Seriously? Give me a break with the hops already.

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
What he's saying is it's easy to throw a ton of hops in a brew & call it excellent. But if you can't taste the malt at all,it's skewed too far out of balance. You can have a hoppy beer & still have a good malt profile. Beer is not just about the dozen different hops used,but that it supports the malt profile.

I disagree completely. There's times when I want a hop-bomb with a light body and little to no maltiness. I wouldn't want that to be the only thing I ever drink, but I don't see any danger of that happening.

Besides, I would say that it's actually not any easier to brew super hoppy beer than it is to brew any other kind of beer out there. I've had great hop bombs and lousy hop bombs, just like how I've had great maltier styles and lousy malty styles.
 
Besides, I would say that it's actually not any easier to brew super hoppy beer than it is to brew any other kind of beer out there.

Oh I would say it is! The intense flavor and aroma that come from using as much hops as an American IPA or especially an IIPA could easily cover up small flaws in fermentation like banana esters or from boiling like DMS.

These are subtle flavors to begin with and come from sloppy brewing practices.

You're telling me that you can detect these subtle off-flavors in a super hoppy IPA? You can definitely see them in such things as pilsners and even in things like saisons, but something as strongly hopped as an IPA? You don't think the hops cover those flavors up at all?

It's the entire theory behind Axe body spray at work here. If you're clean or dirty, who cares, spray on some Axe and the all the ladies know is that you smell great :)


Don't get my wrong guys, I enjoy an IPA every now and then I just think it is an easy way to cover up flaws if they exist in your beer.
 
Besides, I would say that it's actually not any easier to brew super hoppy beer than it is to brew any other kind of beer out there. I've had great hop bombs and lousy hop bombs, just like how I've had great maltier styles and lousy malty styles.


Disagree. It is generally accepted the the American Light Lager (famously unhopped BMC-type beers) are THE most difficult to brew, because there is no place for mistakes to hide.
 
I also enjoy a great stout, but I know that if the trend started going roastier and roastier until the only thing I could taste is dry burnt roasty character, I would not approve and I'd have the same gripe, same with a chocolate stout that's pretty much only chocolate syrup with a little alcohol. Good things can go too far and not be good anymore. Again, I appreciate the hard work of brewers and so I'll try anything; if I don't like it I don't have to drink it. That's the beauty of diversity.:mug:

I just wanted to touch on your comments about the strength of individual characters in a beer that trend towards being out of place or downright overpowering. I see this in a lot of beers, especially the seasonal varieties. Breweries each have their own take on how far they should push a certain character. At the beer and wine store I buy from, I constantly buy the same styles from multiple breweries. I'll use chocolate as an example, but I've seen the same with pumpkin, fruit, cinnamon, etc. Some of these breweries will make the flavor less noticeable, others will make it (what could be considered) balanced, and others go all out. It's obvious that different people have different preferences and palates, but wouldn't you also want that unbalanced beer to be there if you had a change of heart? I know my preferences in beer change seasonally, and even daily. I might prefer a chocolate stout with very little flavor and then one day I want to be dipped in Willy Wonka's chocolate river. There's no excuse for a bad beer, and a person shouldn't have to settle. That's why (as you say) diversity is a beautiful thing, and you can choose from the range of intensities.
 
Oh I would say it is! The intense flavor and aroma that come from using as much hops as an American IPA or especially an IIPA could easily cover up small flaws in fermentation like banana esters or from boiling like DMS.

These are subtle flavors to begin with and come from sloppy brewing practices.

You're telling me that you can detect these subtle off-flavors in a super hoppy IPA? You can definitely see them in such things as pilsners and even in things like saisons, but something as strongly hopped as an IPA? You don't think the hops cover those flavors up at all?

It's the entire theory behind Axe body spray at work here. If you're clean or dirty, who cares, spray on some Axe and the all the ladies know is that you smell great :)


Don't get my wrong guys, I enjoy an IPA every now and then I just think it is an easy way to cover up flaws if they exist in your beer.


My opinion: Bad beer is bad beer. Sure, it might be somewhat less noticeable when the beer is strongly flavored (regardless of whether it comes from hops, yeast, or anything else), but it can't completely cover up lousy technique. Are you telling me that a beer with those off flavors, but lots of hops wouldn't be a worse beer than a heavily hopped beer without off flavors?

