Talkin' 'bout Beerz

Plus there's the whole thing about like an IPA winning the Red Ale category. I used to read the GABF winners and smdh just at the names of some beers winning the categories that they did. No idea if that's been changed in recent years.
 
I've got to think it has at least something to do with the lag time between when the beers need to be submitted and when they are judged. To say nothing of what happens to them in transit. which is still in summer temps when they have to get shipped out.
I mean, maybe, but that doesn't really explain the winners being pretty predictably crappier breweries. I stopped paying any attention to it at all after a few years, and only noticed this year because winners let you know about it on Saturday. The ones I tried were meh, even in styles I genuinely like, and that's been par for the course. I think there's just too much randomness in the process and the whole "but muh grade to style" thing is a serious detriment to actually rewarding beers that taste good.
 
I mean, maybe, but that doesn't really explain the winners being pretty predictably crappier breweries. I stopped paying any attention to it at all after a few years, and only noticed this year because winners let you know about it on Saturday. The ones I tried were meh, even in styles I genuinely like, and that's been par for the course. I think there's just too much randomness in the process and the whole "but muh grade to style" thing is a serious detriment to actually rewarding beers that taste good.

If you take issue to 'grading to style' because you don't like the beer that doesn't mean the beer isn't good, it just means you don't really like/know that style. You just like what you think that style should be, which has little to do with the actual beer style.

Yet, that competition is specifically based on style. Not what subjectively tastes better to you. If that's your measurement then you shouldn't even care who the winners are as that competition isn't for you. You are comparing subjective and objective things to each other. You want a best in show competition.
 
If you take issue to 'grading to style' because you don't like the beer that doesn't mean the beer isn't good, it just means you don't really like/know that style. You just like what you think that style should be, which has little to do with the actual beer style.

Yet, that competition is specifically based on style. Not what subjectively tastes better to you. If that's your measurement then you shouldn't even care who the winners are as that competition isn't for you. You are comparing subjective and objective things to each other. You want a best in show competition.
Did you miss the part where I said "even in styles that I genuinely like"? I think that the rating to style thing just gives people brain worms.
 
Did you miss the part where I said "even in styles that I genuinely like"? I think that the rating to style thing just gives people brain worms.

I didn't miss anything. If you don't like the 'rated to style' styles (which by definition are the epitome of said style) then you don't actually like that style all that much. You just think you do. You just like your subjective opinion of whatever you think the style should be. But that doesn't mean the rating to style is problematic, it means your personal assessment is problematic.

You can claim to like oranges, but if you then proceed to say 'but not those normal oranges, only the tangerines.' Then you don't actually like oranges. You like tangerines.

And that's what you are saying here. You just seem to have issue making the distinction between the two. As I already said. You want a best in show, based on taste. That doesn't mean there isn't merit to rating by style. It just means you prefer a different way.
 


giphy.gif
 

Wonder if it's anywhere near as good as GABF winner Märzen from Sudwerk Brewing Co, a brewery that is mediocre at best and likely only still open due to being right off the campus of UC Davis. 2nd went to world-renowned Huss Brewing Company's Oktoberfest.

I actually have no dog in the fight, but will concede that a lot of the gold winners are either breweries I've never heard of (could be good!) or breweries that I know are not - a BJ's won a gold, tho who knows, maybe they do make a great Honey Bock. It does look like the medals are at least going to appropriate entrants per style FWIW.
 
Sudwerk Brewing Co, a brewery that is mediocre at best

I cannot speak for the quality of Sudwerk as a whole, having never been there and having only had a few of their beers, but I can say that some of the ones I've had have been fantastic. (Admittedly some have not been.) Their "Marzen Amber Lager," which I have to assume is the medal-winner you mention above, was delightful, true to style, and extremely drinkable. I've had it twice and on both occasions was very happy.

More importantly, their "Fünke Hop Farm" is a beer I occasionally dream about. Simply fantastic.
 
I cannot speak for the quality of Sudwerk as a whole, having never been there and having only had a few of their beers, but I can say that some of the ones I've had have been fantastic. (Admittedly some have not been.) Their "Marzen Amber Lager," which I have to assume is the medal-winner you mention above, was delightful, true to style, and extremely drinkable. I've had it twice and on both occasions was very happy.

More importantly, their "Fünke Hop Farm" is a beer I occasionally dream about. Simply fantastic.
Great name, for sure. TBF I've only had a handful of beers from them, and they've been "just drinkable" imo. May give them a few more tries. I don't know if they have some kind of thing where they do collabs with the classes or profs from the beer program at UC Davis, but that would be cool.
 
