bad.

 

Malt got a bad rep when people became addicted to hops, it is however making a serious comeback.

 

If it weren't for malted barley beer wouldn't have alcohol content! Who doesn't like malted barley!?

 

For me, I like both types of IPAs (malt heavy and hop forward). However, when an IPA is brewed in a way that is meant to be hop forward, there is a noticeable drop off when the hops fade. The beer takes on a somewhat stale taste, and the weak malt backbone isn't enough to continue to support the beer. If it is meant to be more of a malty IPA to begin with, the malt backbone is usually more flavorful/complex, and the drop off is less noticeable.

 

Well said, @GetMeAnIPA. Really coming to appreciate brewers that pay clear attention to the malt in their hoppy brews. Way too many brews these days that are attempting to highlight the hops but, in the process, completely omit attention to the malt. The results can be bad, either turning into hop water or unpleasant malt profile once all those dry hops fade. It's made me appreciate the classics even more lately -- a good Two Hearted or Torpedo...delicious.

 

I'm not a huge hophead, and when I review a beer that uses too much hops and it shreds my palette, I complain that it's "too hoppy" or a "hop bomb".

It's probably the flip side of the coin. Some people aren't into deep, malty flavors like in doppelbocks or some stouts. It's just a matter or taste is all.

 

Boy, you must have been 'away' from BA for an extremely long time. If I had a dollar for every time I read a post by a BA calling a hoppy beer (IPA/DIPA) a "malt bomb" I would have enough money to purchase Ballast Point Brewing Company.

Cheers!

 

I tend to like them all. Big malt and big hops can work if done right but it does give the brewer more opportunities to screw up. Too much of everything can become muddy.

 

Unbalanced IPAs are a near drain pour for me. I do love my hops, but drinking beer that is just drilling my tongue with hops every sip is not very enjoyable.

I've had "session IPAs" that were much much bitter than a DIPA, from the same brewery.

 

Malt Man loves Malt!

Seriously though, balance is key and as noted above, something like Torpedo does this brilliantly. I also get the feeling that whilst a lot of BAs recognises all the different hop flavours, there isn't the same appreciation for the varieties of malts and the various combinations that can fundamentally dictate the flavour and quality of the beer. A possible explanation is that there is a lot more variety of hops available in the USA, but not the same variety in malts as you may find in Europe (which has less variety in hops) ? Only speculation, would like to hear any malt-based opinions.

 

It's just a personal preference. There is the "Vermont/New England" IPA trend that dials the malt way down and dials the hops way up. It showcases the hops to a much greater extent. Meanwhile, beers like Pliny the Elder are really quite balanced, as are Sculpin and many others. Dogfish 90 minute, for me, goes past balanced and is a little too malty for an IPA. I love dopplebocks, but when I reach for an IPA, I don't want one then (Lagunitas Brown Shugga being one supper malty and hoppy beer I do like a lot).

I think you see "malt bomb" thrown out in two situations.
(1) a fairly balanced IPA is aging and losing its hop profile, becoming malt driven. The bigger the abv the more likely it will become a malt bomb. The first Odell Myrcenary I had was such a beer, nearly a barleywine. Boulevard Double-Wide could turn that way as well.
(2) someone is looking for a Trillium clone and gets a more traditional malt/hop balanced IPA. There is usually nothing wrong with the beer, just a mismatch of expectations.

 

In a perfect IPA/DIPA, I love it when it starts out with some bready doughy malt, caramel, hops and esters in the middle and finally a profound bitter but flavourful finished

 

It's not that people don't like malt, it's that IPAs should not be very malt forward. Old IPAs or poorly made IPAs tend to be that way.

 

It's how it affects drinkability. If I get a beer that I find too bitter or too dry for whatever reason, I may not love it but I can still drink it without it feeling like a chore. A real cloyingly sweet malt bomb can be pretty hard to finish.