I seriously doubt that commercial breweries are thinking "hey, if I just toss in some extra dry hops, who cares about good brewing practice," and if they are, they won't be in business very long.
 
My opinion: Bad beer is bad beer. Sure, it might be somewhat less noticeable when the beer is strongly flavored (regardless of whether it comes from hops, yeast, or anything else), but it can't completely cover up lousy technique. Are you telling me that a beer with those off flavors, but lots of hops wouldn't be a worse beer than a heavily hopped beer without off flavors?

I seriously doubt that commercial breweries are thinking "hey, if I just toss in some extra dry hops, who cares about good brewing practice," and if they are, they won't be in business very long.

I'm saying if you brew a poor APA split the batch into two and dry hop the hell out one of them and enter them into a comp as an APA and an American IPA then the IPA will get a better score because it covers the mistakes you made MUCH better.

I'd really like to see a yeast strain or malt bill that can hide brewing flaws as much as hops can. I can't think of any.
 
My beef is more with beers that aren't properly described as being overly-hopped. I hate picking up a six pack of something I have never had based on the style the beer is claiming to be, then after taking my first sip, realizing that I just bought an IPA version of whatever style I thought I was getting. Experiences like this have led to me barely buy commercial beer anymore.
 
Just for the record, I didn't contradict myself at all in my last post. Also, this thread is so funny... Chocolate is better! "NO vanilla is!" Chocolate! "Vanilla!"... (btw, chocolate is definitely better);)
 
My personal opinion is that a good number of craftbrewers (homebrewers too) have gotten caught up in an "arms race" of beer styles. They are constantly trying to outdo one another and make theirs more extreme than the other guys. Not just hop bombs either, it is whatever is the latest fashion. I've had beers that were yeast bombs, or sour bombs, or wood bombs, or funk bombs.

I tend to not like these, but I know some folks do. My concern is that these over the top beers eventually become what is expected and anything less is a poor beer. I see this in a lot of Beer Advocate reviews. A well balanced nice delicate wheat beer will be slammed, while a version that tastes like drinking carboy dregs gets raved about.
 
My beef is more with beers that aren't properly described as being overly-hopped. I hate picking up a six pack of something I have never had based on the style the beer is claiming to be, then after taking my first sip, realizing that I just bought an IPA version of whatever style I thought I was getting. Experiences like this have led to me barely buy commercial beer anymore.

This is key, and was the driving sentiment behind my original post.
 
Brew what you like. Drink what you like. I don't care for tart or sour beers, so I avoid them. I like hoppy beers as long as they aren't way over bitter with no malt to back it up.

I've had a few notable beers that don't say anywhere that they are tart and choke them down usually. But I would rather have spent the money on something else.
 
I'm saying if you brew a poor APA split the batch into two and dry hop the hell out one of them and enter them into a comp as an APA and an American IPA then the IPA will get a better score because it covers the mistakes you made MUCH better.

I'd really like to see a yeast strain or malt bill that can hide brewing flaws as much as hops can. I can't think of any.

Do you really think that a flawed IPA with lots of hops would fare as well as a well made IPA with the same hopping rates, though? That's my point -- bad beer is bad beer, and "covering it up" with anything doesn't change the fact. I still maintain that no commercial breweries are adding extra hops and just hoping that people won't notice that they have poor technique. Maybe as a homebrewer, that would be a way to salvage a batch that went wrong, but that's different from the claim that commercial breweries are adding "too much" hops to cover their mistakes.

As for yeast and malts, it depends on what kind of brewing flaw we're talking about. If it's a too warm fermentation, a lot of Belgian yeasts are quite forgiving, especially with a little time. On the other hand, I know of one commercial brewery whose beer I used to love, until a new brewer came in and suddenly introduced a harsh astringency to literally everything they make, from the hoppiest IPAs down to the mellowest helles lagers. No amount of extra hops can cover for something like this, and to me, the beers were straight out flawed.

Breweries are adding more hops to their beers for one reason: people like it that way and continue buying it. People complaining about things like the 1000 IBU Mikkeller beer being unbalanced and too hoppy are missing the point of those beers. Of course they're not balanced! It's being made for people to try pushing the boundaries.
 