I didn't miss anything. If you don't like the 'rated to style' styles (which by definition are the epitome of said style) then you don't actually like that style all that much. You just think you do. You just like your subjective opinion of whatever you think the style should be. But that doesn't mean the rating to style is problematic, it means your personal assessment is problematic.

You can claim to like oranges, but if you then proceed to say 'but not those normal oranges, only the tangerines.' Then you don't actually like oranges. You like tangerines.

And that's what you are saying here. You just seem to have issue making the distinction between the two. As I already said. You want a best in show, based on taste. That doesn't mean there isn't merit to rating by style. It just means you prefer a different way.
Wow, okay, that sure is something.

The problem that I have is that most beer people (including those who make the BJCP guidelines) seem to have a bizarre idea of what a style is, in a way that you clearly follow above. But it doesn't hold up to any type of scrutiny.

When classifying a beer there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of variables that can take on large ranges of different values. As a physicist the way I think about such a setup is as a phase space, where each combination of variables describes a specific location in that space, and can be thought of as a particular vector. So each given beer recipe (and probably each individual brew of that beer) is its own little vector that could be identified with all the pertinent numbers (that would result in things like ABV, color, residual sugar, yeast type, hop types, how much, etc).

Thinking about it this way makes it immediately obvious what a beer style is: a subsection of that phase space. It's just a range over the parameters where the end result is similar enough to be worth grouping.

The problem with "judging to style" is that you inherently favor one particular vector over the others. The goal is no longer to create the best beer you can that still falls within the denoted phase space, but to match as exactly as possible a pre-determined vector (because otherwise what are you judging? Every beer that fits into the phase space is exactly as worthy as the others if you're not trying to match a specific vector). When phrased this way I think it becomes obvious that rating to style is arbitrary, pointless, capricious, and impossible. But all I'm doing is using mathematical language to describe the procedure above more rigorously! And it's obviously ridiculous!

The second thing I think this helps clarify is the proliferation of styles. As brewers innovate (or "innovate" depending on your perspective) they either add new (or new-ish) axes in the phase space ("haze" being the one I'd name from recent years) or try to get into the boundaries in phase space between existing, clearly established styles ("black IPA" being the space between IPA and stout/porter, as an example). I've long had an issue with how Untappd (and to a lesser extent the BJCP) continuously create new styles to follow what's essentially breweries' marketing, and the problem with this again becomes immediately obvious when thinking in terms of phase space: you can always add new axes and there's always going to be undefined boundaries between styles! You can argue that adding new axes is legitimate, in some cases I'd agree in others I wouldn't, but the focus on finding every underdeveloped access of phase space and planting a flag there (aka "innovation") is marketing, not real differentiation. In most cases this is basically harmless (allowing GABF or whatever to award more medals), but in the case of Untappd (again, the basis of most of my ruminations on this topic) I think it creates a pointlessly confusing user experience.

Anyway, you can patronize me however you want, I still think that beer judging an exercise is masturbatory sophistry, and it's going to take something a wee bit more sophisticated than "you say you want an orange but you want a tangerine" to change my mind.

Edit: In b4 "stupac'd".
 
Wow, okay, that sure is something.

The problem that I have is that most beer people (including those who make the BJCP guidelines) seem to have a bizarre idea of what a style is, in a way that you clearly follow above. But it doesn't hold up to any type of scrutiny.

When classifying a beer there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of variables that can take on large ranges of different values. As a physicist the way I think about such a setup is as a phase space, where each combination of variables describes a specific location in that space, and can be thought of as a particular vector. So each given beer recipe (and probably each individual brew of that beer) is its own little vector that could be identified with all the pertinent numbers (that would result in things like ABV, color, residual sugar, yeast type, hop types, how much, etc).

Thinking about it this way makes it immediately obvious what a beer style is: a subsection of that phase space. It's just a range over the parameters where the end result is similar enough to be worth grouping.

The problem with "judging to style" is that you inherently favor one particular vector over the others. The goal is no longer to create the best beer you can that still falls within the denoted phase space, but to match as exactly as possible a pre-determined vector (because otherwise what are you judging? Every beer that fits into the phase space is exactly as worthy as the others if you're not trying to match a specific vector). When phrased this way I think it becomes obvious that rating to style is arbitrary, pointless, capricious, and impossible. But all I'm doing is using mathematical language to describe the procedure above more rigorously! And it's obviously ridiculous!

