TOPIC:

"KeeganAles":1dnqyeg5 wrote: A thing is what it is now.[/quote:1dnqyeg5]I agree. Greene King IPA is an IPA now. It hasn't been left behind as IPA evolved into stronger and hoppier beer because, as you say, a thing is what it is now. What constitutes IPA has expanded. To the point of meaninglessness. So sod the style and drink the beer. Or don't if it's not your thing.

"KeeganAles":1dnqyeg5 wrote: So Guinness Black Lager is a proper black lager? [/quote:1dnqyeg5]Of course. Did someone say it wasn't? It's black, it's a lager. What do you want: flavour?

"KeeganAles":1dnqyeg5 wrote: And actually, breweries can be under obligation - Belgian brewers sued Coors in the '90s for calling Blue Moon a "Belgian White" and won.[/quote:1dnqyeg5]I said they're not under obligation [i:1dnqyeg5]to you[/i:1dnqyeg5]. Until beer style becomes a legally-protected part of consumer law -- like geographical origin -- breweries can call what they like IPA.

"KeeganAles":1dnqyeg5 wrote: some consistency across labeling would make commercial sense for the brewers,[/quote:1dnqyeg5]I reckon Greed King know what makes commercial sense at this stage. In fact, I'd advise any commercial brewery to use the term IPA for any beer they can get away with it on. The craft breweries now producing [i:1dnqyeg5]black[/i:1dnqyeg5] IPAs are on to something. "It's not a whole different beer style; it's IPA. You like IPA, don't you? Right: so never mind the colour, just buy it."

"KeeganAles":1dnqyeg5 wrote: Yes, but making as much sense as the BJCP is a pretty low standard![/quote:1dnqyeg5]And yet you would pigeon-hole IPA into specifics of hoppiness and strength, and question the label on those which fail to meet your expectations. You oppressor you.

[quote:fc2smmb7] It's black, it's a lager. What do you want: flavour? [/quote:fc2smmb7] <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt="" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D --> <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt="" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D --> <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt="" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D --> <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt="" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D -->

&amp;quot;TheBeerNut&amp;quot;:2drqvovx wrote: And yet you would pigeon-hole IPA into specifics of hoppiness and strength, and question the label on those which fail to meet your expectations. You oppressor you.[/quote:2drqvovx]

No more specific than "hoppy" and not even strong, necessarily. Then again, what is "strong"? Oow, I know, let's define "session beer"!

You said it yourself, "to the point of meaninglessness". My reaction is to narrow a definition; after all, words only work because there's some common understanding of what they represent. But we get to drink beer your way, too, so it's all good.

[resetting style debate alarm clock]

ps - Black IPAs are awesome!

On the topic of Green King IPA, it won the Gold award at the 2004 Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) Great British Beer Festival in the Bitter category and runner-up in the Champion Beer Of Britain category.

Mustn't be that bad!

&amp;quot;KeeganAles&amp;quot;:3trl54of wrote: You said it yourself, "to the point of meaninglessness". My reaction is to narrow a definition; after all, words only work because there's some common understanding of what they represent.[/quote:3trl54of]Yes, but it's impossible to deliberately narrow the definition of a word. In English, anyway. This is on account of things being what they are now. Reality can be very inconvenient sometimes.

Here's my Grand Theory of Greene King IPA, by an amateur psychologist:

Beer Geek says: I like strong, hoppy ales; they are called IPAs
Beer Geek encounters an IPA which is weak and unhoppy.
Beer Geek has two choices, either:
a) Recognise that he/she [i:3trl54of]does not[/i:3trl54of] like IPA necessarily; or
b) Deny that the beer is an IPA and continue loving all IPAs.

b) is easier, so that's what happens.

This accounts for why IPA is singled out for this treatment but other old and evolving styles don't: beer geeks care more about IPA. They care [i:3trl54of]so hard[/i:3trl54of] about IPAs that they're prepared to bend reality around their perception of them.

&amp;quot;KeeganAles&amp;quot;:3trl54of wrote: ps - Black IPAs are awesome![/quote:3trl54of]BrewDog/Stone Bashah: meh.

Is this still going...?

&amp;quot;TheBeerNut&amp;quot;:3bkhrz3n wrote: Yes, but it's impossible to deliberately narrow the definition of a word. [/quote:3bkhrz3n]
OK, what I should've said is "accept a narrower definition". And not all that narrow, really: "a hoppier pale ale" is about it. Anything more inclusive ceases to be useful as a term, imho.

&amp;quot;TheBeerNut&amp;quot;:3bkhrz3n wrote: Beer Geek says: I like strong, hoppy ales; they are called IPAs[/quote:3bkhrz3n]
Cart before the horse. People like the taste of certain beers long before they get the vocabulary to describe them, in my experience.
Instead, Beer Geek says: I like these beers called IPAs. What characteristics do they have that makes me like them?

&amp;quot;TheBeerNut&amp;quot;:3bkhrz3n wrote: Beer Geek encounters an IPA which is weak and unhoppy.[/quote:3bkhrz3n]
Impossible! Beer Geek could encounter a tame beer *called* IPA...
You can call a cloudy day sunshine, too; it's still not gonna give me a tan.

&amp;quot;TheBeerNut&amp;quot;:3bkhrz3n wrote: This accounts for why IPA is singled out for this treatment but other old and evolving styles don't: beer geeks care more about IPA.[/quote:3bkhrz3n]
IPAs are singled out because they've evolved so fast - American IPAs have sprung up entirely in the past 30 years. The constant dialogue over this is consensus building towards a commonly acknowledged definition. We all at least agree there's a difference between American and English IPAs - that's what started this thread.


Let me ask this: How is Greene King IPA different from a session bitter of similar strength?