I think PJ & Homer nailed it down pretty good,imo. I do want to try more ipa's,just to see if there's one out there that has some of both qualities. I def like trying different things. Having to retry many now that I'm HB'ing. But,I guess we're all a bit like that,since we're all here together discussing it. That makes it cool.:rockin::mug:
 
I see this in a lot of Beer Advocate reviews.


That place is the most pretentious, full of sh*t, beer snob haven I have ever run across. Their reviews shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt, they should be outright ignored. It's a pointless endeavor to even bother reading those reviews. I haven't looked at that site in years other than to read the more outlandish reviews that people sometimes post here for others to laugh at.
 
That place is the most pretentious, full of sh*t, beer snob haven I have ever run across. Their reviews shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt, they should be outright ignored. It's a pointless endeavor to even bother reading those reviews. I haven't looked at that site in years other than to read the more outlandish reviews that people sometimes post here for others to laugh at.

+1. I started reading it and after a few times I just realized that wasn't very good at rating the different styles. Full of beer reviewer wannabees. Descriptions that contradict each other. Reviews with an obvious dislike for certain companies, or others who are rampant fanboys.

And have you tried Hopslam yet?? It's full of hops, but I find it not as harsh and bitter as some IPAs. Lots of sweet to balance.
 
I've never seen anything from Bell's around here, so unfortunately, no. There is a pub I go to in North Jersey that has their stuff sometimes though, so I'll be on the lookout for it up there.
 
For everyone who said that you can't hide flaws by just hopping the hell outa your beer

The Jamil Show - Imperial IPA @ 34:56

"This is a style that has a lot of flavors and aromas to mask a lot of sins. You can have a few off-things going on & its pretty difficult to pick up at times."

Sorry, had to dig this one up when I heard this on the IIPA show from Jamil. :)
 
Mmmm, hopslam.... Cant wait til next January!!! But man reading this thread makes me wanna go pick up that 4 pack of wyerbachers double simcoe IPA I've been dying to try. Anyone had that? It sounds so good and offensive!
 
As a hop head, the thing that draws me to the hops is the aroma and flavor, not the bitterness so much. So, for me to enjoy the West Coast IPA's, which I do a lot of the time, I take a really big whiff of the aroma each time I take a gulp. It changes the entire experience for me (if it is a good craft/homebrew).
 
People enjoy different things, film at 11 :)

Up here, it's not hops, it's the Belgian yeast: I had an ESB by a very renowned French Canadian microbrewery last week and it had a totally out of place banana/peppery finish... Maybe it was a bad bottle.
 
I tend to not like these, but I know some folks do. My concern is that these over the top beers eventually become what is expected and anything less is a poor beer. I see this in a lot of Beer Advocate reviews. A well balanced nice delicate wheat beer will be slammed, while a version that tastes like drinking carboy dregs gets raved about.

I recently had a beer tasting club go to my house. They brought some pretty good beers, and 3 of them where brewers. It was pretty fun, but now that I hang out more, I notice more and more that a beer in their eyes is not even worth drinking unless it is above 10% ABV, or has some crazy ingredient in it.

We got a new bar in town that opened up serving over 100 different micros on tap, I am usually there enjoying a hefe, or brown ale before I finish the night off with a barely wine or Belgium. I swear every time I go there, I get some beer snob come up to me trying to explain to me what beer I am holding in my hand, and how many times he’s tasted it, serving temp, and then usually recommends a stronger beer or a sour saying that is the beer to try. The trend is really moving to price in my view. When I eat with my in laws, they do not know much about beer or wine but the more expensive it is the better it is in their eyes. This is what is happening with beer in my view, not so much the alc. Content, but how expensive how the bottle looks, where the beer is from etc… Some people I know will not drink an American beer, but then you tell them that stout they just drank is from Portland and they immediately dislike it.

I like all beers, hoppy, malty, session, strong, sour. They all have a place on my palate.
 
Sometimes I don't see it coming, and that is even more annoying. I drank a 2011 Big foot Barleywine. I know Sierra Nevada loves the hops, but this thing was nearly undrinkable.