The second thing I think this helps clarify is the proliferation of styles. As brewers innovate (or "innovate" depending on your perspective) they either add new (or new-ish) axes in the phase space ("haze" being the one I'd name from recent years) or try to get into the boundaries in phase space between existing, clearly established styles ("black IPA" being the space between IPA and stout/porter, as an example). I've long had an issue with how Untappd (and to a lesser extent the BJCP) continuously create new styles to follow what's essentially breweries' marketing, and the problem with this again becomes immediately obvious when thinking in terms of phase space: you can always add new axes and there's always going to be undefined boundaries between styles! You can argue that adding new axes is legitimate, in some cases I'd agree in others I wouldn't, but the focus on finding every underdeveloped access of phase space and planting a flag there (aka "innovation") is marketing, not real differentiation. In most cases this is basically harmless (allowing GABF or whatever to award more medals), but in the case of Untappd (again, the basis of most of my ruminations on this topic) I think it creates a pointlessly confusing user experience.

Anyway, you can patronize me however you want, I still think that beer judging an exercise is masturbatory sophistry, and it's going to take something a wee bit more sophisticated than "you say you want an orange but you want a tangerine" to change my mind.

Edit: In b4 "stupac'd".

I was going to make the same point only sound way dumber while doing so. I decided instead to post a meme.

I think I made the right choice.
 
Wow, okay, that sure is something.

The problem that I have is that most beer people (including those who make the BJCP guidelines) seem to have a bizarre idea of what a style is, in a way that you clearly follow above. But it doesn't hold up to any type of scrutiny.

When classifying a beer there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of variables that can take on large ranges of different values. As a physicist the way I think about such a setup is as a phase space, where each combination of variables describes a specific location in that space, and can be thought of as a particular vector. So each given beer recipe (and probably each individual brew of that beer) is its own little vector that could be identified with all the pertinent numbers (that would result in things like ABV, color, residual sugar, yeast type, hop types, how much, etc).

Thinking about it this way makes it immediately obvious what a beer style is: a subsection of that phase space. It's just a range over the parameters where the end result is similar enough to be worth grouping.

The problem with "judging to style" is that you inherently favor one particular vector over the others. The goal is no longer to create the best beer you can that still falls within the denoted phase space, but to match as exactly as possible a pre-determined vector (because otherwise what are you judging? Every beer that fits into the phase space is exactly as worthy as the others if you're not trying to match a specific vector). When phrased this way I think it becomes obvious that rating to style is arbitrary, pointless, capricious, and impossible. But all I'm doing is using mathematical language to describe the procedure above more rigorously! And it's obviously ridiculous!

The second thing I think this helps clarify is the proliferation of styles. As brewers innovate (or "innovate" depending on your perspective) they either add new (or new-ish) axes in the phase space ("haze" being the one I'd name from recent years) or try to get into the boundaries in phase space between existing, clearly established styles ("black IPA" being the space between IPA and stout/porter, as an example). I've long had an issue with how Untappd (and to a lesser extent the BJCP) continuously create new styles to follow what's essentially breweries' marketing, and the problem with this again becomes immediately obvious when thinking in terms of phase space: you can always add new axes and there's always going to be undefined boundaries between styles! You can argue that adding new axes is legitimate, in some cases I'd agree in others I wouldn't, but the focus on finding every underdeveloped access of phase space and planting a flag there (aka "innovation") is marketing, not real differentiation. In most cases this is basically harmless (allowing GABF or whatever to award more medals), but in the case of Untappd (again, the basis of most of my ruminations on this topic) I think it creates a pointlessly confusing user experience.

Anyway, you can patronize me however you want, I still think that beer judging an exercise is masturbatory sophistry, and it's going to take something a wee bit more sophisticated than "you say you want an orange but you want a tangerine" to change my mind.

Edit: In b4 "stupac'd".
Have you actually been judged by a BJCP panel?

10 out of the 50 points that they give is for "overall impression" and that is the area where the judge can go "off-book" if you will and share his personal impressions.

So 20% of the overall score.

I rate your post 17/50 on the LJCP and grant you a "sad" emoji.
 
Wow, okay, that sure is something.

The problem that I have is that most beer people (including those who make the BJCP guidelines) seem to have a bizarre idea of what a style is, in a way that you clearly follow above. But it doesn't hold up to any type of scrutiny.

When classifying a beer there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of variables that can take on large ranges of different values. As a physicist the way I think about such a setup is as a phase space, where each combination of variables describes a specific location in that space, and can be thought of as a particular vector. So each given beer recipe (and probably each individual brew of that beer) is its own little vector that could be identified with all the pertinent numbers (that would result in things like ABV, color, residual sugar, yeast type, hop types, how much, etc).

Thinking about it this way makes it immediately obvious what a beer style is: a subsection of that phase space. It's just a range over the parameters where the end result is similar enough to be worth grouping.

The problem with "judging to style" is that you inherently favor one particular vector over the others. The goal is no longer to create the best beer you can that still falls within the denoted phase space, but to match as exactly as possible a pre-determined vector (because otherwise what are you judging? Every beer that fits into the phase space is exactly as worthy as the others if you're not trying to match a specific vector). When phrased this way I think it becomes obvious that rating to style is arbitrary, pointless, capricious, and impossible. But all I'm doing is using mathematical language to describe the procedure above more rigorously! And it's obviously ridiculous!