Thank you West Coast, for taking a good thing, and taking it too damn far.



To be fair, you did drink an American-style barleywine with virtually no aging. Save the other 2011's and drink them in a year or two, or more. The hops mellow well in barleywines and take on a hint of sherry.

If you don't feel like a long aging, you might like English-style barleywines. Those are considerably less hoppy than their American cousins.
 
To be fair, you did drink an American-style barleywine with virtually no aging. Save the other 2011's and drink them in a year or two, or more.


Oh, baloney. Once a commercial beer hits the shelves, it is already at the stage at which the the brewer intends it to be consumed.
 
I recently had a beer tasting club go to my house. They brought some pretty good beers, and 3 of them where brewers. It was pretty fun, but now that I hang out more, I notice more and more that a beer in their eyes is not even worth drinking unless it is above 10% ABV, or has some crazy ingredient in it.

....

I like all beers, hoppy, malty, session, strong, sour. They all have a place on my palate.

I have noticed this trend too. Personally, I am somewhere in the middle. On one hand, Hefs and pilsners are usually too boring to me unless they happen to be really outstanding. On the other hand, I have hop head friends that won't enjoy anything unless it tastes like a pine tree. I really find that limiting, and am trying not to become this way myself.

I go to a weekly beer tasting, and a lot of these guys are the same way. Its got to be big and crazy for them to enjoy it. That really makes sense at beer tastings because your taste buds are assaulted by the big crazy beers, while a little mild (but well made) beer might not even make a peep on your tongue after tasting those big boys. I also find that at social beer events people just like to try new things, instead of stick with the stuff they have already tried. I do think that some people forget about the small, well balanced beers that are good even with a TV dinner.
 
I like enough hops to notice the aroma and flavor (not so much the bitterness) -I like it bitter enough to balance the malt flavor. If I had to go one way or the other, though, I'd go lighter on the bittering hops.
 
"I'm learning that somewhere between an IPA and a Double Super Hops Up Your ass IPA is where I get off the train."

LMFAO!!!! Thanks. :mug::mug:
 
I love a good well made, clean tasting, 4,5-7% beer where you can taste all the aspects, hops, malts and water. Mmmmmm.

I like what you said about the beer tasting like a pine tree... sooo true!!! lol
 
To be fair, you did drink an American-style barleywine with virtually no aging. Save the other 2011's and drink them in a year or two, or more. The hops mellow well in barleywines and take on a hint of sherry.

If you don't feel like a long aging, you might like English-style barleywines. Those are considerably less hoppy than their American cousins.

As long as hoppy beers are in the vogue, that is what will be available for me to drink. If I could get an English BW, I would be all over it.

That was kind of the point.
 
gerbache,

How much experience brewing professionally do you have? You seem to talk a lot about what pro brewers will or won't do, so I'm interested to find out where that perspective comes from.
 
Oh, baloney. Once a commercial beer hits the shelves, it is already at the stage at which the the brewer intends it to be consumed.


I'd have to disagree. There'd be no reason to put a vintage date on it if they didn't want it to be aged at all. If you pull up a brewery's website for their barleywine, many of them will say something along the lines of "ready to drink now, but will improve with age".

I personally feel that they want you to try a bottle or two and age the other couple of bottles to see how the flavors develop.

Of course, that's not to knock the drinker that loves young barleywines. A young barleywine is something to behold in its own right. I got 4 bottles of BFBW 2011, drank one, and have to say that it's pretty good.
 
Oh, baloney. Once a commercial beer hits the shelves, it is already at the stage at which the the brewer intends it to be consumed.

There's a passage in Garrett Oliver's Brewmaster's Table where he talks about thinking Rogue's Old Crustacean is out of balance and too bitter for the style, and is told by John Maier that it needs to be aged a few years to mellow out. Also, I bought a bottle of the 2010 Jubel from Deschutes that actually lists a "consume after" date rather than a "best by" date, plus Russian River lists a recommended aging period on many of their Belgian styles.
 
gerbache,

How much experience brewing professionally do you have? You seem to talk a lot about what pro brewers will or won't do, so I'm interested to find out where that perspective comes from.

Why would someone need professional experience with brewing to think it's absurd to claim that the trend towards hoppier beer is driven by people trying to cover up their mistakes? It's a business, and in many areas a very competitive one. Why would people continue to buy a product that is flawed, even if there's a way to partially cover it up? There's plenty of other beer on the shelves to turn to instead, after all.

I still maintain that the reason that people are using a lot of hops in their beers is that things like IPAs are popular and sell well.
 
Why would someone need professional experience with brewing to think it's absurd to claim that the trend towards hoppier beer is driven by people trying to cover up their mistakes? It's a business, and in many areas a very competitive one. Why would people continue to buy a product that is flawed, even if there's a way to partially cover it up? There's plenty of other beer on the shelves to turn to instead, after all.

I still maintain that the reason that people are using a lot of hops in their beers is that things like IPAs are popular and sell well.
You continue to make really contradictory arguments. If bigger, bolder flavors cover up mistakes, then of course the people whose living depends on selling that product will turn to bigger, bolder flavors to cover up mistakes. If mistakes can be hidden by bigger, bolder flavors, then people will continue to buy a flawed product, as long as that flaw is hidden by those bigger, bolder flavors.
 
I like ipa and even dipa but when i buy a pale ale i expect there to be less hops in it.
Fair and well hopping the beers that are supposed to be hopped but leave some in style beer so i can have one when i feel like it and not having to guess who made it normal and who made an ipa version of it

yes my last brew was highly hopped:p
 
You continue to make really contradictory arguments. If bigger, bolder flavors cover up mistakes, then of course the people whose living depends on selling that product will turn to bigger, bolder flavors to cover up mistakes. If mistakes can be hidden by bigger, bolder flavors, then people will continue to buy a flawed product, as long as that flaw is hidden by those bigger, bolder flavors.

I'm not the one arguing that you can cover up your mistakes with hops, though. I'm saying that a flawed beer is a flawed beer, and people [edit: who are trying to sell beer] aren't going to deliberately try to hide a flawed beer by throwing in some more hops. What I'm saying is that a well-made, highly hopped beer will be better than a poorly made, equally highly hopped beer, and if I have a choice between the two, why would I buy the flawed one? Maybe some people really don't notice that the poorly made one is flawed, but if I'm a professional brewer, why would I decide to just try to hide my mistakes rather than improve my product to make sure it isn't flawed in the first place?

My involvement in this thread began because it was claimed that the reason beers are getting more highly hopped is that brewers are trying to hide their mistakes. My contention is that this is nonsense. Lots of us buy highly hopped beers because we like highly hopped beers, and there's plenty of very high quality, very highly hopped beer out there. Just look at the popularity of things like Stone's Ruination IPA and Russian River's Pliny the Elder.
 
I like ipa and even dipa but when i buy a pale ale i expect there to be less hops in it.
Fair and well hopping the beers that are supposed to be hopped but leave some in style beer so i can have one when i feel like it and not having to guess who made it normal and who made an ipa version of it

this pretty much sums it up for me. its not that i have a problem with hops, but if its gonna be out of style i wanna know about it.
 
I'm not the one arguing that you can cover up your mistakes with hops, though. I'm saying that a flawed beer is a flawed beer, and people aren't going to deliberately try to hide a flawed beer by throwing in some more hops. What I'm saying is that a well-made, highly hopped beer will be better than a poorly made, equally highly hopped beer, and if I have a choice between the two, why would I buy the flawed one? Maybe some people really don't notice that the poorly made one is flawed, but if I'm a professional brewer, why would I decide to just try to hide my mistakes rather than improve my product to make sure it isn't flawed in the first place?

My involvement in this thread began because it was claimed that the reason beers are getting more highly hopped is that brewers are trying to hide their mistakes. My contention is that this is nonsense. Lots of us buy highly hopped beers because we like highly hopped beers, and there's plenty of very high quality, very highly hopped beer out there. Just look at the popularity of things like Stone's Ruination IPA and Russian River's Pliny the Elder.

Without reading through the rest of what I am sure is a pointless and stupid argument, I agree. Both beers you mentioned are big on hops and VERY well made beers. A ****ty IPA is a ****ty IPA. You can't cover flaws with hops, and in most instances, you accentuate your problems.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top