The second thing I think this helps clarify is the proliferation of styles. As brewers innovate (or "innovate" depending on your perspective) they either add new (or new-ish) axes in the phase space ("haze" being the one I'd name from recent years) or try to get into the boundaries in phase space between existing, clearly established styles ("black IPA" being the space between IPA and stout/porter, as an example). I've long had an issue with how Untappd (and to a lesser extent the BJCP) continuously create new styles to follow what's essentially breweries' marketing, and the problem with this again becomes immediately obvious when thinking in terms of phase space: you can always add new axes and there's always going to be undefined boundaries between styles! You can argue that adding new axes is legitimate, in some cases I'd agree in others I wouldn't, but the focus on finding every underdeveloped access of phase space and planting a flag there (aka "innovation") is marketing, not real differentiation. In most cases this is basically harmless (allowing GABF or whatever to award more medals), but in the case of Untappd (again, the basis of most of my ruminations on this topic) I think it creates a pointlessly confusing user experience.

Anyway, you can patronize me however you want, I still think that beer judging an exercise is masturbatory sophistry, and it's going to take something a wee bit more sophisticated than "you say you want an orange but you want a tangerine" to change my mind.

Edit: In b4 "stupac'd".
Respect beer science?
 
Wow, okay, that sure is something.

The problem that I have is that most beer people (including those who make the BJCP guidelines) seem to have a bizarre idea of what a style is, in a way that you clearly follow above. But it doesn't hold up to any type of scrutiny.

When classifying a beer there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of variables that can take on large ranges of different values. As a physicist the way I think about such a setup is as a phase space, where each combination of variables describes a specific location in that space, and can be thought of as a particular vector. So each given beer recipe (and probably each individual brew of that beer) is its own little vector that could be identified with all the pertinent numbers (that would result in things like ABV, color, residual sugar, yeast type, hop types, how much, etc).

Thinking about it this way makes it immediately obvious what a beer style is: a subsection of that phase space. It's just a range over the parameters where the end result is similar enough to be worth grouping.

The problem with "judging to style" is that you inherently favor one particular vector over the others. The goal is no longer to create the best beer you can that still falls within the denoted phase space, but to match as exactly as possible a pre-determined vector (because otherwise what are you judging? Every beer that fits into the phase space is exactly as worthy as the others if you're not trying to match a specific vector). When phrased this way I think it becomes obvious that rating to style is arbitrary, pointless, capricious, and impossible. But all I'm doing is using mathematical language to describe the procedure above more rigorously! And it's obviously ridiculous!

The second thing I think this helps clarify is the proliferation of styles. As brewers innovate (or "innovate" depending on your perspective) they either add new (or new-ish) axes in the phase space ("haze" being the one I'd name from recent years) or try to get into the boundaries in phase space between existing, clearly established styles ("black IPA" being the space between IPA and stout/porter, as an example). I've long had an issue with how Untappd (and to a lesser extent the BJCP) continuously create new styles to follow what's essentially breweries' marketing, and the problem with this again becomes immediately obvious when thinking in terms of phase space: you can always add new axes and there's always going to be undefined boundaries between styles! You can argue that adding new axes is legitimate, in some cases I'd agree in others I wouldn't, but the focus on finding every underdeveloped access of phase space and planting a flag there (aka "innovation") is marketing, not real differentiation. In most cases this is basically harmless (allowing GABF or whatever to award more medals), but in the case of Untappd (again, the basis of most of my ruminations on this topic) I think it creates a pointlessly confusing user experience.

Anyway, you can patronize me however you want, I still think that beer judging an exercise is masturbatory sophistry, and it's going to take something a wee bit more sophisticated than "you say you want an orange but you want a tangerine" to change my mind.

Edit: In b4 "stupac'd".

A lot of words to say beer judging is subjective under a set of vague and sometimes inaccurate metrics.
 
A lot of words to say beer judging is subjective under a set of vague and sometimes inaccurate metrics.
Sure, and that is obvious, but you can weasel with words. Introducing a mathematical-ish formalism clarifies the issue significantly.
Have you actually been judged by a BJCP panel?

10 out of the 50 points that they give is for "overall impression" and that is the area where the judge can go "off-book" if you will and share his personal impressions.

So 20% of the overall score.

I rate your post 17/50 on the LJCP and grant you a "sad" emoji.
Well, either the "overall impression" is "to style" in which case that's just another dimension in the phase space and my post stands as is, or it's not and the person I replied to was wrong in his comments to me. Both seem pretty good to me!
 
Back
Top